John Cuthber

FFS stop avoiding the question. What problem?

I see you put "do nothing" in quotes. Is that because you know that he has done rather a lot? Obamacare (like it or loathe it) is something. Overseeing the death of Bin Laden is something But most of all, Getting unemployment down is something. Getting the economy back together is something. Seriously, how can you call that "do nothing"?

Great attempt at a neutral source there. Anyway, it says "The terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began at about 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time—or about 3:40 p.m. Washington, D.C. time" and "It was not until 11:00 p.m. Benghazi time—or just as Obama’s 5:00 p.m. meeting with Panetta and Biden was starting in Washington, D.C.—that the U.S. agents in Benghazi decided to abandon the main consulate facility there. “At 11 p.m. members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade advised they could no longer hold the area around the main building and insisted on evacuating the site,” Lamb testified. “The agents made a final search for the Ambassador before leaving in an armed vehicle."" So it looks pretty much like someone attacked the embassy and some military types went to rescue the people there. It's not clear how long that took, but they had done as much as they could within 90 minutes. And the next morning Obama was on TV telling people about a terrorist attack. What's the problem?

If you convert numbers to standard index form http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/maths/number/powersrootshirev1.shtml the decimal point is redundant.

The "new" light bulbs are tungsten halogen lamps (which are "more efficient than standard incandescents") and have changed little since 1933. An improvement of 28% on the original incandescent lamps which are about 3% efficient might mean one of two things It means the new ones are about 4% efficient or about 31% efficient. If it's the latter then the guys selling them would describe then as "about 10 times better" because that's going to sell a lot more bulbs. So it seems likely that these have changed something that wastes 97% of the electricity to something that only wastes 96% I don't see that saving the planet any time soon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10511158 "5. WHAT THE CIA SAYS REALLY HAPPENED IN BENGHAZI Agency officers say they responded to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in less than 25 minutes and were never told to delay or stand down." It looks like some bunch of shits with guns killed the embassy staff. There was no conspiracy involved.

Nice video, pity it's the wrong explanation. Each molecule of oxygen consumed oxidising carbon is replaced by a molecule of CO2. With a wax candle you will get some net contraction because the oxygen that combines with hydrogen will be converted to water which condenses. However, as Joatmon points out, this works with paper Paper is mainly cellulose. let's have a look at the equation (C6H10O5)n, + 6n O2 ---> 6n CO2 + 5n H2O In this case, there's no net reduction in volume. CO2 isn't that soluble in warm water, so that's not the reason. At about 2:50 in that video you can see bubbles escaping from under the glass as it's put over the flame. That's because the air is heated and expands. When it cools down again it contracts and that's what causes the reduction in pressure.

The problem is that the V A belt only seems like unlimited power to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Removal There's not really a lot of stored energy there because, at that altitude, the "atmosphere" is a pretty good vacuum. My sarcasm might not help, and I don't claim to be all that intelligent, but at least I have the sense to look at the wiki page for the VA belts. What did you do by way of research? Because I think that the problem of supplying the human race with energy might come from someone sarcastic, but it sure won't come from someone with no idea what hey are talking about.

"When I read a statement about a past vice-president being compared to satan, I question the intelligence of the persenter. " The rest of us understand irony. "As much as I despise Obama's policies I don't hate the man, only his willingness to bring this nation to a precipice " Nope, the jobless totals were skyrocketing when he took the job on. He has addressed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1890-2011.gif The economy is on the up too. "Any accomplishments he can show has been by riding roughshod over a congress not ready for his style of innovation." If that's what it takes to accomplish things then that's what he was elected for. Would you have preferred that he kowtowed to Congress and achieved nothing? "While I disagreed with many things Bush II did, they were under totally different circumstances," Specifically, Bush II started a war against Bin Laden, Obama finished it. "Obama inherited a war in Iraq that had run its course. One in Afghanistan that has become increasingly less managable and our national debt has zoomed up up by a +five trillion dollars" Yep, much of that debt was due to paying for the war that GW didn't need to start. No war in Afghanistan was ever "manageable" The debt, like the unemployment figures were rising steeply when Obama took over. It's still rising, but it's rising more slowly thanks to the new guy's policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png "We lost 3,000 people, a world trade center, a big chunk of our pentagon and a huge hole in the ground in Pa., from the work of some heroic people. " Matter of opinion, I'd say we lost them due to the work of some people who were, at best, deluded: some would say they were just plain evil. However it's interesting to contemplate why they may have thought that the US was biassed against their people. Still, the Arab / Israel thing sis probably a different topic. Dreadful thought the loss of those 3000 is, it's not as bad as the loss of 4500 or so US troops in the war that Bush started in Iraq (on the basis of actions by people who were from a different country- it seems geography wasn't W's strong point). Then there are the casualties of soldiers from other countries (about 300, more than half of which are from my country) Oh, and half a million or so civilians. All because of Mr Bush's policies to give money to the likes of Haliburton. Bush is responsible for half as many American's deaths again as the 9/11 attacks. Remember that when you think of voting for the guy who thinks Bush was right. "I'd like to give Romney thes next chance of screwing everything up. " In the way that Bush did and Obama didn't. That's an odd way to go about it. "There are many others waiting in the wings literally praying to take his place if he can't get the job done." Yes, but if you elect Romney then you are stuck with him for a long time during which I suspect he will do a lot of damage to most Americans (albeit that he will make the very rich even richer).

From that site "The new bulbs, which use halogen elements, provide energy savings of about 28 percent compared to conventional incandescents." From WIKI "The use of iodine was proposed in a 1933 patent,[3] which also described the cyclic redeposition of tungsten back on the filament. In 1959 General Electric patented[3] a practical lamp using iodine.[4]" 1933 isn't modern from my point of view.

For a start, learn to spell ionised. Then read the new scientist page which says the range is less than 100M. The energy required to produce an ionised channel is not small. It will destroy the efficiency of the system. Equally, you can not "harvest" lightning every minute unless there is a massive storm generating that energy.

"using it to run modern, more efficient, incandescent bulbs. " Are there any?

Is adding potassium carbonate cheating?

No matter how many times you ask, the answer remains no.

Dimmer switches http://a5products.co.uk/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&keyword=dimmer&inc_subcat=0&search_in_description=0&sort=20a&page=2&gclid=CKWhoavPrrMCFWbKtAodGBEAKQ Light bulbs http://a5products.co.uk/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=308&zenid=beab04def4af0d11aa67338082cff676 Please show me how the dimmers are less expensive than the bulbs? i.e. show how "Most home builders are just going to install dimmers because that is the cheapest option," Also, re. "Considering that 38 million people live in the state, this is going to affect a lot of people." Over what timescale?

"Is such a thing even possible? " No.

it's uneconomical for the same reasons as last time. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/25695-lightning-as-an-energy-source/page__pid__711220__st__20#entry711220

It seems that even the republicans can't stomach his lies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ByzxFQSlyDA#!

Bumping this for a tinkerer's benefit as he seems unable to read it otherwise. He asked about the same thing here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70141-lessening-hurricanes-by-triggering-lightning-bolts/ even though I pointed out this thread to him here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70173-making-consumable-electricity-from-lightning-bolts-is-it-possible/page__p__711113#entry711113

If your party is only a sensible choice for that small number of people who are rich enough to gain from tax cuts, yet you need to get many people to vote for you then your only chance of getting elected rests on misrepresenting yourselves. If Romney was honest and said "look, if you don't earn a lot of money, then my policies are bad for you. You won't gain from tax cuts, but you will lose out from benefit cuts and worse public services" then he'd lose because rich people are not a majority of the electorate. So his party is stuck with misleading or disenfranchising poor people. Once you start from that, frankly immoral base, it's not difficult to progress to using the money you have to mislead people, and to outright fabrication of slurs against your opponent. You don't have much integrity to lose, so you lie and cheat. You get your brother or your colleagues to disenfranchise people who are likely to vote against you http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/05/27/republicans-of-a-feather-rick-scott-follows-jeb-bush-in-disenfranchising-legal-voters-in-florida/ and you spread outright lies about your opponent If that doesn't work, you pack a court with biassed judges and get them to decide that you were "fairly elected" If racism is on your side (and it will be because black people are generally underpaid) then you play that too (but carefully- if it's too obvious then it will backfire) Why is anyone surprised by this?

"You have to wonder how one of these would fair above a young forming hurricane." No, I don't because I know about absorption of em radiation. The answer is that the pulse would pretty much go straight through. "how would a large electromagnetic pulse set off above the clouds shorting out the positive and negative clouds with one another fair?" Why are you making up the idea that it would "short out the positive and negative clouds with one another" ? Do you have a reason to think that's what would happen or is it just wishful thinking? It would be uneconomical for the reasons given in the thread I cited earlier (and which you should probably have searched for before posting).

A valuable point, assuming that most switches are dimmer switches. If, on the other hand, one makes the opposite assumption then the point' a bit academic.

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Response and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces AMR are about a hundred times smaller than the US armed forces. Unless you can claim that the military were overstaffed when Katrina came along it's fair to say that AMR are not big enough to make much difference. Sure, they will help, but they are not adequate.

Are they big enough to make any real difference?

Because it is, as you would know if you had searched the forum before posting. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/25695-lightning-as-an-energy-source/page__st__20__p__533825__hl__lightning__fromsearch__1#entry533825