Sun Catalytix

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:50 pm

To be serious, meteor strikes don't destroy the earth, they just cause some disruption. The severity/effect calc goes;
probability:100%
severity: a bit of widespread species extinction and generations of ice ages

this differs to the possible H2 effects;
probability: 0.01% (?)
severity: death to life on earth

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:57 pm

chrismb wrote:To be serious, meteor strikes don't destroy the earth, they just cause some disruption. The severity/effect calc goes;
probability:100%
severity: a bit of widespread species extinction and generations of ice ages

this differs to the possible H2 effects;
probability: 0.01% (?)
severity: death to life on earth


Hard to tell the difference in terms of humans.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:04 pm

MSimon wrote:Hard to tell the difference in terms of humans.
Sure but if you do safety analyses then you should know that these two calcs show fundamental differences to the approach. The former [meteors] clearly requires action to manage it [it's not if but when], the latter requires more information before you can hope to judge how to manage the risk - but no-one's looking because most think it is innocuous.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:55 pm

chrismb wrote:
MSimon wrote:Then why aren't you on about large meteor strikes?

I do. Just not here as it is well served by others. I only wonder if the next one will hit N America and induce a double-caldera eruption to boot. It'd probably happen during a solar storm whilst the magnetic fields are reversing and as salination inclines change and arrest normal oceanic currents.

Those who have spent their careers worrying over the minutiae of a few extra 100ppm of CO2 will, presumably, feel "a bit small".

Why d'you think I go to bed with a dust-bin lid on my head and a paper bag nearby?


I'd put the likelihood of your fears being realized at 10^-30 per year. Why? Because UV breaks H from H2O and has been going on for billions of years. And all you have to show for it is an equilibrium concentration of 500 ppb? Well live in fear if you like. Lots of people do.

Not to mention cosmic rays. If H2 (or H) was accumulating it would be noticed.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:30 pm

MSimon wrote:I'd put the likelihood of your fears being realized at 10^-30 per year. Why? Because UV breaks H from H2O and has been going on for billions of years. And all you have to show for it is an equilibrium concentration of 500 ppb?
But that's my point. You've no real idea that this is a major or minor process.

There is a common bacteria in soil that appears to release most of the hydrogen. there are similarly that absorb it. So, of course, some H gets out, some gets in. When the concentrations go up, so it sinks to the soil. Most of the ppb emissions appear to, currently, sink. Implies the concentrations are 'above normal', no?

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:38 pm

chrismb wrote:
MSimon wrote:I'd put the likelihood of your fears being realized at 10^-30 per year. Why? Because UV breaks H from H2O and has been going on for billions of years. And all you have to show for it is an equilibrium concentration of 500 ppb?
But that's my point. You've no real idea that this is a major or minor process.

There is a common bacteria in soil that appears to release most of the hydrogen. there are similarly that absorb it. So, of course, some H gets out, some gets in. When the concentrations go up, so it sinks to the soil. Most of the ppb emissions appear to, currently, sink. Implies the concentrations are 'above normal', no?


I blame it on too much oxygen. The atmosphere of the Earth once had very little oxygen. Implies the concentrations are 'above normal', no?

And if the source and sink are mainly biologic doesn't that imply that that things can't get too far out of whack? The number of hydrogen "predators" will increase.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Warthog
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:43 pm
Location: Fox Island, WA

Hydrogen 'Fraidy Cats

Postby Warthog » Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:40 am

Guys, I have bad news for you. Hydrogen is ALREADY an "industrial scale gas". The US alone produces and uses 9 MILLION TONS per year. One company alone (Air Products) has over a thousand miles of dedicated hydrogen pipelines in use.

Hydrogen is used every day, from scales of a few cc/min up to tons/second, in thousands of locations across the country, and it's all done safely. Handling of hydrogen is NOT something new in the world. We already know how to do it safely.

So please, lay off the "hydrogen is obscenely dangerous" hoopla. Once upon a time, gasoline was considered "obscenely dangerous", and look where THAT got us.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Hydrogen 'Fraidy Cats

Postby MSimon » Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:43 am

Warthog wrote:Guys, I have bad news for you. Hydrogen is ALREADY an "industrial scale gas". The US alone produces and uses 9 MILLION TONS per year. One company alone (Air Products) has over a thousand miles of dedicated hydrogen pipelines in use.

Hydrogen is used every day, from scales of a few cc/min up to tons/second, in thousands of locations across the country, and it's all done safely. Handling of hydrogen is NOT something new in the world. We already know how to do it safely.

So please, lay off the "hydrogen is obscenely dangerous" hoopla. Once upon a time, gasoline was considered "obscenely dangerous", and look where THAT got us.


I thought I made that point. We know how to do it. Can it be made cheap enough for residential? That was my question.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Hydrogen 'Fraidy Cats

Postby chrismb » Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:02 am

Warthog wrote:Guys, I have bad news for you. Hydrogen is ALREADY an "industrial scale gas". The US alone produces and uses 9 MILLION TONS per year.

OK, so the only issue is that I didn't clarify was what "industrial scale" actually means.

Let me restate it: if hydrogen was to replace all fossil fuels, then the LEAKAGE ALONE (not usage, but just that which escapes into the atmosphere) is estimated by researchers (with current tech) to be 60 MILLION TONS pa.

So, I say again, we have no prior experience of this.

I should also add that the hydrogen emitted into the atmosphere might already be having the effect I have suggested, just that currently it is masked by bigger atmospheric agents;
- ozone depletion (what fraction is due to H2 and not CFCs?) and
- acidification of sea and soil (what fraction is H2 and not CO2?).

Show me what fraction of these outcomes is H2 (or are you saying it absolutely has totally zero effect?) and then the conversation can be usefully extended.

I'm just seeking the numbers and the data. I'm not saying it's a problem, what I'm saying is that we won't get to know if it's a problem or not whilst everyone shakes their heads and says "that won't be a problem".

Facts. Let's deal with some real facts and data. If the data says "zero" effect then I don't believe it. If the data says "0.0000000000x% effect" then we can discount it. If it says otherwise then let's look at it. I'm just after numbers that no-one has bothered considering.

It'd be a shame if we "fix" all the considered problems of fossil fuel - only to destroy the atmosphere with the very solution which has been derived. I would get no pleasure in being found right in my concerns if, at some future juncture, people realise that the operation "solving" fossil fuels and CO2 was a great success, but "the patient died"!

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:18 am

chris,

Are you still buying into that ozone depletion crap? That was debunked ages ago.

You see CFC's were running out of patent and Dow (or was it duPont? I'd have to look it up) needed a mandated replacement to keep the profits flowing.

Seriously - you can't believe how corrupted the sciences are. Esp. enviro science. Those guys are for sale. Nearly totally.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:36 am

http://www.discerningtoday.org/ozone_depl_twilight_.htm

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8645

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/g ... zone-hole/

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/was_th ... re_a_scam/

This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.
Last edited by MSimon on Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:47 am



ARE YOU KIDDING ME, WITH THIS QUOTE!!!


MSimon wrote:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/was_th ... re_a_scam/

The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:56 am

chrismb wrote:

ARE YOU KIDDING ME, WITH THIS QUOTE!!!


MSimon wrote:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/was_th ... re_a_scam/

The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.


There is a one part in 10^10 chance that it is wrong.

At the website of the Swedish meteorological institute the SMHI, measurements of the ozone layer over Norrköping in this year and in the period from February 1988 to the present are shown and compared to measurements for nearby Uppsala from 1951 to 1966, in two continually updated graphs. The graph for this year, 2006, shows how the Norrköping ozone layer's thickness has varied with the seasons so far, which has been precisely within those bounds which were found back in 1951-1966. The long-term graph, from 1988 to July of this year, shows that the mean thickness of the ozone layer over Norrköping - and thus at all other points on the globe which have the same latitude - has been precisely constant. Its variation has been ±0.0% per decade in that time, and there has not been a decrease after the 1951-1966 Uppsala measurement period.

[Note, 28.08.2006: Actually, the (level) trend line for Norrköping 1988-2006 in the long-term graph lies 2% lower than that for Uppsala 1951-1966, indicating a slightly (2 %) lower mean ozone layer thickness in the later period compared to the earlier. But if there in fact had been ozone depletion, that Norrköping line would have shown a negative trend and would not have been perfectly level, showing no change at all in 1988-2006.]

Supposedly, according to the "ozone hole" propaganda, the global ozone layer would "continue to be depleted" for several decades also after the CFC bans of 1987 etc, since these substances would "continue to reach the stratosphere" - indeed, the "very worst depletion" would occur "around 2000-2002", this propaganda said. The SMHI measurements, as everybody can see, clearly refute this, and refute the entire proposition that a "global ozone layer depletion" has occurred after the 1950s-60s. (This does not prevent some false "ozone hole" propaganda from being disseminated by the SMHI website too.)

It obviously was because this hoax is so very difficult to "uphold" today that the US government's "official" propagandists on this subject recently tried an "assuaging" angle. In a statement on 23.08 headlined "Global Response to Ozone Hole Is 'Unprecedented' Success", referring to and intended to "justify" the continued bans against the CFCs, they said that the "Antarctic ozone hole" seemed to be "no longer[!]" widening, that however it "could close [only] sometime after 2060[!]" and that "CFCs last from 50 years to 100 years in the atmosphere, so it will take that much longer for the ozone layer to recover[!] even after decreasing CFC emissions."

Since there never was any "dangerous Antarctic ozone hole" nor any "damage to the global ozone layer" "caused by" CFCs, this was completely mendacious too. The continued harmful bans against these substances should be exposed and combated as one part of the imperialist bourgeoisie's "green" warfare against the people in all countries.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8645
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:58 am

The dramatic new satellite ozone data, featured on the cover, are from the Crista-Spas ensemble of instruments, designed by scientists at the University of Wuppertal in Germany, which was deployed by the Space Shuttle in November 1994. The Crista team announced its first results at a press conference in Bonn on Nov. 6, 1995, but the results of the mission were barely covered in the European press, and not covered at all in the United States.

Crista-Spas is a group of instruments (Crista), deployed on a space platform (Spas), that measures atmospheric gases in such detail that it can create three-dimensional images of the distribution of the gases in the stratosphere (see Crista-Spas Project). As the German scientists told the press, these 3-D images show that the models behind the ozone depletion scare are completely, and axiomatically, wrong. In the words of Germany's Die Welt newspaper Nov. 7, the evidence presented at this press conference means that "all ozone computer models produced so far have, in effect, turned into waste paper. [Makulatur]."

The Crista-Spas is one of those unique experiments that gives scientists a look at the real processes that shape the atmosphere. Like the early weather satellites that showed us the first top-down, global views of hurricanes and storm systems, Crista-Spas has now provided us with the first set of three-dimensional images of atmospheric gases. Crista-Spas is able to monitor 15 atmospheric gases in great depth and detail. It is a joint project of the University of Wuppertal and the German Space Agency (DARA) together with NASA.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:04 am

The "Ozone Layer" - what's going on?

Additional material August 2006.
Major 'Oops!' September 2007: Chemists poke holes in ozone theory: Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.

http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html


Is stratospheric ozone "disappearing" around the world? No. The adjacent plot is from Mauna Loa Observatory and changes, if any, are trivial compared with variability throughout the year.

Returning to "the hole", is the resultant surface UV irradiation high compared with the rest of the world? Nope, the tropics are much more heavily irradiated every single day (it's part of the "tropical paradise" thing). In fact, the bulk of the temperate zones are more heavily irradiated than the region "under the hole" every clear day of the year.

Is "the hole" of any real significance to people or the planet? Not so far as anyone can tell.

Should we worry about it? Unless you're a scientist earning a living from it, it's probably not worth a second thought.


You are supposed to be a sceptic chris. When did you get sucked into the vortex of enviro junk science?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests