arc

Hello Essay, Thank you for replying. I take all your points and agree things will possibly be quite bad in the future. I am a fan of history, but I would never say I am a historian. My personal take on this climate change situation is the scientific data is correct for their observations, everything adds up. My starting post is why I think Americans are skeptical and that is where this began for me. The conversation evolved to Americans are ignorant and then went further to they are stupid. This was determined to be caused by irrational thought and was pointed out to me as being almost entirely contained within a certain distinguishable population of irrationally stupid. (Lets call them group 1) I am aware of other examples, and in fact larger samples of irrational thought populations can be found and I made a presentation of my findings. This was apparently not acceptable to the committee. I bring up this parallel and larger population of irrational people (group 2) because they will be in charge of things entirely once the other group is marginalized by popular culture. There is nothing more effective than well liked celebrities dehumanizing their victims. So my feelings are this power shift will not include any increase in rational thought in group 2. Why would it. I have shown they participate in irrational behaviors parallel to group 1 and even contain individuals that have the same propensity towards violence as group 1. The rational individuals in both groups are quite small, mostly in academia, business, military and science. To small of a total to, if for any reason, balance the irrational group 2 as group 1 had done. I have no reference in the history of drastic power shifts that include climate change. I think applying an intellectually driven example like the 1917 Russian revolution can give a little insight to the dynamics of a loss of stability in a society and total control being in one place. Germany is maybe a better example. The population was well educated and modern. If not struggling with economic crisis the tragedies that followed would not have occurred. It included the initial acquisition of power through democratic means and the marginalization of opposition groups. A very nice fit for the current situation. The plan for dealing with climate change appears to involve reorganization of the energy and economic models currently being used. This is no easy job to pull off successfully. The majority of group 1 think it is fixed and will involve corruption similar to 1929 and 2008 levels. Even a large portion of group 2 has suspicions of corruption, but the suspects differ between the groups. So someone like myself has great doubt that a problem of this magnitude can be successfully solved. The USA's economy and energy sectors are up for a overhaul that has never been done before with the exception of 1930 - 1945. It seems unlikely most American will sacrifice themselves to either self imposed economic hardship of permanent levels or reduced quality of life for any extended period. If you screw this up there's probably no coming back in the short term. To accomplish this it looks like one irrational group will be in charge while supervised by a very small group of rational experts. So I do not agree that rearranging the deck chairs is an accurate analogy. I would propose instead that you are sure you see an ice berg and you are willing to risk changing coarse through a submarine mine field to avoid it. arc P.S. I really enjoy talking to everyone. You have a great thing going here.

That looks hard to get at. I hope you can get that clip (yellow) on there. It has to be on that tab of the latch when you put the bar end in the tabs hole. I always drop the stupid thing. The clip has to rotate to latch the bar in place. 50/50 chance of getting it in the right orientation the first time. If you don't see the tab it may have flipped down where you can't see it. That is the manual lever, That 5/24 part with the wire is the electric solinoid unit, I don't see a conection point their but it could be in either of the two places. arc

I did not say whether I agree or disagree with the consensus. That is irrelevant. I do claim and show that an acceptance of the consensus view on climate change does not validate a person as having rational thought processing abilities. I have given examples of people who accept the consensus view in conjunction with what appears to be irrational views of fluoridation and other current issues. Can one balance these inconsistencies, can someone be an eco-terrorist who breaks into university labs and destroys research redeem their irrational thinking deficit with a single rational choice of climate change? Of coarse not. So how can one not know someone else, someone who may have a history of very rational decisions, and arbitrarily use a single opinion to cast derision and judgement. That would seem an irrational judgement don't you think? Do we not make decisions base on preponderance of evidence? Is that not how the climate change science is evaluated? Yet , earlier in this thread a single opinion against was declared evidence enough of irrational thought. The right thing to do is not to proudly wear those irrational beliefs and behaviors as a badge on ones chest. Being intentionally stupid is not something to be proud about. It is something to be ashamed of. The right thing to do to be ever vigilant against those irrational beliefs and to stop them in their tracks when one sees that one is exhibiting such beliefs and behaviors. Seems rather harsh and judgmental. Kinda throws them all in together. Let me try, it looks fun. Their just one giant mass of stupid. I bet their kids are stupid too. They shouldn't even be allowed to vote. They shouldn't be allowed to breed. No thanks, I'll stick to my way, it feels more scientific. The position I take on this is to point out that one pro or con opinion on this issue cannot be used to determine a person's intellect or propensity for rational decision making. arc

DH, I bring this up to challenge the apparent approval of many "rational" people to use the acceptance of scientifically backed evidence on climate change as a qualifier for determining which people in the USA and anywhere else possess rational thought. And the rejection of the same evidence as a dis-qualifier of rational thought. Nothing more. Is what I said different in tone than; I believe I simply elaborated a little more than you. I believe I was affirming this in my post. I have observed this repeatedly in this city. Most recently here with the fluoride defeat. You stated in post 12; And 14 I would agree with this, maybe if I were to move to Texas and evaluate the irrational behaviors of the locals there you would not be so critical of my comments. Is there bias in your assessments of my post. Do I appear to be criticizing people that you may allow lenience to? I will take a guess and say this paragraph below may have caused some of your criticism. This is an observation of the local flavor of my home area. This city is 80% democrat, I can only evaluate what flora and fauna are available. The pro anthropologic climate group make up the larger share of this cities democrats, maybe 60-70%, they are the ones that defeated fluoridation, they like herbal medicine, believe in good and bad karma, want no selective logging and no fire roads to fight fires. That little 30-40% of the remaining democrats here voted for fluoride and possess in my opinion a more rational view of most things in life. I am willing to bet most of the doctors and dentists in this city are in this group along with a large segment of other science professionals. Some of the 30-40% group, ones that I have spoken with, are the ones that I am referring to as possessing doubt. They may be considered a conservative democrat by some but would not pass as such in other more conservative cities. I didn't say it wasn't. My post is not regarding whether its fiction or fact, it is regarding the doubt in a select group of democrats that appear to exhibit a higher degree of rational thought in most issues. Reread it please. For one, this is to highlight the local pro climate groups irrational opposition to roads that provide access to lightning caused fires. Fires that thinning of damaged timber would help slow the spread of by removing the fuel. This will then reduce the damage of larger areas of forest. BTW some natural areas should have 60-80 tons of forest floor debris per acre with regular natural burning. People will not accept letting forests of 400-500 year old trees burn Ala natural. Some now have 450 tons per acre from lack of thinning and suppression practices. When it burns, and it will burn, it will kill everything even below grade. The rational group understands this. You need roads in for thinning and fire fighting. The others want fires fought but have irrational concepts of management. This guys views are typical to a surprising degree here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tre_Arrow Let me know if you think this guy possess an appreciable degree of rational thinking. DH, I agreed with most of the points you made earlier. But I think some rational people have an irrational view as to what can be deducted from some peoples "rational" about climate change. I think it is of limited capability as a sampling instrument to judge overall rational thinking and behavior. arc

The mirror they hide behind is angled, look at the floor. The clamp is holding the corner of the front mirror and one in back like this >. The little kid is in the v between the two mirrors while his brother is behind the back one that is projecting his image to the right. Two more mirrors ( One can be seen at right near the wall ) redirect rear image forward to the front mirror for the observer (us) to see. Sorry about spoiling the "magic of the moment"

Hello MMK, my experience with 12 V coils tells me your coil requires a saturation, a quick drop in voltage that produces the spike in secondary voltage. An old system had a set of points that opened to initiate the coil collapse, the condenser eliminates the voltage arc that would jump the open points. Yours is electronic but is the same in principle. Does your coil have an internal capacitor? Is your coils capacitor tuned to that coil? Those two have to oscillate together to produce inductance in the secondary side. Have you ohm tested the coil? Both secondary and primary. Some coils need the braket to be grounded to work, others use the neg. for both primary and secondary. arc

The city that I live just outside of, is a bastion of liberalism. They have just defeated a fluoride ballot measure that outspent them 10 to 1. This town is full of new age pseudo - science believers. We have a natural medical school that is expanding like wildfire. Herbal medicine, acupuncture, healing crystals and the like. This city is anti science in many ways, the hip upscale shopping districts of remodeled trendy stores are in next to new age healing and spiritual shops that sell goddesses and magic hippie potions. The town has one of the highest number of bookstores per capita in the country but you should see the size of the new age religion and pseudo-science sections . There are many of them here and they are making money. These people are the ones with the liberal mindset that are against scientifically supported genetic and public health issues like vaccinations and fluoride. But they do support anthropological climate change. The others that I was referring to earlier as of a liberal background also acknowledge the warming but are hung up on the anthropological causation. Now here is my opinion on this. In having conversation with both groups over the last forty years and discussing environmental, business, economic, social and now climate change, the skeptical people seem to be a lot more grounded in reality. They think all that new age crap is irrational, they saw them defeat fluoride, they see them on the local news protesting very rational issues. These pro climate people are of a radicalize liberal mindset somewhat similar to the 1960's. I think the skeptical group has a more balanced view and can discuss technical aspects of the subject that the pro climate warming people seem more knee jerk about. This issue has a similarity to an older contentious environmental debate in this part of the country. We now suppress wildfires in our local forests while restricting thinning of insect damage trees. They don't want roads into these areas either. Natural fires should maintain the forest floor fuel at a low enough level to burn through quickly, saving the larger trees and suppressing insect damage. Now they burn so hot the ground is baked to a ceramic in some places. The skeptical group understands the need to let it burn on a regular bases or thin to reduce the fuel content. Burning is not practical because of increased population in these areas and control issues. The pro climate change group won earlier legal victories that does not allow the roads or thinning but want firefighting with just water without chemicals. They talk of forest spirits and mother earth. In America some of the most pro anthropological climate change supporters have some rather irrational core beliefs. arc

Not all deserts are of the same cause, yet all are the same result, lack of rain or in some cases just moisture. The Atacama desert in South American Andes Mountains covers 105,000 km² (40,541 sq miles). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Desert Evidence suggests that the Atacama may not have had any significant rainfall from 1570 to 1971. It is so arid that mountains that reach as high as 6,885 metres (22,589 ft) are completely free of glaciers and, in the southern part from 25°S to 27°S, may have been glacier-free throughout the Quarternary, though perma-frost extends down to an altitude of 4,400 metres (14,400 ft) and is continuous above 5,600 metres (18,400 ft). Studies by a group of British scientists have suggested that some river beds have been dry for 120,000 years. This high and dry area is believed the result of the Humboldt Current running along the Pacific coast from Antarctica, it's unusually cold waters reduce the convective energy and water vapor available to produce rise and water vapor transport to the high desert. The Chilean Coast Range is believed to reduce the available moisture even more. The Atacama gets most of its water in the form of a moisture laden fog. It is the driest desert in the world. It's appearance has been compared to Mars. Death Valley is the lowest elevation in North America at 86 m (282 feet) below sea level. During the last ice age that ended 10,000 to 20,000 years ago the area was wetter, the valley was once a glacier feed lake almost 160 kilometers long and 183 meters deep. The Sahara in North Africa is to believed to have changed similarly with the end of the same glacial period. Loosing tropical forest plants and animals such as giraffe, hippo, crocodile and similar flora and fauna found currently 1,000 + kilometers to the south. The area was covered by a series of lakes that were populated by abundant fisheries able to support a substantial human population. The desertification began quickly and progressed rapidly possibly within one or two generations. The exodus of its population coincides with the beginning of the Nile Valley culture. Deserts are closely tied to glacial period climate. Inter-glacial periods, like the one we are currently in, coincide with many deserts around the world. There is evidence of these changes in the air borne dust called loess that are now layers of geographically traceable sediments found around the world in caves and lake bottoms. arc

DH and John, I stand corrected. " While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree." I'm sure that 41% are the ones I have been talking to, this area I live in votes very liberal. When you add the non-religious liberal individuals that claim a climate change skepticism that 41 % may be above 50% in my area. Also, I think skeptics are more likely to initiate climate conversation. Taking some national consensus figures; There are 63 million registered Democrats, 47 million registered Republicans, and 32 million registered as independents. That puts dems and reps pretty even on creation. Maybe also on climate change. So, you still have an up hill climb how are you going to change this? Insulting them maybe has backfired on the pro climate crowd. Now their probably dug in and obstinate. arc

John, I think you are correct; Years ago in my line of work, some workmen prepared to cut down a large electric advertising sign on top of a very tall steel pole. One of the workmen dropped the acetylene torch next to the pole and then broke for lunch. As they ate the pole was filled from the bottom below grade with acetylene from an open valve on the torch, the electrical access opening at the bottom of the column provided a slow air flow up inside the solar heated steel pylon to the large sign above. When the torch was applied to the base after lunch the gas exploded like a cannon, blowing the sign on top to pieces. The guys almost had heart attacks as debris shot out in all directions.

I think I just found the replacement for water-boarding.

Americans are not ignorant, but they weigh their freedom and hard earned dollars against everything pushed at them. Americans are weary of getting the short end of the stick. Everyone has a story passed down in their family, sometimes several generations back when their ancestors were cheated out of money or property. Many of these go back to the great depression. This is deeper and more ingrained in the American psyche than most people are aware of. Its that "waving grass" DH mentioned. Something came out of the grass and left an impression that lasted generations in some cases. On top of this, Americans are worn-down by the whole build it, turn around tear it down then have to move it, way things have turned out with some of the wind generation and other green projects. They have been subjected to long sometimes ridiculous debates at school and city counsel meetings over paper or plastic this or that. It's Green Fatigue, and they are so tired. They can smell the air and they think it says there's a leopard in the grass. When in doubt run like hell in the opposite direction. This is not irrational if you have already been bit. I have heard doubt about climate change from "average people" who I am very sure would not fall under the category mentioned by DH above and shown below. "radical right.This group leans more toward libertarianism as opposed than authoritarianism (except where libertarianism conflicts with other beliefs). Global warming strongly conflicts with the libertarian (minimal government), Ayn Randian ("smokestacks are beautiful"), paleo-orthodoxical religious views ("God made man to have dominion over the Earth") that predominate this group. This group is particularly susceptible to anti-intellectualism because, in their minds, they know that science oftentimes is dead wrong. Evolution is false, cosmology is false, astronomy is false. In their minds, global warming is yet another example of science getting it wrong." I'm not saying those people don't exist, I'm just pretty sure those are not the people I hear express doubt. These are people who appear to support more liberal politics. They just have more reservations than most Europeans. And insulting them will not win them over. Maybe it would have been smarter not to wear them down with years and years of petty arguments of less important concerns of the environment. In other words, environmentalists should have saved their ammunition for the big fight. So don't call Americans ignorant or unintelligent, they are wary of what sometimes lies waiting in tall grass.

They are neither bad nor good, they simply change the environment to their needs which in nature helps some species and challenges others. A series of dams on a tributary would create a habitat for a specific variety of species but would challenge a trout or salmon to run its length and locate sediment free gravel to spawn. The water temperature would vary greatly between the two environs, benefiting greatly one over the other to their respective inhabitants. The salmon need fast cool waters, dams on their habitat would not be beneficial. The salmons environment would attract its own specific variety of life, some of which may be shared with other environs. Now, am I referring to beavers or humans?

I believe the answer lies in the question. The third most populated. Or more accurately a very large population (third in the world) spread out over a large area. Americans have little to unit them in a unified mindset. China #1 and India #2 are quite homogeneous, due mainly I believe to long cultural histories of societal conformity pressures. In the case of China, crushing imperial nationalism followed by communism has a way of weeding out individualism and free thought. These social forces neither have had the time to develop (which I believe they never will) nor population homogeneity, so to speak, to produce a social mindset. The USA is much to ethnically, religiously and politically fragmented to ever be brought together by anything as complicated as climate change. What country is brought to mind by the phrase "Free Thinkers". What people of the world celebrate independence, free speech and going against the current of public opinion. America has always had a rebel attitude and is unlikely to change. Look to geographically smaller, ethnically uniform, religiously united, or in this case not, countries that will probably have a higher governmental control of media to unit with others to save the world.

I have an image of the Mad Hatter character. Could we at least send him a top hat. That way we could make a positive I.D. from the cable news reports.

I think I'm hooked already. I would assume no due to the degree of slope and lack of power in most fan driven vehicles, but a smooth beach would work well. But sand and high speed wind generating machinery makes for an airborne cloud of particulates. Sand is hard on mechanical systems. The faster a component moves the more erosion of material will occur in a given time period. The blades of the fan assembly are highly vulnerable along with any unsealed bearings. Surfaces that are exposed to the high speed sand can also erode quickly. The machine would need to be built of materials that could resist this abrasion. A rubber coating could resist most lower speed abrasives but engines and blades are still vulnerable. arc

This might help explain the current situation. Image courtesy of USGS Canada, so to speak started from scratch 20,000 years ago. The re-habitation of northern North America did not begin until the Laurentide ice sheet melted back from the coastal areas and its farthest reaches near the 38th latitude to the south in towards the interior. A process that may have taken a total of 10,000 years to remove the largest ice masses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet Its melting also caused major disruptions to the global climate cycle, because the huge influx of low-salinity water into the Arctic Ocean via the Mackenzie River is believed to have disrupted the formation of North Atlantic Deep Water, the very saline, cold, deep water that flows from the Greenland Sea. This interrupted the thermalhaline circulation, creating the brief Younger Dryas cold epoch and a temporary re-advance of the ice sheet, which did not retreat from Nunavik until 6,500 years ago. This ice sheet just didn't cap the Canadian land area, the glacial movements scoured the soil down to bed rock in some areas. What you see today in soil biology, the foundation of Canada's biodiversity, is mostly what had to regenerate as plants regrew and reestablished an ecology probably quite different than was there 120,000 years ago before the ice came. arc

Speaking as a person who in their youth had done some pretty stupid and dangerous things with little regard for those who's home and property could have suffered damage. (this would be my parents and their neighbors) not to mention the legal liabilities involved, have you considered the cost of decontaminating a home or neighboring properties of mercury. They have convicted and imprisoned violators of the environmental regulations that you will most likely be breaking. Mercury clean up involves bagging and removing contaminated materials (house) and soil to specific disposal sites. Maybe you should do a quick cost analysis before proceeding.

I'm curious, is smooth water or smooth land a more efficient surface for these craft? I would think smooth pavement with several centimeters of water (4 for lighter craft and up to 12+ for heaver machines) would work best. I would expect deeper water would begin to pulsate from irregular movements in the platform that would be amplified by the waters density vs the machines buoyancy. But this assumption could be wrong due to what has less friction on the skirt, pulsating water or dry pavement? I think I like smooth ice.

I live directly below two - 2,800,000 gal municipal water tanks. I assume all of these tanks are outside vented to facilitate water flow and the prevention of atmospheric pressure from crushing the tanks. I have seen tank implosion demonstrations also. I wonder if a partially full tank with a small or substantial draining taking place could with a venting malfunction sustain what appears to be an explosive failure due to the presence of a substantial water content. 1/2 full or so. I have also on several occasions had first hand observations of light galv. steel electrical raceways with a painted surface sustain an electrolysis processes that reduced it to crumbs in less than a year. They had been outdoors on the side of a masonry buildings. There was not a surface anyplace inside that was not without a rusty fuzz that resembled velvet. The processes began on the inside and worked outwards, the paint was the only real structure left. Could electrolysis provide the means for structural failure and/or means to create hydrogen gas within these tanks? arc

Split? Is that you in there?

It is an easy mistake. Similarly, I have caught myself several times associating an increasing depth and pressure with an increase in gravity. Gravity is highest at the surface and decreases with depth. If one such as I is not careful, it is carried to depth with pressure and multiplied. arc

This is definitely the future in rocket motor design. I was struck by the thought that in years past technology from the aerospace industry took many years to trickle down to lower level applications in light aircraft and automotive systems. You may be now applying technology that is currently in the most advanced electric cars. I can't even imagine what the technological possibilities of your concept would be if advanced in the traditional research and development of a space program. That would surly benefit the electric auto manufacturers need for advances in energy storage and delivery. arc

I believe the answer lies not in the motivations of industries or companies but those of the individuals that buy from them. To think back to the formation of the first cultural units, humans were motivated to develop there society by the personal desire for convenience. It is easier to hunt as a group. When you sleep in the cold a group maintains a higher core temperature. Prospective mates are more readily available in a group. Convenience then was closely related to surviving and successful reproduction. So convenience first drove behavior and then innovation. Pointed sticks gave way to cutting implements which lead to spears, I'm sure a sandal shoe was an early hit in hot rocky habitats. Move to colder climates and add sides and wear an animal hide. Convenience lead to raiding other groups and conflict. In this, they steal another groups culture by taking their women, children, tools, pottery, clothing and adornments as their own. The early civilizations were convenience on mass scale. The cultivation of grain and other cereal crops along with livestock showed what the desire for convenience can lead to. If you could not or would not bake a loaf of bread you could buy one because of the societies need for that convenience. Money to simplify equity within the convenience marketplace was itself the greatest convenience. To convert ones assets of cattle or wine to easily transported and hidden gold coins allowed convenience to grow into multinational military empires that levied taxes and built roads that made trade and travel convenient. And as a convenience, Inns and the towns that grew up around them were established along the roads based on a days travel. So people are the creator and driver of this convenience culture we now live in. It has been in continuous development since the first stone tool and cave drawings. The corporations that provide us with the conveniences of food and drink or anything else that has a measure of convenience are the product of our cultures desire to save time and money. That some within our society would desire a simpler life is understandable. But that ideal is based on a retracted form of convenience. One that fits their idea of lesser convenience, one that resembles fifty or a hundred years ago. The corner grocer or farmers market. Some chose to live that way as best they can within our society. But some have the desire to impose this simplistic life on the rest of society by claiming these companies are equivalents to organized crime syndicates. This is a worn out method to dissuade people from patronizing them. This has been used against one corporation after another. Think of everything that is a convenience of time and money and its manifestation in our culture, the car makers, oil producers, fast food, agra-businesses and big box stores have been the target of the anti-convenience movement. They fail to realize that these companies have developed to their present form due to the public response through patronage. If they were not meeting the public's expectations they would go somewhere else. The anti-convenience movement would say they drive the small businesses out by under cutting their prices. Yes that is true, because of their scale they have lower prices. That is the reality of free markets, one person's convenience is another's lost customer. This is not unlike in nature when plants and insects develop in response to each others biologic evolution. Have we all been so easily duped by corporate marketing? Or has the anti-convenience movement by their own dogma? I think a trip back to a crowded open air market in the 1880's would change some minds. Meat and produce exposed to the flies and the livestock used to transport it. Meat butchered in the street and sold, wrapped in old newspapers for transportation home. No refrigeration, no sanitary styrofoam trays or disposable plastic wrap. Those who offered these improvements gained the market advantage and grew, some became cultural icons. Can culture be bought? It is made with one satisfied customer at a time. arc

The mantle makes up 84% of the Earth's mass, add to that the molten outer core and you have with the crust the source of the pressure stated in the OP. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22297915 "Experiments outlined in Science used X-rays to probe tiny samples of iron at extraordinary pressures to examine how the iron crystals form and melt". ​ Are you suggesting an environment of 5000C with crystalline iron structuring in the center of an inner inner core has no pressure? If you are correct than does this structure owe its characteristics to electrical current of the field generator? Or?