|
If this is global warming...
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote: J. Clarke wrote: | Uh, the Princeton Large Torus was an experiment. "Expediting | commercialization" was not feasible 30 years ago and if someone | knowledgeable gave you a number for it he was very likely trying to | get you to go away--there was not enough known then to produce a | commercial reactor and most of the scientists and engineers working | on the project _knew_ that not enough was known. There were even a few (intellectually conceited) folk who knew it couldn't be done at all. | Currently the largest working fusion device other than weapons is | JET I believe, which has achieved theoretical breakeven. The next | step, for which something like 2.5 billion dollars has been | committed, is ITER, which should produce fusion energy at the level | of 10 times breakeven in the 2010-2015 time frame. Once it is | running and if it works as designed, then the next step would be to | use that fusion energy to generate electric power resulting in a | self-sustaining system--that would be in the 2030 time frame. | After that a commercial prototype would be developed in maybe the | 2045 timeframe. Interesting. | Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a | conventional house? By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of course. That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would result in a conventional house being less expensive too though. All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and thermal mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also has to have backup heat. I have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and is in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F. Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might be possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I doubt it would work here though, where single-degree temperatures for days at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined with significant snowfall are the norm. And that leaves aside the difficulty of finding a site with a good unblocked southern exposure--where I am now I'd have to cut down several other people's trees, which I don't think they'd like very much. Around here effective passive solar design means a house-within-a-house design. The lowest indoor temperature this winter has been 65F. The contractor would like to add solar panels to raise that somewhat. I can understand that. But there's another cost increase. For more detailed how-to info, you should probably ask this question in alt.solar.thermal - and if your interest extends to having such a home built, I can foreward your contact info to the contractor. It was a rhetorical question. If I was going to build such a house I'd dust off my engineering degree and dig out my solar engineering texts. Personally I thought solar was a cool idea when I was a kid, the more I learned about it the less attractive it became. | "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar | equipment", it uses design. It would seem, then, that many houses with retrofitted solar heat aren't "proper". Fortunately for the folks living in "improper" homes, there are off-the-shelf products that can reduce their heating costs in a way they find satisfying. Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in my neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left now. But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house. | Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been | commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's | actually humorous. Re-read for comprehension. Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you should write what you mean. |
If this is global warming...
Doug Miller wrote:
What conclusions do *you* draw from that? I can't speak for Fred, but it looks like 'politics as usual' to me. What conclusion do -you- draw from it? Bill -- Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one rascal less in the world. Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881) http://nmwoodworks.com |
If this is global warming...
Morris Dovey wrote:
Think how much we'd save by turning off the sun at night. 8-) Hope you find your car. Wouldn't do any good, Morris. The people on the other side (bottom) of the earth would only turn it back on again and you KNOW that turning it on and off too often is what causes them to burn out. Bill -- Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one rascal less in the world. Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881) http://nmwoodworks.com |
If this is global warming...
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Personally I thought solar was a cool idea when I was a kid, the more I learned about it the less attractive it became. | "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar | equipment", it uses design. In your rush to the ridiculous, you've bypassed the simple. Have your drapes respond to the sun by closing to prevent heat loss on cloudy, opening to build heat on sunlit cold days. Reverse for cooling. Instant recovery of costs, and the gift just keeps on giving. Just lining your curtains with reflective, insulating material will make a huge difference. |
If this is global warming...
In article , Bill in Detroit wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: What conclusions do *you* draw from that? I can't speak for Fred, but it looks like 'politics as usual' to me. What conclusion do -you- draw from it? You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to... -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey" | wrote: | || J. Clarke wrote: ||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a ||| conventional house? || || By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of || course. | | That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would | result in a conventional house being less expensive too though. True - although one might take the viewpoint that until the design and materials became the norm for homebuilding, the resulting home could hardly be called "conventional". | All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and thermal | mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also has to | have backup heat. Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting area - but beyond that it need only retain sufficient heat for comfort. Thermal mass provides storage for replacement heat to compensate for losses. When the losses become sufficiently small, the need for thermal mass shrinks to near nil. || I || have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've || been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a || contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional || methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and is || in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F. | | Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might be | possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I doubt it | would work here though, where single-degree temperatures for days | at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined with | significant snowfall are the norm. You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated concrete block shop in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its collector panels. There were days when the outside temperature was -30F and windspeed was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the doors ajar and work in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated walls. | Around here effective passive solar design means a | house-within-a-house design. | || The lowest indoor temperature || this winter has been 65F. The contractor would like to add solar || panels to raise that somewhat. | | I can understand that. But there's another cost increase. I guess that'd depend on what you're using as a base. My understanding is that an R-40 house like that in the photo can be built for about $55K in the Tuscon area. I have no way of knowing whether that'd be an increase or decrease of conventional house cost in your area. FWIW, it'd be a very respectable cost decrease in the Des Moines area (and I'd expect there to be remarkably few homes with that kind of thermal efficiency here.) || For more detailed how-to info, you should probably ask this || question in alt.solar.thermal - and if your interest extends to || having such a home built, I can foreward your contact info to the || contractor. | | It was a rhetorical question. If I was going to build such a house | I'd dust off my engineering degree and dig out my solar engineering | texts. Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into new materials and construction methods since you last looked at those texts, as well. Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable amount of innovation. | Personally I thought solar was a cool idea when I was a kid, the | more I learned about it the less attractive it became. | ||| "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar ||| equipment", it uses design. || || It would seem, then, that many houses with retrofitted solar heat || aren't "proper". Fortunately for the folks living in "improper" || homes, there are off-the-shelf products that can reduce their || heating costs in a way they find satisfying. | | Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in my | neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left now. | | But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house. Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your neighbors as it does about the products purchased. It would seem reasonable to make that kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty that the panels would actually be worth having. ||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been ||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's ||| actually humorous. || || Re-read for comprehension. | | Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you | should write what you mean. I did. I related something I was told some thirty years ago and you presented it as current belief in an attempt to ridicule. I don't know any more about the cost (or physics) now than I did then, but am somewhat more aware of how a '76 dollar has inflated. I wrote exactly what I meant and gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming miscomprehension rather than misrepresentation. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto |
If this is global warming...
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:22:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote: J. Clarke wrote: | On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey" | wrote: | || J. Clarke wrote: ||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a ||| conventional house? || || By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of || course. | | That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would | result in a conventional house being less expensive too though. True - although one might take the viewpoint that until the design and materials became the norm for homebuilding, the resulting home could hardly be called "conventional". | All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and thermal | mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also has to | have backup heat. Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting area - but beyond that it need only retain sufficient heat for comfort. Thermal mass provides storage for replacement heat to compensate for losses. When the losses become sufficiently small, the need for thermal mass shrinks to near nil. No, it doesn't. The chair I'm sitting in is "thermal mass". The plaster on the walls is "thermal mass". The floor joists are "thermal mass", everything in the house is "thermal mass". In a relatively warm climate it might be possible to provide sufficient thermal mass entirely from structure, but not in a cold one, not unless you have some active means of insulating or isolating the collector at night and at that point you no longer have a passive design. As for "when the losses become sufficiently small", now you've got a nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration loss, which means that you need an effective scrubber to take out bathroom and cooking odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an effective heat exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need exceedingly heavy insulation to minimize the conduction through the walls. So you've traded one set of construction costs for another. || I || have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've || been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a || contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional || methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and is || in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F. | | Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might be | possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I doubt it | would work here though, where single-degree temperatures for days | at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined with | significant snowfall are the norm. You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated concrete block shop in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its collector panels. And was it cheaper to build that one than one from the same materials with conventional heat? There were days when the outside temperature was -30F and windspeed was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the doors ajar and work in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated walls. That's fine for _days_. How was it at 4 AM? And how much did those collectors cost? Note that if they were free or inexpensive due to efficient scrounging on your part then you're not describing something that someone building houses commercially can count on doing. | Around here effective passive solar design means a | house-within-a-house design. | || The lowest indoor temperature || this winter has been 65F. The contractor would like to add solar || panels to raise that somewhat. | | I can understand that. But there's another cost increase. I guess that'd depend on what you're using as a base. My understanding is that an R-40 house like that in the photo can be built for about $55K in the Tuscon area. I have no way of knowing whether that'd be an increase or decrease of conventional house cost in your area. FWIW, it'd be a very respectable cost decrease in the Des Moines area (and I'd expect there to be remarkably few homes with that kind of thermal efficiency here.) I'd be very surprised if R-40 with no supplemental thermal mass was sufficient here. || For more detailed how-to info, you should probably ask this || question in alt.solar.thermal - and if your interest extends to || having such a home built, I can foreward your contact info to the || contractor. | | It was a rhetorical question. If I was going to build such a house | I'd dust off my engineering degree and dig out my solar engineering | texts. Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into new materials and construction methods since you last looked at those texts, as well. Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable amount of innovation. What are these "new materials"? Are you saying that there is some kind of new insulation that is cheaper than fiberglass? If so why is not every builder jumping on it? | Personally I thought solar was a cool idea when I was a kid, the | more I learned about it the less attractive it became. | ||| "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar ||| equipment", it uses design. || || It would seem, then, that many houses with retrofitted solar heat || aren't "proper". Fortunately for the folks living in "improper" || homes, there are off-the-shelf products that can reduce their || heating costs in a way they find satisfying. | | Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in my | neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left now. | | But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house. Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your neighbors as it does about the products purchased. It would seem reasonable to make that kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty that the panels would actually be worth having. So with them paid for why would they not be "worth having"? ||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been ||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's ||| actually humorous. || || Re-read for comprehension. | | Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you | should write what you mean. I did. I related something I was told some thirty years ago and you presented it as current belief in an attempt to ridicule. So you are denying that you said "Eh? They should be online _now_! We just have more "important" things to spend the money on. " So since you seem to be admitting that your 2 billion in 1976 would have done it, how much would have and spent when? I don't know any more about the cost (or physics) now than I did then, but am somewhat more aware of how a '76 dollar has inflated. I wrote exactly what I meant and gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming miscomprehension rather than misrepresentation. So you did mean that by spending 2 billion dollars in 1976 we could have had fusion online now? Because that is what you wrote. |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 18, 6:36 pm, J. Clarke wrote:
If the population of the earth was ten times what it is and the per capita energy consumption was 100 times what is is in the United States today, the amount of hydrogen in the oceans is sufficient to last for approximately 10 million years. Please post the worksheet which allowed you to arrive at those numbers. If quoted from another source, please cite. r ----- who is still waiting... unless you sucked those numbers out of your thumb and too ashamed to admit that you were trying to bull**** your way through a discussion. A lot of hat, no cattle. |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke, Robatoy, et.al.,
I need some help here. (although some would say I'm beyond help) I'm coming across a new, at least new to me, conversational response to statements. For example: If person A says it is raining outside and person B challenges the statement because they disagree, they are doubtful or they are skeptical; then logically, who has the burden of proof of the statement? In my example above, must person A prove their 'claim' that it is raining outside or must person B prove it is not raining? I bought a burfl from Tinker Bell for $100.00 dollars. When I state that burfls are expensive, I might be challenged to provide documentation showing what I paid. But, if you know you can buy a burfl for $19.95, should you challenge my price statement or should you present the documentation to support your position. It would seem to me that effective dialog consists of presenting different points of view with a bit of hope that one might sell one's view based on facts. Instead of this new confrontational response, I would rather see an orderly presentation of facts and logic that supports one's position rather than attacking another's position. I don't pretend to be an expert in climate, weather or even woodworking. But, I am always trying to learn. As I said in an earlier post, I didn't buy into the coming ice age, the global starvation, the running out of oil in six years. I am a still a first class skeptic on global warming because the facts seem to be distorted, over-hyped, AlGored, conveniently ignored or just plain wrong. I will continue to search for effective dialog. John Flatley Jacksonville, Florida -- One consolation about memory loss in old age is that you also forget a lot of things you didn't intend to remember in the first place. "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... | On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:22:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey" | wrote: | | J. Clarke wrote: | | On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey" | | wrote: | | | || J. Clarke wrote: | | ||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a | ||| conventional house? | || | || By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of | || course. | | | | That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would | | result in a conventional house being less expensive too though. | | True - although one might take the viewpoint that until the design and | materials became the norm for homebuilding, the resulting home could | hardly be called "conventional". | | | All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and thermal | | mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also has to | | have backup heat. | | Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting area - but beyond | that it need only retain sufficient heat for comfort. Thermal mass | provides storage for replacement heat to compensate for losses. When | the losses become sufficiently small, the need for thermal mass | shrinks to near nil. | | No, it doesn't. The chair I'm sitting in is "thermal mass". The | plaster on the walls is "thermal mass". The floor joists are "thermal | mass", everything in the house is "thermal mass". In a relatively | warm climate it might be possible to provide sufficient thermal mass | entirely from structure, but not in a cold one, not unless you have | some active means of insulating or isolating the collector at night | and at that point you no longer have a passive design. | | As for "when the losses become sufficiently small", now you've got a | nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration loss, which means | that you need an effective scrubber to take out bathroom and cooking | odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an effective heat | exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need exceedingly heavy | insulation to minimize the conduction through the walls. So you've | traded one set of construction costs for another. | | || I | || have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've | || been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a | || contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional | || methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and is | || in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F. | | | | Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might be | | possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I doubt it | | would work here though, where single-degree temperatures for days | | at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined with | | significant snowfall are the norm. | | You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated concrete block shop | in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its collector panels. | | And was it cheaper to build that one than one from the same materials | with conventional heat? | | There were days when the outside temperature was -30F and windspeed | was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the doors ajar and work | in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated walls. | | That's fine for _days_. How was it at 4 AM? And how much did those | collectors cost? Note that if they were free or inexpensive due to | efficient scrounging on your part then you're not describing something | that someone building houses commercially can count on doing. | | | Around here effective passive solar design means a | | house-within-a-house design. | | | || The lowest indoor temperature | || this winter has been 65F. The contractor would like to add solar | || panels to raise that somewhat. | | | | I can understand that. But there's another cost increase. | | I guess that'd depend on what you're using as a base. My understanding | is that an R-40 house like that in the photo can be built for about | $55K in the Tuscon area. I have no way of knowing whether that'd be an | increase or decrease of conventional house cost in your area. FWIW, | it'd be a very respectable cost decrease in the Des Moines area (and | I'd expect there to be remarkably few homes with that kind of thermal | efficiency here.) | | I'd be very surprised if R-40 with no supplemental thermal mass was | sufficient here. | | || For more detailed how-to info, you should probably ask this | || question in alt.solar.thermal - and if your interest extends to | || having such a home built, I can foreward your contact info to the | || contractor. | | | | It was a rhetorical question. If I was going to build such a house | | I'd dust off my engineering degree and dig out my solar engineering | | texts. | | Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into new materials and | construction methods since you last looked at those texts, as well. | Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable amount of | innovation. | | What are these "new materials"? Are you saying that there is some | kind of new insulation that is cheaper than fiberglass? If so why is | not every builder jumping on it? | | | Personally I thought solar was a cool idea when I was a kid, the | | more I learned about it the less attractive it became. | | | ||| "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar | ||| equipment", it uses design. | || | || It would seem, then, that many houses with retrofitted solar heat | || aren't "proper". Fortunately for the folks living in "improper" | || homes, there are off-the-shelf products that can reduce their | || heating costs in a way they find satisfying. | | | | Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in my | | neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left now. | | | | But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house. | | Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your neighbors as it does | about the products purchased. It would seem reasonable to make that | kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty that the panels | would actually be worth having. | | So with them paid for why would they not be "worth having"? | | ||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been | ||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's | ||| actually humorous. | || | || Re-read for comprehension. | | | | Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you | | should write what you mean. | | I did. I related something I was told some thirty years ago and you | presented it as current belief in an attempt to ridicule. | | So you are denying that you said "Eh? They should be online _now_! We | just have more "important" things to spend the money on. " | | So since you seem to be admitting that your 2 billion in 1976 would | have done it, how much would have and spent when? | | I don't know | any more about the cost (or physics) now than I did then, but am | somewhat more aware of how a '76 dollar has inflated. | | I wrote exactly what I meant and gave you the benefit of the doubt by | assuming miscomprehension rather than misrepresentation. | | So you did mean that by spending 2 billion dollars in 1976 we could | have had fusion online now? Because that is what you wrote. |
If this is global warming...
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:04:30 -0500, "John Flatley"
wrote: J. Clarke, Robatoy, et.al., I need some help here. (although some would say I'm beyond help) I'm coming across a new, at least new to me, conversational response to statements. For example: If person A says it is raining outside and person B challenges the statement because they disagree, they are doubtful or they are skeptical; then logically, who has the burden of proof of the statement? In my example above, must person A prove their 'claim' that it is raining outside or must person B prove it is not raining? Person A must defend his assertion that it is raining. The burden of proof is on the person making the initial assertion, it is not on those challenging his assertion to disprove it. I bought a burfl from Tinker Bell for $100.00 dollars. When I state that burfls are expensive, I might be challenged to provide documentation showing what I paid. But, if you know you can buy a burfl for $19.95, should you challenge my price statement or should you present the documentation to support your position. It would seem to me that effective dialog consists of presenting different points of view with a bit of hope that one might sell one's view based on facts. Instead of this new confrontational response, I would rather see an orderly presentation of facts and logic that supports one's position rather than attacking another's position. I don't pretend to be an expert in climate, weather or even woodworking. But, I am always trying to learn. As I said in an earlier post, I didn't buy into the coming ice age, the global starvation, the running out of oil in six years. I am a still a first class skeptic on global warming because the facts seem to be distorted, over-hyped, AlGored, conveniently ignored or just plain wrong. I will continue to search for effective dialog. I suggest that you enroll in a paleoclimatology program somewhere. |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke writes:
Yet since 2002 they have stopped publishing results of the funding. Reference: http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnews...excCol=archive Here's the research the EPA initiated: http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalrese...cCol=a rchive http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library...2004-5-epa.htm Ask yourself why the EPA has not published the results of their research. They could report that global warming is true, false, or inconclusivie. They have not published anything. They went from 20 reports a year to zero. Now let's see, you've admitted that the EPA newsletter is not a peer-reviewed journal and yet you're on about how they haven't published results of research and are using the lack of that newsletter, which is not the proper venue for reporting the results of research, as evidence that they are not reporting such results. Why should a LISTING and INDEX of the published publications require a peer review? That's like saying a table of contents requires a peer review. This is called "circular reasoning" and is a logical fallacy. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke writes:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:03:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett wrote: J. Clarke writes: As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never before been tested. Nonsense. There have been many misconceptions in the published journals. Yes, there have, but most of them were not "popular misconceptions". Which is why debunking such a misconception is groundbreaking. And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions. Such as? The seminal work of LeLand, Taqqu, Willinger and Wilson On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic (1993) I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models. Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field? The use of the Poisson distribution for estimating the delays between packets in a network. As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at issue is the policies of journals. And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by thousands of other articles. And of course the editor can tell what will be a groundbreaking paper. No. It's those that reference the paper. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:33:10 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote: J. Clarke writes: On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:03:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett wrote: J. Clarke writes: As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never before been tested. Nonsense. There have been many misconceptions in the published journals. Yes, there have, but most of them were not "popular misconceptions". Which is why debunking such a misconception is groundbreaking. So you're saying that the groundbreaking first paper to ever "debunk" a "popular misconception" has yet to be published? Do tell. And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions. Such as? The seminal work of LeLand, Taqqu, Willinger and Wilson On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic (1993) I was not aware that there were any popular conceptions of any kind with regard to Ethernet traffic in 1993. I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models. Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field? The use of the Poisson distribution for estimating the delays between packets in a network. Nothing involving a Poisson distribution can be considered to be a "popular misconception". Most people can't even tell you what a Poisson distribution _is_. You seem to be confusing matters which are quite esoteric with "popular misconceptions". As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at issue is the policies of journals. And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by thousands of other articles. And of course the editor can tell what will be a groundbreaking paper. No. It's those that reference the paper. And the editor has a TARDIS so that he can go into the future and find out who will reference the paper? I'm sorry, but "those that reference the paper" don't decide what gets published. |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke wrote:
As for "when the losses become sufficiently small", now you've got a nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration loss, which means that you need an effective scrubber to take out bathroom and cooking odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an effective heat exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need exceedingly heavy insulation to minimize the conduction through the walls. So you've traded one set of construction costs for another. Not to mention all the toxins venting from carpets, furniture, dry cleaned clothing, etc, etc. Sealed airtight it can be your coffin. |
If this is global warming...
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:18:09 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote: J. Clarke writes: Yet since 2002 they have stopped publishing results of the funding. Reference: http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnews...excCol=archive Here's the research the EPA initiated: http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalrese...cCol=a rchive http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library...2004-5-epa.htm Ask yourself why the EPA has not published the results of their research. They could report that global warming is true, false, or inconclusivie. They have not published anything. They went from 20 reports a year to zero. Now let's see, you've admitted that the EPA newsletter is not a peer-reviewed journal and yet you're on about how they haven't published results of research and are using the lack of that newsletter, which is not the proper venue for reporting the results of research, as evidence that they are not reporting such results. Why should a LISTING and INDEX of the published publications require a peer review? That's like saying a table of contents requires a peer review. So you're saying that the newsletter didn't contain any results? Just a list of them? Well, then how does its existence or nonexistence have any relevance at all? That's like saying that if someone stole the card catalog at the library its absence would be evidence that the library contains no books. |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke writes:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett wrote: J. Clarke writes: No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers. Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review. And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say? First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government. Who said anything about the government? Somebody is providing the money. Not for the reviews I have been involved with. I do it on my own time. My employeer doesn't know or care about the comments I make in a review. Reviewers are anonymous. The authors are also anonymous. It's a double-blind system. This is done to eliminate biases. That's how science works. If you have any evidence of conspiracy among scientists - please cite them. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
... | On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:04:30 -0500, "John Flatley" | wrote: | | | For example: If person A says it is raining outside | and person B challenges the statement because they | disagree, they are doubtful or they are skeptical; then | logically, who has the burden of proof of the | statement? | | | text deleted | | | Person A must defend his assertion that it is raining. The burden of | proof is on the person making the initial assertion, it is not on | those challenging his assertion to disprove it. | Thanks for your response. I understand your point and I almost agree with it. Almost but not quite. When one asks for supporting data, inference suggests that the asker would/could analyze that data. A few points here. If the person requesting the data can analyze that data, he probably has some prior subject knowledge. If that person has some prior subject knowledge he has probably found a problem with the original presentation. If he has found a problem with the original presentation then he is disingenous to ask for supporting data. Rather, he should respectively challenge the original presentation with confliciting data. The confrontational "give me your data' is a valid approach if you want to count coup or you collect gotchas. It is difficult enough to draw conclusions when all parties have access to the same data. It is meaningless if not impossible when the sides don't have the same data. (Just the facts, ma'am, justr the facts.) | | | Instead of this new confrontational response, I would | rather see an orderly presentation of facts and logic | that supports one's position rather than attacking | another's position. | | Since my original post on this, I have talked to a friend who is a union member and he says this confrontational "show me your data" is a relatively new union talking points response when answering minimum wage questions, or political contribution questions, etc. Challenge the speaker rather than providing contrary data. (I did not ask him for supporting documentation on his statement. He did not provide bibliographical references.) | | | | I suggest that you enroll in a paleoclimatology program somewhere. | | Thank you for your suggestion on enrolling in a paleoclimatolgy program. However, I must make the choice to spend my time in my new shop. I guess I will remain a skeptic. (Randi where are you on this one?) To paraphrase that famous libertarian Dennis Miller: "That's my opinion, I could be wrong." Right now I wish global warming would hurry and hit the local climate and warm the average local temperature. It is 44 degrees now with a forecasted overnight low of 37 degrees. On average, my shop is cold tonight. John Flatley Jacksonville, Florida |
If this is global warming...
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:10:29 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote: J. Clarke writes: On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett wrote: J. Clarke writes: No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers. Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review. And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say? First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government. Who said anything about the government? Somebody is providing the money. Not for the reviews I have been involved with. I do it on my own time. So what do you live on? Whether you are getting paid to write the review or not, you are still getting paid by _somebody_ to do _something_ and if you are regarded as having sufficient expertise in the field to be selected to provide peer-review then one would hope that that "something" is in the field in which the paper you are reviewing was written. Further, one would hope that you would have a publication history by which the editor could determine your biases. My employeer doesn't know or care about the comments I make in a review. Reviewers are anonymous. The authors are also anonymous. I've never seen a journal article in which the author was listed as "anonymous". As for your employer not knowing or caring, consider yourself fortunate. It's a double-blind system. This is done to eliminate biases. That's how science works. No, that's how peer-review is _supposed_ to work. Peer review isn't "science", it's part of a process. And things don't always work as they are supposed to. |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke wrote:
| On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:22:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey" | wrote: | || J. Clarke wrote: ||| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey" ||| wrote: ||| |||| J. Clarke wrote: || ||||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a ||||| conventional house? |||| |||| By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of |||| course. ||| ||| That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would ||| result in a conventional house being less expensive too though. || || True - although one might take the viewpoint that until the design || and materials became the norm for homebuilding, the resulting home || could hardly be called "conventional". || ||| All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and ||| thermal mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also ||| has to have backup heat. || || Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting area - but || beyond that it need only retain sufficient heat for comfort. || Thermal mass provides storage for replacement heat to compensate || for losses. When the losses become sufficiently small, the need || for thermal mass shrinks to near nil. | | No, it doesn't. The chair I'm sitting in is "thermal mass". The | plaster on the walls is "thermal mass". The floor joists are | "thermal mass", everything in the house is "thermal mass". In a | relatively warm climate it might be possible to provide sufficient | thermal mass entirely from structure, but not in a cold one, not | unless you have some active means of insulating or isolating the | collector at night and at that point you no longer have a passive | design. Ok. All of the furnishings in a house do constitute "thermal mass", but they're not normally considered part of the structure we call a "house" (at least not for the purposes of calculations). It's possible to build truly passive solar collectors that function as "thermal diodes". At one point I made an attempt to catagorize passive air-heating collectors and posted drawings on a web page at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/SC_Types.html. The "Type 3" collector _passively_ locks up (without moving parts) and functions as an insulator at night. | As for "when the losses become sufficiently small", now you've got a | nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration loss, which means | that you need an effective scrubber to take out bathroom and cooking | odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an effective heat | exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need exceedingly heavy | insulation to minimize the conduction through the walls. So you've | traded one set of construction costs for another. The house in the photo I posted to ABPW is insulated to R-40 in all walls, roof, and floor and had, according to the builder, a construction cost on the close order of $55K. Ventilation is indeed necessary, and the easiest and least expensive solution is to provide sufficient heating that some heat can be "thrown away" on a controlled basis. There is a temptation to label this "excess capacity", but there's nothing "excess" or "wasteful" about it. A heat exchanger is needed only if there's no thermal budget for the venting. |||| I |||| have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've |||| been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a |||| contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional |||| methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and |||| is in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F. ||| ||| Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might ||| be possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I ||| doubt it would work here though, where single-degree temperatures ||| for days at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined ||| with significant snowfall are the norm. || || You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated concrete block || shop in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its collector || panels. | | And was it cheaper to build that one than one from the same | materials with conventional heat? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking - but given that a major portion of the south-facing wall consisted of a pair of 6'x12' solar panels which would not have been present in the same structure intended for conventional heating - yes, the solar version of the building was somewhat less expensive to build and very much less expensive to operate. || There were days when the outside temperature was -30F and windspeed || was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the doors ajar and || work in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated walls. | | That's fine for _days_. How was it at 4 AM? And how much did those | collectors cost? Note that if they were free or inexpensive due to | efficient scrounging on your part then you're not describing | something that someone building houses commercially can count on | doing. At 4am (an hour at which I can't recall ever having been in /any/ workshop) in the winter the shop was anywhere from cool to chilly - but never cold enough to freeze water or coffee left out. The panels were built with wood, aluminum, twinwall polycarbonate solar glazing, and a tube of gasket compound - all purchased at retail from the local (rural community) lumber yard and hardware store for (I think) about $500 total. The panels were built in place so as to be an integral part of the wall. I guess that if you wanted to use the workshop at 4am, you'd probably want to insulate the walls. I didn't. || Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into new materials and || construction methods since you last looked at those texts, as well. || Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable amount of || innovation. | | What are these "new materials"? Are you saying that there is some | kind of new insulation that is cheaper than fiberglass? If so why | is not every builder jumping on it? Excellent questions! [1] I only know some of the answers so would suggest asking in alt.solar.thermal and alt.architecture.* newsgroups where you can get expert answers. [2] Yes I am, but only in the context of a complete structure. [3] My WAG would be that many/most builders avoid the unfamiliar. BTW, if fiberglass is your performance baseline, then you would do well to investigate the characteristic behavior of that insulation at low temperatures. You may be in for a not-pleasant surprise. If I recall the discussion on alt.solar.thermal correctly, the R-factor begins dropping off significantly somewhere around 20F. ||| Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in ||| my neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left ||| now. ||| ||| But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house. || || Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your neighbors as it || does about the products purchased. It would seem reasonable to || make that kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty that || the panels would actually be worth having. | | So with them paid for why would they not be "worth having"? According to your comment, only one set appears to have been judged by only one of your neighbors to be "worth having". At every other household they've been discarded. Do you draw a different conclusion? Seems to me like a good question, but one which would be better directed to your neighbors. My guess is that the panels performed poorly or weren't well constructed. If you do ask your neighbors, I would be very interested in their answers. ||||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been ||||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's ||||| actually humorous. |||| |||| Re-read for comprehension. ||| ||| Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you ||| should write what you mean. || || I did. I related something I was told some thirty years ago and you || presented it as current belief in an attempt to ridicule. | | So you are denying that you said "Eh? They should be online _now_! | We just have more "important" things to spend the money on. " I'm of the opinion, based on comments made by actual participants, that if we could develop a whole collection of new technologies, tools, and methods in ten years to send people to the moon and bring them back, then we should be able to accomplish this project in a comparable short time frame. The cost guesstimate, with which you seem really hung up, was given to me on an off-the-cuff basis and isn't something I feel obliged to defend. If you have a Perted schedule with a closely-coupled budget, I'd probably be willing to give it as much credence (perhaps more or perhaps less) as I did my original input. | So since you seem to be admitting that your 2 billion in 1976 would | have done it, how much would have and spent when? Do you really expect me to defend someone else's 30-year old WAG? Since you have been strongly inferring that you have superior knowledge on the matter, why don't you stop playing silly word games, establish your credentials as a holder of verifiable information, and inform the group? If you don't have anything of substance to offer, then let's get back to woodworking. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto |
If this is global warming...
Doug Miller wrote:
You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to... Does your newsreader support threading? -- Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one rascal less in the world. Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881) http://nmwoodworks.com |
If this is global warming...
Bruce Barnett wrote:
: J. Clarke writes: : On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett : wrote: : :J. Clarke writes: : :No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers. :Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review. : : And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their : viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say? : :First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government. : : Who said anything about the government? Somebody is providing the : money. : Not for the reviews I have been involved with. I do it on my own : time. I'm not aware of any reputable journal, in any field, ever, that pays its reviewers. J. Clarke has a pretty peculiar picture of how science writing, reviewing, and publishing works. -- Andy Barss |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke wrote:
: I've never seen a journal article in which the author was listed as : "anonymous". When the article is published, yes, the author(s) name(s) appear. When the manuscript is sent out by an editor to a set of reviewers, the name and affiliation of the author(s) is removed; any footnote acknowledging assistance from a grant, colleagues, etc. is removed; and all reasonable efforts are made to conceal any identifiers. As for your employer not knowing or caring, consider : yourself fortunate. Huh? :It's a double-blind system. This is done to eliminate biases. That's :how science works. : No, that's how peer-review is _supposed_ to work. Peer review isn't : "science", it's part of a process. And things don't always work as : they are supposed to. Science is a process. Peer-reviewing is part of it. -- Andy Barss |
If this is global warming...
"Bill in Detroit" wrote in message
... Doug Miller wrote: You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to... Does your newsreader support threading? -- Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one rascal less in the world. Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881) http://nmwoodworks.com I'll wager that Doug's does, and so does mine. It also has a feature where it hides posts I have already read. The whole point of quoting the previous post(s) you're replying to is to reference at least as much to make clear how your comments fit in context. Just like you did above. todd |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 19, 3:04 pm, "John Flatley" wrote:
J. Clarke, Robatoy, et.al., I need some help here. (although some would say I'm beyond help) I'm coming across a new, at least new to me, conversational response to statements. When somebody makes a claim in order to support their position, it is only prudent to try to establish the validity of those claims. When I read stuff like this: If the population of the earth was ten times what it is and the per capita energy consumption was 100 times what is is in the United States today, the amount of hydrogen in the oceans is sufficient to last for approximately 10 million years. ....I have reason to doubt the validity of the calculations unless corroborated. This isn't A says rain, yadda, yadda. This is me, exposing Clarke for what he is. Period. r |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 19, 11:17 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
[snipperoo] let's get back to woodworking. Let's! r |
If this is global warming...
Andrew Barss wrote:
J. Clarke has a pretty peculiar picture of how science writing, reviewing, and publishing works. -- Andy Barss Your posting is not the only one where he apparently chooses to 'misunderstand' what is otherwise plainly the intent of a writer. -I- understood that you were referring to a double-blind review (and I don't HAVE an engineering degree to dust off). -- Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one rascal less in the world. Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881) http://nmwoodworks.com |
If this is global warming...
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:17:23 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote: J. Clarke wrote: | On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:22:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey" | wrote: | || J. Clarke wrote: ||| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey" ||| wrote: ||| |||| J. Clarke wrote: || ||||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a ||||| conventional house? |||| |||| By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of |||| course. ||| ||| That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would ||| result in a conventional house being less expensive too though. || || True - although one might take the viewpoint that until the design || and materials became the norm for homebuilding, the resulting home || could hardly be called "conventional". || ||| All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and ||| thermal mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also ||| has to have backup heat. || || Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting area - but || beyond that it need only retain sufficient heat for comfort. || Thermal mass provides storage for replacement heat to compensate || for losses. When the losses become sufficiently small, the need || for thermal mass shrinks to near nil. | | No, it doesn't. The chair I'm sitting in is "thermal mass". The | plaster on the walls is "thermal mass". The floor joists are | "thermal mass", everything in the house is "thermal mass". In a | relatively warm climate it might be possible to provide sufficient | thermal mass entirely from structure, but not in a cold one, not | unless you have some active means of insulating or isolating the | collector at night and at that point you no longer have a passive | design. Ok. All of the furnishings in a house do constitute "thermal mass", but they're not normally considered part of the structure we call a "house" (at least not for the purposes of calculations). Not just the furnishings. The structure itself is thermal mass. It's possible to build truly passive solar collectors that function as "thermal diodes". At one point I made an attempt to catagorize passive air-heating collectors and posted drawings on a web page at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/SC_Types.html. The "Type 3" collector _passively_ locks up (without moving parts) and functions as an insulator at night. An insulator no better than a triple-glazed window, which is OK for a window but pretty poor in the greater scheme of things. | As for "when the losses become sufficiently small", now you've got a | nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration loss, which means | that you need an effective scrubber to take out bathroom and cooking | odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an effective heat | exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need exceedingly heavy | insulation to minimize the conduction through the walls. So you've | traded one set of construction costs for another. The house in the photo I posted to ABPW is insulated to R-40 in all walls, roof, and floor and had, according to the builder, a construction cost on the close order of $55K. R-40 may be fine for a locale that only goes down to 20 degrees. I suspect that it's not going to be very comfortable at 4 AM when it's -30 out. Ventilation is indeed necessary, and the easiest and least expensive solution is to provide sufficient heating that some heat can be "thrown away" on a controlled basis. There is a temptation to label this "excess capacity", but there's nothing "excess" or "wasteful" about it. A heat exchanger is needed only if there's no thermal budget for the venting. Which is nice in a warm climate with lots of insolation year round. Move north and the days get progressively shorter and the nights longer and "provide sufficient heating" becomes a problem. |||| I |||| have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've |||| been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a |||| contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional |||| methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and |||| is in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F. ||| ||| Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might ||| be possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I ||| doubt it would work here though, where single-degree temperatures ||| for days at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined ||| with significant snowfall are the norm. || || You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated concrete block || shop in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its collector || panels. | | And was it cheaper to build that one than one from the same | materials with conventional heat? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking - but given that a major portion of the south-facing wall consisted of a pair of 6'x12' solar panels which would not have been present in the same structure intended for conventional heating - yes, the solar version of the building was somewhat less expensive to build and very much less expensive to operate. So you're saying that you were able to get this shop uncomfortably hot with two 6'x12' panels at -30? Are you sure it wasn't the tools heating it? I'm sorry, but I've been in too many houses with far more collector area than that that weren't warm at noon, let alone at 4 AM, in a warmer climate than that. || There were days when the outside temperature was -30F and windspeed || was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the doors ajar and || work in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated walls. | | That's fine for _days_. How was it at 4 AM? And how much did those | collectors cost? Note that if they were free or inexpensive due to | efficient scrounging on your part then you're not describing | something that someone building houses commercially can count on | doing. At 4am (an hour at which I can't recall ever having been in /any/ workshop) in the winter the shop was anywhere from cool to chilly - but never cold enough to freeze water or coffee left out. If it's not warm enough to take a crap at 4 AM without freezing my butt off then it's not acceptable. I don't want my house "above freezing", I want it _comfortable_. The panels were built with wood, aluminum, twinwall polycarbonate solar glazing, and a tube of gasket compound - all purchased at retail from the local (rural community) lumber yard and hardware store for (I think) about $500 total. The panels were built in place so as to be an integral part of the wall. I guess that if you wanted to use the workshop at 4am, you'd probably want to insulate the walls. I didn't. Sounds like you may be able to heat a workshop during the day, but apparently don't understand that keeping a house comfortable is a different proposition. || Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into new materials and || construction methods since you last looked at those texts, as well. || Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable amount of || innovation. | | What are these "new materials"? Are you saying that there is some | kind of new insulation that is cheaper than fiberglass? If so why | is not every builder jumping on it? Excellent questions! [1] I only know some of the answers so would suggest asking in alt.solar.thermal and alt.architecture.* newsgroups where you can get expert answers. [2] Yes I am, but only in the context of a complete structure. [3] My WAG would be that many/most builders avoid the unfamiliar. So you know of this mystery material but won't tell us what it is? BTW, if fiberglass is your performance baseline, then you would do well to investigate the characteristic behavior of that insulation at low temperatures. You may be in for a not-pleasant surprise. If I recall the discussion on alt.solar.thermal correctly, the R-factor begins dropping off significantly somewhere around 20F. Fiberglass is not the "performance baseline", it is the "cost effectiveness baseline". There are many more efficient forms of insulation but they all cost more for the same effectiveness. ||| Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in ||| my neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left ||| now. ||| ||| But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house. || || Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your neighbors as it || does about the products purchased. It would seem reasonable to || make that kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty that || the panels would actually be worth having. | | So with them paid for why would they not be "worth having"? According to your comment, only one set appears to have been judged by only one of your neighbors to be "worth having". At every other household they've been discarded. Do you draw a different conclusion? I repeat my question. They were there. They were paid for. Removing them involved some cost. If they were conferring _any_ benefit whatsoever or were just taking up space then one would not expect the owners to be willing to pay the cost of removal. Thus one must conclude that having them not only was not conferring benefit but was worse than not having them. Seems to me like a good question, but one which would be better directed to your neighbors. My guess is that the panels performed poorly or weren't well constructed. If you do ask your neighbors, I would be very interested in their answers. Sorry, but none of my current neighbors were in those houses when the panels were removed. ||||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been ||||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's ||||| actually humorous. |||| |||| Re-read for comprehension. ||| ||| Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you ||| should write what you mean. || || I did. I related something I was told some thirty years ago and you || presented it as current belief in an attempt to ridicule. | | So you are denying that you said "Eh? They should be online _now_! | We just have more "important" things to spend the money on. " I'm of the opinion, based on comments made by actual participants, that if we could develop a whole collection of new technologies, tools, and methods in ten years to send people to the moon and bring them back, then we should be able to accomplish this project in a comparable short time frame. Uh, there was no new physics involved in going to the moon. That was all engineering. Fusion isn't a matter of developing "a whole collection of new technologies, tools, and methods", it's a matter of developing a sufficient understanding of the physics involved to allow the development technologies, tools, and methods, and that doesn't happen on a crash basis. Apollo worked because von Braun already knew how to go to the Moon, he just needed to build the pieces to get there. People had been building liquid fuel rockets that worked for 35 years when Kennedy ordered Project Apollo and it still took almost ten more years of development. The cost guesstimate, with which you seem really hung up, was given to me on an off-the-cuff basis and isn't something I feel obliged to defend. If you have a Perted schedule with a closely-coupled budget, I'd probably be willing to give it as much credence (perhaps more or perhaps less) as I did my original input. What is a "Perted schedule"? Do you mean a PERT chart? | So since you seem to be admitting that your 2 billion in 1976 would | have done it, how much would have and spent when? Do you really expect me to defend someone else's 30-year old WAG? You're the one arguing that fusion should have been accomplished 20 years ago and the reason that it wasn't was that the government didn't want to cough up the money. Since you seem to think that you know this, it would be helpful to know just how much money they didn't cough up. Since you have been strongly inferring that you have superior knowledge on the matter, why don't you stop playing silly word games, establish your credentials as a holder of verifiable information, and inform the group? If you don't have anything of substance to offer, then let's get back to woodworking. You should have thought of that before you went off on this tangent. As far as being a "holder of verifiable information", now you're playing the "cant attack the argument so I'll attack the arguer" game. What I've said about the mechanisms of fusion anyone who has taken a sophomore "modern physics" course should have learned. What I've said about the state of the art 30 years ago was common knowledge to anybody enrolled in a physics program at the time. What I've said about the current state of the art comes from the ITER Web site http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_1.htm. |
If this is global warming...
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:42:09 -0500, Bill in Detroit
wrote: Andrew Barss wrote: J. Clarke has a pretty peculiar picture of how science writing, reviewing, and publishing works. -- Andy Barss Your posting is not the only one where he apparently chooses to 'misunderstand' what is otherwise plainly the intent of a writer. -I- understood that you were referring to a double-blind review (and I don't HAVE an engineering degree to dust off). I just like to beat up blowhards. |
If this is global warming...
In article , Bill in Detroit wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to... Does your newsreader support threading? Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior. It's also pretty much normal behavior, when following up an article, to quote enough of it that other people know what you're talking about. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 20, 12:06 am, Andrew Barss wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: : I've never seen a journal article in which the author was listed as : "anonymous". When the article is published, yes, the author(s) name(s) appear. When the manuscript is sent out by an editor to a set of reviewers, the name and affiliation of the author(s) is removed; any footnote acknowledging assistance from a grant, colleagues, etc. is removed; and all reasonable efforts are made to conceal any identifiers. The rules for anonymity vary with the journal. Some offer optional anonymity of the reviewer. I was a minor coauthor on one paper which was reviewed anonymously by one person and non -anonymously by another. The anonymous reviewer advised against publication the other and the editor disagreed and so we were published. Our assumption is that the anonymous reviewer was doing similar work and wanted to stall us so he could publish first. About six months after we published, a similar article was published in another journal, with a similar title except for "First Ever" (inaccurately) pre-pended to the title... As for your employer not knowing or caring, consider : yourself fortunate. Huh? :It's a double-blind system. This is done to eliminate biases. That's :how science works. : No, that's how peer-review is _supposed_ to work. Peer review isn't : "science", it's part of a process. And things don't always work as : they are supposed to. Science is a process. Peer-reviewing is part of it. NO! Peer-review is part of the publishing process in any number of fields, scientific or not. Publication is NOT part of the scientific process. A scientist can do perfectly good science all by himself, (e.g. Gregor Mendel) but obviously no one benefits from it without publication. Regardless, publication is a separate activity. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
Rob,
I don't think you really want to squeeze that particular roll of Charmin right now. Really. GDR Rick "Robatoy" wrote in message oups.com... On Feb 18, 6:36 pm, J. Clarke wrote: If the population of the earth was ten times ... Please post the worksheet which allowed you to arrive at those numbers. If quoted from another source, please cite. r |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:35:17 -0500, "Rick M"
wrote: Rob, I don't think you really want to squeeze that particular roll of Charmin right now. Really. The calculation isn't difficult. Energy released from fusion of 1 Kg of hydrogen = 676 times the per capita annual energy consumption of the US. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html World population = approximately 6.5 billion http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html Kilograms of hydrogen required to provide 6.5 billion people energy equivalent to the per capita consumption of the US = 6.5E9/676=9.62E6 kilograms. Mass of world ocean = 1.4e21Kg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean (note--in my previous calculation I entered this incorrectely as 1.4E18) Mass of hydrogen in world ocean = 1.4e21*2/18 = 1.56e20 Kg. (atomic mass of hydrogen is 1, of water molecule is 18, there are two hydrogens per water molecule) Time required to consume all hydrogen in world ocean at current population and current per capita rate = 1.56e20/9.62e6 = 1.62E13 years. Time required at 100 times current US per capita rate and 10 times the population = 1.62E13/1000=1.62E10=16.2 billion years. Note that this is somewhere between 75% and 1.6 times the age of the universe depending on which estimate you use. Mass of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune=1898.6, 568.46, 86.832, and 102.43 E24 kg, respectively. Percentage of hydrogen=89.8, 96.3, 82.5, and 80.0 percent respectively http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/planets_main.html (these are higher than I used previously--I used the wiki numbers then and the wiki page has been corrupted since, I believe case.edu is probably more reliable). Total mass of hydrogen on outer planets = 1898.6e24*.898+568.46e24*.963+86.832*.825+102.43e2 4*.80=2.41E27 kilograms of hydrogen. Time to deplete hydrogen in outer planets=2.41E27 / (9.62E6 * 1000) = 2.50E17 years. Age of universe 20E9 years http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html 2.50E17/20E9 = 12,500,000. So we have that to deplete the hydrogen in Earth and the outer planets at 10 times the current population and 100 times the current per capita US consumption rate will take 12.5 million times the age of the universe. Note that the number may change somewhat depending on the particular reaction--D-T is somewhat more energetic than H-H for example, and on whose numbers you use for the composition of the outer planets and the age of the universe, but the point remains, we're talking billions of years to deplete the hydrogen in the oceans and unimaginably long time periods to deplete the hydrogen in the outer planets, even at a much higher consumption level than at present. Also note that the sun is only supposed to last another 5.5 billion years http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/sun_astar.html. GDR Rick "Robatoy" wrote in message roups.com... On Feb 18, 6:36 pm, J. Clarke wrote: If the population of the earth was ten times ... Please post the worksheet which allowed you to arrive at those numbers. If quoted from another source, please cite. r |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 20, 7:21 pm, Andrew Barss wrote:
wrote: : : Science is a process. Peer-reviewing is part of it. : : NO! : Peer-review is part of the publishing process in any : number of fields, scientific or not. : Publication is NOT part of the scientific process. A : scientist can do perfectly good science all by himself, : (e.g. Gregor Mendel) but obviously no one benefits : from it without publication. : Regardless, publication is a separate activity. Weeeelllllll ... you're wrong. Mostly. Mutual interchange of ideas, guesses, facts, hypotheses, etc. IS a regular part of scientific work. Sure, some lone scientists did good work in complete isolation, with no knowledge of what others (contemporaneous or historically prior) did, but those are few and far between, and for good reason. Non-Sequitor. The same is true of all, or at least most, scholarly work and even some flimflam. Historians, linguists, economists, self-described 'skeptics' (e.g. _The Skeptical Enquirer_) even polygraphers publish in peer-reviewed journals. (To take your example of Mendel, he was basing his work on millennia of selective crop breeding, as well as his university training. He published his work, and presented it at scientific conferences, though it was was ignored for several decades. Oh, I wasn't aware that he did publish (without peer review, right?) He's not quite the lone untrained genius some make him out to be). Thanks. It's true that this interchange can happen in a variety of ways -- from conversation in a room to formally published, publicly available journals and books. But the evaluation process that is formalized in peer-review realy isn't some tangential activity (like, say, doing popular TV science shows, or writing press releases, is). It's a central mechanism for two things: getting ideas and results out where other scientists can see and use them; and trying to make sure that standards are maintained (for experimental rigor, for addressing previous work, acknowledgment or prior ideas, etc.). But the point is that communication isn't part of the scientific process. It's a good thing, to be sure. So are grant proposals. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 19, 11:17 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
let's get back to woodworking. Sure.. but meanwhile I'm digging up stuff about solar heating. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...9/ccview19.xml |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke wrote:
I just like to beat up blowhards. Ahh ... all in a good cause, then. Carry on. -- Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one rascal less in the world. Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881) http://nmwoodworks.com --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000715-0, 02/20/2007 Tested on: 2/21/2007 12:40:19 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
If this is global warming...
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Bill in Detroit wrote: Doug Miller wrote: You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to... Does your newsreader support threading? Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior. I call 'malarky'. "Read and delete" is not normal behavior. The first problem with it is that it immediately kills -any- hope of useful threading. Among other things, this leaves you vulnerable to folks like myself who, innocently enough, figure that you either have a good memory or, failing that, written records. To have a full participation on Usenet, you really need one or the other. After all, how can you hold a grudge if you can't remember who you are mad at and can't look it up, either? Just for the record: I have written records. I deliberately cultivate a short memory regarding most of the things people say. Poverty has overtaken me and I can no longer afford to feed a grudge. One nice thing about having the written records is that I am sometimes able to make a useful contribution to a long-dead thread. That bumps it up to the active pile again and the new information is presented along with the older information for context and review. It's a good thing ... but, according to what you have posted on this topic thus far, the settings on your newsreader absolutely prevent you from contributing in that manner. Apparently you are prevented from placing the new information in context since the older, previously read, messages remain read ... and forever lost to you. So you get a data points that just sort of float by unconnected and out of context? That is not what is meant by threading. It's also pretty much normal behavior, when following up an article, to quote enough of it that other people know what you're talking about. I've already addressed that above. I won't be held accountable for reading your mind. Either arrange to use a better set-up newsreader or accept that you won't be able to follow some of my postings. With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to. Bill -- Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one rascal less in the world. Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881) http://nmwoodworks.com --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000715-0, 02/20/2007 Tested on: 2/21/2007 2:40:01 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke writes:
Which is why debunking such a misconception is groundbreaking. So you're saying that the groundbreaking first paper to ever "debunk" a "popular misconception" has yet to be published? Do tell. Try reading what I write. I also suggest reading what you wrote as well. And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions. Such as? The seminal work of LeLand, Taqqu, Willinger and Wilson On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic (1993) I was not aware that there were any popular conceptions of any kind with regard to Ethernet traffic in 1993. Obviously. There were many. That's why Boogs wrote "Measured capacity of an Ethernet: myths and reality" in 1988. I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models. Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field? The use of the Poisson distribution for estimating the delays between packets in a network. Nothing involving a Poisson distribution can be considered to be a "popular misconception". Most people can't even tell you what a Poisson distribution _is_. You apparently forget what you wrote. We WERE talking about peer-reviewed journals and scientists "systematically rejecting a minority viewpoint" Let me quote you. Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field? You seem to be confusing matters which are quite esoteric with "popular misconceptions". Peer-reviewed journals. Scientists. Sigh. Let me quote you: If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly wrong. You claim that scientists are systematically rejecting a minority viewpoint. You have not given ANY evidence that this is fantasy. I, on the other had said that your knowledge of scientists is wrong, and gave a counter-example. You didn't believe me. I listed at least one example. There are others. You have not yet given ANY EVIDENCE for your far-fetched theory. It's just something that came to you from the sky. I'd like to see some hard evidence that your theory is true. ------------paste--------- MeAnd if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly Meregarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by Methousands of other articles. Jim And of course the editor can tell what will be a groundbreaking paper. ------------end paste--------- MeNo. It's those that reference the paper. Jim And the editor has a TARDIS so that he can go into the future and find Jim out who will reference the paper? Jim Jim I'm sorry, but "those that reference the paper" don't decide what gets Jim published. Sigh. It's like talking to a brick wall. I had to paste back the comments you deliberately deleted. Why on earth would time travel be needed to reference a paper that occured in the past? you DO know what a reference is, right? WHat's the point. You are deliberately distorting the debate to support a fantasy theory. You show great ignorance in a process that you criticize, and refuse to learn how the process operates. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. You can't even remember what you wrote yourself, even when it's quoted in the document. I don't see any point in arguing with a troll. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
In article , Bill in Detroit wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: In article , Bill in Detroit wrote: Doug Miller wrote: You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to... Does your newsreader support threading? Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior. I call 'malarky'. "Read and delete" is not normal behavior. The first problem with it is that it immediately kills -any- hope of useful threading. Nonsense. "Read and mark 'read' " is absolutely normal behavior. "Read and continue to display" is not. Among other things, this leaves you vulnerable to folks like myself who, innocently enough, figure that you either have a good memory or, failing that, written records. Or are simply to lazy to quote the context they're responding to. [snip nonsense] It's also pretty much normal behavior, when following up an article, to quote enough of it that other people know what you're talking about. I've already addressed that above. No, not really. I won't be held accountable for reading your mind. I'm not asking to you read my mind. You, on the other hand, by failing to quote enough context to make it plain what you're replying to, *are* asking *me* to read *yours*. Either arrange to use a better set-up newsreader or accept that you won't be able to follow some of my postings. My newsreader is set up just fine, thank you very much. It's *your* use of *your* newsreader that's broken. With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to. Suit yourself. Most folks quote enough of the message that they're responding to that their readers don't need to go digging through previous messages to see what they meant. It's simple courtesy to avoid imposing this inconvenience on others. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message ... J. Clarke writes: Which is why debunking such a misconception is groundbreaking. So you're saying that the groundbreaking first paper to ever "debunk" a "popular misconception" has yet to be published? Do tell. Try reading what I write. I also suggest reading what you wrote as well. And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions. Such as? The seminal work of LeLand, Taqqu, Willinger and Wilson On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic (1993) I was not aware that there were any popular conceptions of any kind with regard to Ethernet traffic in 1993. Obviously. There were many. That's why Boogs wrote "Measured capacity of an Ethernet: myths and reality" in 1988. I think you need to acquaint yourself with the common definition of "popular misconception". It would be something along the lines of "a mistaken notion held by people in general". It's not the sort of thing that gets dispelled by an obscure scientific paper from 1988. todd |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter