The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » "A theory based on a guess . . . that is now a known falsehood" (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Andrew Zuber
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
2653 Posts

Profile of Andrew Zuber
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 22:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 21:08, Andrew Zuber wrote:
if you were a cop in the last ten years, you are still legally allowed to shoot at and arrest people



Ummmmmmm...

Don't even question me on this one. My dad's friend used to be a cop, and because he once let me ride in his police car, I am legally allowed to arrest you for questioning my authority on the matter.
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 17:29, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 16:31, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 10:04, Woland wrote:
No. What I am saying is that ... (4) the AGW "community" is full of frauds and hucksters.

Unlike guys who claim to be rocket scientists when they are not...

I used to be a rocket scientist; does that count?


Honest and for true?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 23:27, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 17:29, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 16:31, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 10:04, Woland wrote:
No. What I am saying is that ... (4) the AGW "community" is full of frauds and hucksters.

Unlike guys who claim to be rocket scientists when they are not...

I used to be a rocket scientist; does that count?

Honest and for true?

Honest and for true.

I designed single and multiple EFP warheads for ten years. One such warhead was designed to fit into a 2.75" rocket. If that ain't rocket science, nothing is.

(I also designed warheads for missiles, which are like rockets, and nobody's called a missile scientist, so that counts, too.)
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5015 Posts

Profile of landmark
Would it be indelicate to ask how you felt about designing WMDs and whether your feelings have changed over the years?
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
"Shut up!" he explained . . . .


* * * *


"E PUR SI MUOVE!"
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 01:19, landmark wrote:
Would it be indelicate to ask how you felt about designing WMDs and whether your feelings have changed over the years?

It wouldn't be indelicate, but it wouldn't be pertinent, either, as I never designed WMDs.

What I designed were warheads to be used in weapons intended to stop military vehicles; e.g., tanks and attack helicopters.

My feelings haven't changed: if we or our allies were being attacked by tanks or helicopters, I'd want them to have the best protection available.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 00:25, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 23:27, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 17:29, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 16:31, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 10:04, Woland wrote:
No. What I am saying is that ... (4) the AGW "community" is full of frauds and hucksters.

Unlike guys who claim to be rocket scientists when they are not...

I used to be a rocket scientist; does that count?

Honest and for true?

Honest and for true.

I designed single and multiple EFP warheads for ten years. One such warhead was designed to fit into a 2.75" rocket. If that ain't rocket science, nothing is.

(I also designed warheads for missiles, which are like rockets, and nobody's called a missile scientist, so that counts, too.)


Me and some friends made some bottle rockets once. They worked too Smile
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5015 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 11:50, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 01:19, landmark wrote:
Would it be indelicate to ask how you felt about designing WMDs and whether your feelings have changed over the years?

It wouldn't be indelicate, but it wouldn't be pertinent, either, as I never designed WMDs.

What I designed were warheads to be used in weapons intended to stop military vehicles; e.g., tanks and attack helicopters.

My feelings haven't changed: if we or our allies were being attacked by tanks or helicopters, I'd want them to have the best protection available.

Thanks for your reply, and again if you feel this isn't the place to discuss this stuff, I understand. But I am very interested in how people who design and/or construct weapons feel about their work. Would you feel the same about designing something like a drone?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 12:24, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 11:50, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 01:19, landmark wrote:
Would it be indelicate to ask how you felt about designing WMDs and whether your feelings have changed over the years?

It wouldn't be indelicate, but it wouldn't be pertinent, either, as I never designed WMDs.

What I designed were warheads to be used in weapons intended to stop military vehicles; e.g., tanks and attack helicopters.

My feelings haven't changed: if we or our allies were being attacked by tanks or helicopters, I'd want them to have the best protection available.

Thanks for your reply, and again if you feel this isn't the place to discuss this stuff, I understand. But I am very interested in how people who design and/or construct weapons feel about their work. Would you feel the same about designing something like a drone?

I cannot say, as I would have no interest in designing a drone.

The EFP warhead design process is incredibly interesting. The force that explosives unleash is almost unimaginable. In the first warhead test I witnessed, the warhead was a cylinder about 12 inches long and 4 inches in diameter, filled with about 3 lbs. of octol, with a 1 lb. tantalum plate on one side. The target was one ton of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) standing six feet from the warhead on the shot table. When the explosive detonated it formed the tantalum plate into an aerodynamically stable projectile that hit the target and knocked it six feet. A 1-lb. piece of tantalum moved 2,000 lbs. of steel six feet!

What's so amazing is that the designer uses that incredible explosive energy to form a piece of metal - usually copper or tantalum and called a liner - into an aerodynamically stable projectile. It's a delicate process, done with explosives. The mathematics I developed to design EFP liners was state-of-the-art in the mid-90s, and seems to have been state-of-the-art as recently as about 5 years ago. Much of my work involved warheads where the liner would fragment into multiple penetrators; my job was to ensure that the pattern of impacts on the target was controllable and repeatable.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5015 Posts

Profile of landmark
I can imagine that the mathematics needed to figure out the patterns of multiple penetrators must be really complex. Thanks for the mini lesson on how warheads work--I had no idea that's what happened. It must be quite an interesting problem to figure out.
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 13:59, Andrew Zuber wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-18 12:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
I think that regardless of anything scary in the future, we NEED to be good stewards of our planet. I like to think that perhaps we could leave the planet just a little bit better than we found it. Lofty goal? Perhaps but easily doable.

Exactly - which is why I find it hard to understand the motivation behind anyone saying "Hey, things are fine, CO2 isn't a problem, it's all a scam." Really? So carbon dioxide emissions are good for the planet? Is that what we're saying? And if that's not what's being said, then what's all this about? Why not strive to make our earth a healthier, better place? If I leave a heap of garbage at a camp site, is that going to destroy the entire ecosystem? No. That doesn't mean I should do it anyway.

And I'm sorry, but there is no way that pollution levels today are lower than they were 1,000 years ago. The world may be a better place to live because we have better health care, indoor plumbing and heat, and a few other conveniences that make us comfortable and extend our lives, but saying the world is a better place to live now than it was then isn't related to the health of our planet.
Carbon dioxide emissions are good for the planet, plants need Co2 for photosynthesis. That said carbon monoxide, mercuric oxide and other poisonous gases are a problem.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 14:03, Tom Bartlett wrote:

Carbon dioxide emissions are good for the planet, plants need Co2 for photosynthesis.

And carbon dioxide emissions are also used as a fumigant to kill pests. And, of course, many people have died because of it (e.g., miners).

So what's your point?

Mine would be that too much of even a good thing can be deadly.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 14:03, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Carbon dioxide emissions are good for the planet, plants need Co2 for photosynthesis.


While it is true that plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, it does not follow that more CO2 is better for the planet. By analogy, we need water to live, but if the world were flooded, we wouldn't survive.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
But Magnus, then explain why greenhouse operators spend a fortune on carbon dioxide generators.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Are you serious, Woland?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 14:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 14:03, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Carbon dioxide emissions are good for the planet, plants need Co2 for photosynthesis.

While it is true that plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, it does not follow that more CO2 is better for the planet. By analogy, we need water to live, but if the world were flooded, we wouldn't survive.

What if we had an ark?
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
I am serious about the benefits of CO2 for plants, and I think those benefits far outweigh the unproven hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with climate.

Here are two companies that sell CO2 generators for greenhouses:

http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp

http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/greenh......om_a.htm
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
What we really have, is an over abundance of man made BS and it is doing more damage than anyone can estimate.

I forgot the smiley face: Smile
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 14:48, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 14:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 14:03, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Carbon dioxide emissions are good for the planet, plants need Co2 for photosynthesis.

While it is true that plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, it does not follow that more CO2 is better for the planet. By analogy, we need water to live, but if the world were flooded, we wouldn't survive.

What if we had an ark?


And an indefinite supply of food?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-05-19 14:52, Woland wrote:
I am serious about the benefits of CO2 for plants, and I think those benefits far outweigh the unproven hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with climate.

Here are two companies that sell CO2 generators for greenhouses:

http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp

http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/greenh......om_a.htm


CO2 is good. It does not follow that more CO2 is better.

In a greenhouse you have a highly unnatural environmnent for plants, so you have to supply extra water and nutrients, and you can increase benefit by increasing CO2.

And you can grow wheat on the desert if you irrigate.

What in the world does this have to do with radiative forcing in the upper atmosphere?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » "A theory based on a guess . . . that is now a known falsehood" (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.22 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL