Have a GE CG818 8mm camcorder. It's worked like a champ until today, suddeny
developed severe horizontal lines or snow.

Some observations regarding this malady:

-It's visible both through the viewfinder and from the composite out to the
computer
-It's visble in Rec mode.
-It's visible in play mode when not playing
-Banding *not* visible when playing a tape that was recorded before this
problem developed. Picture is fine in the viewfinder and through the
composite out when playing.
-It's visible on tapes recorded since problem began

Any guesses what kind of component might be causing this problem? I'd really
like to salvage this camera since it's worked great, is simple, yet has both
auto & manual focus.

Thanks for any assistance

"Doc" wrote in message
.net...
Have a GE CG818 8mm camcorder. It's worked like a champ until today,
suddeny
developed severe horizontal lines or snow.

Some observations regarding this malady:

-It's visible both through the viewfinder and from the composite out to
the
computer
-It's visble in Rec mode.
-It's visible in play mode when not playing
-Banding *not* visible when playing a tape that was recorded before this
problem developed. Picture is fine in the viewfinder and through the
composite out when playing.
-It's visible on tapes recorded since problem began

Any guesses what kind of component might be causing this problem? I'd
really
like to salvage this camera since it's worked great, is simple, yet has
both
auto & manual focus.

Thanks for any assistance




Virtually any compact camcorder of that age will be suffering from failing
surface mount electrolytic capacitors. Often virtually every one is bad,
replacement is possible but usually runs a couple hundred bucks.

have you tried the simple things maybe you could re seat some of the
connectors and check solder connections. im not familiar with that model
so i dont know how old it is, if there are any pots make sure you clean
them, you can use wd40 but its slightly risky as few pots are made of
chemicals that break down in the presence of oil. depending on age , you
may have some bad caps, i usually look for any of the electrolytic type
that are bulging, or have already busted. above all - clean it well inside
an out, sometimes even dust can be conductive and will cause a lot of
problems

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:46:33 GMT, "Doc"
wrote:

Have a GE CG818 8mm camcorder. It's worked like a champ until today, suddeny
developed severe horizontal lines or snow.

Some observations regarding this malady:

-It's visible both through the viewfinder and from the composite out to the
computer
-It's visble in Rec mode.
-It's visible in play mode when not playing
-Banding *not* visible when playing a tape that was recorded before this
problem developed. Picture is fine in the viewfinder and through the
composite out when playing.
-It's visible on tapes recorded since problem began

Any guesses what kind of component might be causing this problem? I'd really
like to salvage this camera since it's worked great, is simple, yet has both
auto & manual focus.

Thanks for any assistance


The heads are probably clogged up, run a cleaning cassette for about
3 minutes. Or take it to someone that knows how to do it and have the
heads cleaned by hand.

hank

"No One" wrote

The heads are probably clogged up, run a cleaning cassette for about
3 minutes. Or take it to someone that knows how to do it and have the
heads cleaned by hand.

hank


WHAT!!!
Look folks. Those dry cleaning cassettes are NOT, nor have they EVER been,
intended to be used for any more than TEN SECONDS at a time. And as far as
I'm concerned they are nothing more than a short cut to hell for video tape
heads. Three minutes of running a dry head cleaner will take off hours, if
not ALL of the life you have left on the heads.
Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
chamois stick. It is time well spent.

Bill F.
www.billfarnsworthvideo.com

"Bill Farnsworth" wrote in message
news:xjOxd.3084$h.3060@trnddc04...

"No One" wrote

The heads are probably clogged up, run a cleaning cassette for about
3 minutes. Or take it to someone that knows how to do it and have the
heads cleaned by hand.

hank


WHAT!!!
Look folks. Those dry cleaning cassettes are NOT, nor have they EVER been,
intended to be used for any more than TEN SECONDS at a time. And as far as
I'm concerned they are nothing more than a short cut to hell for video
tape heads. Three minutes of running a dry head cleaner will take off
hours, if not ALL of the life you have left on the heads.
Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
chamois stick. It is time well spent.

Bill F.
www.billfarnsworthvideo.com

I think some manufacturers say to only run them for FIVE SECONDS at a time.

What?? (again!!)

He did say it was visible in REC mode. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
most videocams run a direct feed to the monitor - ie they do NOT read
the recording display off the tape - in REC mode.
So head cleaning, wet or dry, is unlikely to be the issue.

"Bill Farnsworth" wrote in message
news:xjOxd.3084$h.3060@trnddc04...

Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
chamois stick. It is time well spent.

What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean the heads, moisten
the cloth in clear acetone, and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular
to the axis of the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
to the axis of the drum.

Since the camcorder is still useful in play mode, how I've "cured" the
problem is to find 2 more 8mm camcorders in a pawn shop that work great. An
RCA and a Sony Handy Cam. Got 'em both for $65. Geez, I thought I
practically stole the other one 5 years ago for $75. Hey, there's something
to be said for using technology that's on the downhill side of being
outdated.

"Doc" wrote ...
What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,

Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.

and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
to the axis of the drum.

The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
without significant risk.

"Doc" wrote in message
news

"Bill Farnsworth" wrote in message
news:xjOxd.3084$h.3060@trnddc04...

Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
chamois stick. It is time well spent.

What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean the heads, moisten
the cloth in clear acetone, and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular
to the axis of the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
to the axis of the drum.

Since the camcorder is still useful in play mode, how I've "cured" the
problem is to find 2 more 8mm camcorders in a pawn shop that work great.
An
RCA and a Sony Handy Cam. Got 'em both for $65. Geez, I thought I
practically stole the other one 5 years ago for $75. Hey, there's
something
to be said for using technology that's on the downhill side of being
outdated.



That and the surface mount capacitors in those things are time bombs, even
sitting unused they'll fail after a shelf life of 5-10 years in most cases,
making older ones simply not worth much.

[Veronica]

"Doc" wrote ...
What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,

Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.

and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
to the axis of the drum.

The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
without significant risk.


Use a cotton bud.
--

http://www.theweddingphotographers.com

"Unspam" wrote ...
[Veronica]

"Doc" wrote ...
What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,

Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.

and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
to the axis of the drum.

The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
without significant risk.


Use a cotton bud.

Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
"Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.

[Veronica]

"Unspam" wrote ...
[Veronica]

"Doc" wrote ...
What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,

Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.

and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
to the axis of the drum.

The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
without significant risk.


Use a cotton bud.

Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
"Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.




Hmmm, they worked in Abbey Road for years until they went digital, but I
give way to your superior knowledge.
--

http://www.theweddingphotographers.com

"Unspam" wrote ...

Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
"Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.

Hmmm, they worked in Abbey Road for years until they went
digital, but I give way to your superior knowledge.

They weren't using recorders with rotary heads "in Abbey Road
for years". For analog, linear machines (i.e. audio), they are just
fine. For that matter, if you are careful to inspect for stray snagged
fibres, cotton swabs are just fine for the non-moving parts of the
tape path of rotary-head machines.

But using them on rotary heads is just inviting disaster. And
many pro video users advocate avoiding them altogether just
because of the risk from stray fibres that you may not notice.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Unspam" wrote ...

Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
"Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.

Hmmm, they worked in Abbey Road for years until they went digital, but I
give way to your superior knowledge.

They weren't using recorders with rotary heads "in Abbey Road
for years". For analog, linear machines (i.e. audio), they are just fine.
For that matter, if you are careful to inspect for stray snagged
fibres, cotton swabs are just fine for the non-moving parts of the tape
path of rotary-head machines.
But using them on rotary heads is just inviting disaster. And
many pro video users advocate avoiding them altogether just because of the
risk from stray fibres that you may not notice.

You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2" machines...

Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!

Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds will let you have
freon...etc, etc, etc.

Then there is the "light application of a thumbnail to the upper drum"
trick.

Seriously though...dense cotton cloth or chamois stick, DEnatured alchohol
(the 70% stuff has too much water content...heads can rust, believe it or
not), and just hold the alchohol soaked cloth/chamois against the heads
while you carefully turn the drum with your finger.

DO NOT scrub up and down (you can snap a head off) or side to side (you can
knock the heads out of alignment.) Just hold the cloth in line with the
heads while turning the drum and check the cloth/chamois each time. It
should show less and less crud after each pass and eventually come up clean.

Jay Beckman
Old Freelance Tape - EVS - Profile Op/Editor
Chandler, AZ

yes he did , if the video is distorted in record mode this is completely
independent of the tape mechanism/electronics, but concerning cotton buds,
regardless of what anybody says its better to just keep them off the
rotary head (use em on rollers and audio/erase head) that rotary head is
very sensative and in your case has nothing to do with the problem ,
however it never hurts to clean heads and i usually use a cloth that feels
pretty smooth, put a lil good old alcohol on it and rotate the head with
your finger at the top, dont apply much pressure to the side with the
cloth at all, just enough to bath it without snagging the cloth. make sure
you dry it or the next tape played will be swallowed.

"Jay Beckman" wrote ...
You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2"
machines...

Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!

Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds
will let you have freon...etc, etc, etc.

In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using
Freon to clean electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically
correct to observe that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.

I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but
we'll never know.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Jay Beckman" wrote ...
You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2" machines...

Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!

Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds will let you have
freon...etc, etc, etc.

In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more greenhouse
gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using Freon to clean
electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically correct to observe
that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.

I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but we'll never
know.

True, true...

However, I don't think that Mt St Helens caused lab rats to grow second
tails or third ears...

Freon did have it's dark side.

Considering the construction "quality" of some of today's consumer gear (and
even some "pro" gear) Freon may just be a little too "industrial" in nature.

Merry and Happy...

Jay B

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Jay Beckman" wrote ...
You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2"
machines...

Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!

Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds
will let you have freon...etc, etc, etc.

In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using
Freon to clean electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically
correct to observe that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.

I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but
we'll never know.


Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
large hole above the arctic. There's modern equivilants that work nearly as
well and don't cause such a problem.

"Jay Beckman" wrote ...
[ Freon]
However, I don't think that Mt St Helens caused lab rats to grow
second tails or third ears...

The MSDS doesn't mention anything like this.

"Reproductive data on rats show no change in reproductive performance."

"In animal testing, this material has not caused permanent genetic
damage
in reproductive cells of mammals (has not produced heritable genetic
damage)."

Freon did have it's dark side.

If you compare the MSDS, it is roughly equivalent to alcohol.
Actually, I am at far greater risk from alcohol (or those who
have consumed it) than from Freon.

http://msds.dupont.com/msds/pdfs/EN/...2f8000789b.pdf

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:A_Dyd.999$yW5.486@fed1read02...
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Jay Beckman" wrote ...
You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2" machines...

Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!

Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds will let you
have
freon...etc, etc, etc.

In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
greenhouse
gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using Freon to clean
electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically correct to
observe
that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.

I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but we'll never
know.

True, true...

However, I don't think that Mt St Helens caused lab rats to grow second
tails or third ears...

Freon did have it's dark side.

Considering the construction "quality" of some of today's consumer gear
(and
even some "pro" gear) Freon may just be a little too "industrial" in
nature.

Merry and Happy...

Jay B


True, but the tree huggers are trying to get a law passed to make it illegal
for Mt. St. Helens to give off any more gas .. still trying to figure out
who
is responsible though ...
(check out the Mt. St. Helens cam -- cool pix and they have some
short movies of some of the past "eruptions")
http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/

mikey

True, but the tree huggers are trying to get a law passed to make it
illegal
for Mt. St. Helens to give off any more gas .. still trying to figure out
who
is responsible though ...


Huh? Is it "tree huggers" or just someone trying to be cute? There was a
reasonably well publicized gag a few years ago where someone was pushing for
a ban on "di-hydrogen monoxide" and actually succeeded in getting a
ridiculous number of signatures.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...

Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
large hole above the arctic.

Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
due to natural forces.

Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:06:26 GMT "James"
wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...

Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
large hole above the arctic.

Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
due to natural forces.

You might want to read several articals in Physics Today in the last
few years. I'm only familiar with those because that's one I get, but
I'm sure that there are other scientific journals that have detailed
the chemistry that is responsible for these reactions. The process has
been well known in the scientific community for more than 20 years.

It remains a political question mark simply because it is inconvenient
to some parts of the political spectrum, mostly the same people that
have trouble with evolution, the heliocentric solar system, and the
concept of a round earth.

Ozone concentrations over both poles has been tracked for many years.
Naturally there is a normal variation from year to year, but the
current trend is way outside the norm.

Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.

Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?

Ozone is created normally in the upper atmosphere from the ionization
of O2 by the solar wind.

Ozone in the lower atmosphere, from automobile exhaust, etc, makes its
way to the upper atmosphere only very slowly.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

"James" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...

Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of
the
large hole above the arctic.

Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
due to natural forces.

Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?



Ozone is caused by diatomic oxygen molecules being busted apart by shortwave
UV light, they then recombine into Ozone (O3).

I can't *prove* that freon "caused" the ozone hole any more than I can
personally "prove" that the earth is round or that the moon is not made of
cheese, but it's widely accepted to be a substantial contributor. Yeah
there's a lot of BS environmental hysteria out there but there's some
substance to some of it. A quick google search brings up hundreds of links
to various reading. If the internet is not considered a trustworthy source
there's plenty of respected scientific books and magazines with coverage of
the subject at most libraries.

Since the manufacture of CFC's was banned in the US the world has not fallen
apart, technology has come to the rescue and developed suitable substitutes.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:41:29 -0600, Jim Adney
wrote:

You might want to read several articals in Physics Today in the last
few years. I'm only familiar with those because that's one I get, but
I'm sure that there are other scientific journals that have detailed
the chemistry that is responsible for these reactions. The process has
been well known in the scientific community for more than 20 years.

It remains a political question mark simply because it is inconvenient
to some parts of the political spectrum, mostly the same people that
have trouble with evolution, the heliocentric solar system, and the
concept of a round earth.

Ozone concentrations over both poles has been tracked for many years.
Naturally there is a normal variation from year to year, but the
current trend is way outside the norm.

Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.

It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
is that it's a change in extremely recent history.
We have absolutely no idea of how much the ozone layers have changed
over even the last century, much less long enough to make some sort of
rational claim of an abnormal change over a long period if time.
Maybe when we have been measuring the ozone layers for even as short a
time as 50 years, we might find a cycle that's simply repeating.
But to make such a claim with such an extremely short data gathering
period is simply bad science.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:41:29 -0600, Jim Adney
| wrote:
|
....
| Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
| the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
| there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.
|
| It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
| We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
| is that it's a change in extremely recent history.
....

But when the incoming wave is 50 feet high it's not a good time to assume
it's part of a normal cycle.

N

James wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...

Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
large hole above the arctic.


Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
due to natural forces.

Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?



You might try these sites to start with:

http://www.uneptie.org/ozonaction/co...s/02Oct15.html
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6...ers/cons2.html
http://www.ausetute.com.au/cfcozone.html

After that there are literally hundreds of Scientific papers on the
subject. This is why refrigerator companies eventually replaced the CFCs
they used in the cooling systems of fridges and why there are so many
controls on the methods used in the production of Printed Circuit
boards, for example

I suspect that you must be the only person left in the free world that
doesn't know that chlorofluorocarbons (of which Freon is a major member
of the group)have been primarily responsible for the hole in the Ozone
Layer - which incidentally didn't exist prior to 1976.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:43:16 GMT, "NSM" wrote:


"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:41:29 -0600, Jim Adney
| wrote:
|
...
| Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
| the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
| there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.
|
| It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
| We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
| is that it's a change in extremely recent history.
...

But when the incoming wave is 50 feet high it's not a good time to assume
it's part of a normal cycle.

N

What incomng wave would that be?
What does this mean? That you think there's going to be a 50 foot wave
somewhere caused by a hole inthe ozone layer?
Let's at least *try* to maintain some sort of level of sanity here;
the type of chicken-little hyperbole you are trying to pass off only
makes you look like you don't understand the situation, and are trying
to scare people into your view.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Actually, the "hole" is over the Antarctic, not the arctic and does
fluctuate naturally. The problem with CFCs is that they are quite effective
at destroying ozone and are much more stable, so they stay in the atmosphere
for a long time. While they cannot be blamed for the existence of the ozone
hole, it seems foolish to keep producing and using substances known to have
such a profound and damaging effect, when substitutes are available.


Leonard Caillouet

....I'd like to find you inner child and kick its little ass. Get over it...
(The Eagles)



"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:06:26 GMT, "James"
wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...

Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of
the
large hole above the arctic.

Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the
ozone,
and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's
own
due to natural forces.

It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.

Mike
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Big Bill" wrote in message
news | On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:43:16 GMT, "NSM" wrote:

| But when the incoming wave is 50 feet high it's not a good time to assume
| it's part of a normal cycle.
|
| What incomng wave would that be?

I'm sorry. I thought you were aware of the concepts of 'Ocean', 'Beach' and
'Wave. My bad for assuming that your intelligence was above that of a Jell-O
pudding.


| What does this mean? That you think there's going to be a 50 foot wave
| somewhere caused by a hole inthe ozone layer?
| Let's at least *try* to maintain some sort of level of sanity here;
| the type of chicken-little hyperbole you are trying to pass off only
| makes you look like you don't understand the situation, and are trying
| to scare people into your view.
|
| --
| Bill Funk
| Change "g" to "a"

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...

It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.

Not unless by "in dispute" you mean there's disagreement on the subject. If
you can tear yourself away from that tree you're hugging, put on your
Birkenstocks and look around, you'll find plenty of dispute on the topic.

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...

Not unless by "in dispute" you mean there's disagreement on the subject.

It's not in dispute in the scientific community.

Ah, Mike Kohary, official voice of "The Scientific Community". And pray
tell, what is your official place in "The Scientific Community"? Looking at
your website - electric guitar, computer programming, video game nerd,
drinker of Samuel Adams, film buff - but gotta be honest chief, your
scientific credentials don't quite jump out from the page. Amazing that
there's no links, not even a mention of any interest or training in
environmental or any other science, chemistry, physics etc. considering this
keen interest/knowledge you seem to claim.

Couldn't be that you're simply spouting emotional rhetoric could it?

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 04:32:06 GMT, "James"
wrote:

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
. ..

It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.

Not unless by "in dispute" you mean there's disagreement on the subject.

It's not in dispute in the scientific community.
--
Mike...we're in the playoffs...step away from the trollls......step away

Fitpix wrote:
"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 04:32:06 GMT, "James"
wrote:


"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...


It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.

Not unless by "in dispute" you mean there's disagreement on the subject.

It's not in dispute in the scientific community.
--

Mike...we're in the playoffs...step away from the trollls......step away


'Tis the season to be Troll-y,
Trala lala la, lala la la..."

then there's always the evergreen favourite, "Jingle Trolls"
or "Good King Wenceslas last Trolled out.."

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 03:23:47 GMT, "NSM" wrote:


"Big Bill" wrote in message
news | On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:43:16 GMT, "NSM" wrote:

| But when the incoming wave is 50 feet high it's not a good time to assume
| it's part of a normal cycle.
|
| What incomng wave would that be?

I'm sorry. I thought you were aware of the concepts of 'Ocean', 'Beach' and
'Wave. My bad for assuming that your intelligence was above that of a Jell-O
pudding.

I am aware of such things. I'm trying to understand where this 50 foot
wave would come from.
Do you expect me to believe that a hole on the ozone layer would
somehow cause a 50 foot wave?
If so, would you please explain the mechanics behind this?


| What does this mean? That you think there's going to be a 50 foot wave
| somewhere caused by a hole inthe ozone layer?
| Let's at least *try* to maintain some sort of level of sanity here;
| the type of chicken-little hyperbole you are trying to pass off only
| makes you look like you don't understand the situation, and are trying
| to scare people into your view.
|
| --
| Bill Funk
| Change "g" to "a"


--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:00:28 -0800, Mike Kohary
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:06:26 GMT, "James"
wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...

Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
large hole above the arctic.

Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
due to natural forces.

It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.

Actually, it *is* in dispute.
While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
the model says it *can* happen.
And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:59:43 -0800, Mike Kohary
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:12:45 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:00:28 -0800, Mike Kohary
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:06:26 GMT, "James"
wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...

Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
large hole above the arctic.

Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
due to natural forces.

It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.

Actually, it *is* in dispute.
While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
the model says it *can* happen.
And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.

The scientific literature says otherwise.

No, the scientific literature that *you* read and give credence to
says so.
How long have we been monitoring the ozone layers?
How long have they been there?
What was their behaviour before we started monitoring them?
Any breakdown in answering those questions (especially the last) means
we just don't know what he current behaviour means. We only know what
it *is*. We don't know *why* it is. We *think* we may know one way it
could be this way, but without a better understanding of the nature
and history of the nature of the layers, we can not, with any
certainty at all, say *why* certain behaviour in them exists.

Some literature says it's out fault. This is a politically correct
attitude, and it *might* be right. The problem is we just don't
*know*.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Actually, it *is* in dispute.
While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
the model says it *can* happen.
And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.

--


Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the other
hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why chance
it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin cancer, or
that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off nothing
but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of evidence
to the contrary, why chance it?

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:58:51 -0700 Big Bill wrote:

It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
is that it's a change in extremely recent history.

It's true that the observation time is negligible in terms of the
earth's age. I'll grant you that. If you feel that only observation
over a significant portion of the earth's age will convince you, then
we will have to agree that you will never be convinced.

We have absolutely no idea of how much the ozone layers have changed
over even the last century, much less long enough to make some sort of
rational claim of an abnormal change over a long period if time.
Maybe when we have been measuring the ozone layers for even as short a
time as 50 years, we might find a cycle that's simply repeating.
But to make such a claim with such an extremely short data gathering
period is simply bad science.

It's important to recognize that in addition to the ozone
concentrations, the fluorocarbon compound concentrations have also
been followed. The chemistry is known and the reaction rates are
known. We also know when Freon first entered the lower atmosphere, and
the rates of diffusion to the upper atmosphere have been calculated
and verified.

The half-life of the fluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere is
extremely long, but it can be calculated, and the calculations agree
with the observed concentrations. The body of evidence is complete and
consistent. To my knowledge, all the debate on this topic withing the
scientific community was settled many years ago.

The claim that this may just be a normally occuring anomaly would be
reasonable if we didn't have additional data to support the
conclusions, but this is not the case. The claim of "bad science" is
really just the pot calling the kettle black. The science has all been
done; the fight is all in the political arena. Unfortunately, the
current political climate is more comfortable with faith than facts.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------