Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rob Dekker]

"nurk" <nurk@nurk.com> wrote in message news:6guibvFhnf7kU1@mid.individual.net...

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
nurk <nurk@nurk.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker wrote
John Larkin wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

That's one possible explanation.
I have another one :

No you dont.

Yes I do. It's right here :

Nope, it isnt.

They looked at the presented evidence very carefully, and very thoroughly and after considerable analysis and looking at the
facts came to the conclusion that the evidence showed 'beyond reasonable doubt'

No they didnt. Thats the CRIMINAL test, not the civil test.

Picky with words ?

Pathetic excuse for bullshit in your case.

that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy and ultimately our health as well.

The Supreme Court didnt even do that. They ACTUALLY found that the EPA
does have the legal say on CO2 emissions from cars, a different matter entirely.

You can make the same stupid claim about water too.

Not unless the water is created by human activity.

Wrong again. The legislation that the Supremes ruled on doesnt just cover human activity.

Which makes it a pollutant.

Pity about water.

Not unless the water is created by human activity.

Wrong again. The legislation that the Supremes ruled on doesnt just cover human activity.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably to be right ?

It aint a binary choice.

It kind of is :

Nope.

Human induced CO2 emissions are a pollutant or not.

That aint what the supremes ruled on.

Yes it did. And re-emphesized it :
The Court had no problem determining that man-made greenhouse gas emissions were pollutants, because the Clean Air Act AND Global
Climate Protection Act had already determined that (albeit implicitly). The Supreme Court put these two together and clarified that
they clearly are air pollutants.
They did not even have to add an opinion to conclude that.

You can talk until the cows come home, but your opinion in this is rather irrelevant : The Supreme Court made a decision that it
is (a pollutant).

No it didnt. It actually made a decision that the EPA does have the legislative
authority to deal with CO2 when it comes from some sources, but not with others.

That was just the first question : if the EPA has the authority to regulate man-made CO2 emissions.
Since greenhouse gasses are clearly air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (see above), that question was easily answered : They do
have the authority.

But it got even better : The second question question was if the EPA should act on their authority or not.

That one was deliberated in the ruling (link below), and the Court finds that at least for emissions from new vehicles that the EPA
has an OBLIGATION to act under the Clean Air Act. The Court did not enforce such an obligation for other forms of (man-made) CO2
emissions. Yet.

It gave the EPA one way out (of not acting) : Form a scientific judgement showing that greenhouse gas emissions and climate change
are NOT related.

Read the whole thing here again :
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/05-1120P.ZO

Couple of interesting quotes :
Page 3: "Finding that .manmade pollution.the release of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and other trace gases into the
atmosphere.may be producing a long-term and substantial increase in the average tem-perature on Earth,"

Page 30 : "Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant', ......"

Page 31 : "EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to
regulate."

End of story,

Nope, nothing like the actual story.

Right. The story is not over yet. There will surely be more legal action if the EPA fails to act on greenhouse gas emissions.

unless they overturn the decision.

And that too. The Congress can change the EPA legislation if it wants to too.

Unlikely.
Page 4: "Congress emphasized that .ongoing pollution and deforestation may be contributing now to an irreversible process. and that
[n]ecessary actions must be identified and implemented in time to protect the climate.."

Congress would have to reverse that statement before EPA responsibility could be changed.

Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better than you did ?

They obviously didnt when they would have come to the same conclusion about water.

Once our human induced water emissions end up increasing the water quantity on the planet by more than 50% I'm sure the Supreme
Court will look at the impact of that,

Your surety is completely irrelevant. Thats nothing like the Supreme Court's role.

It will as soon as someone presents them with a case.

and determine if these human-induced water emissions are damaging to the planet and our heath and need to be regulated.

The Supreme Court didnt even do that with CO2.

They did. See above.

ALL they actually did was rule that the current EPA legislation allows the EPA to deal with SOME CO2 sources.

A different matter entirely.

Not just 'allow the EPA', but 'force the EPA' is what they decided.
There is a big difference.

Meanwhile, you are free to appeal the Supreme Court decision with the 'water' argument.

Not even possible, it isnt something that the Supreme Court gets any say what so ever on.

Good luck with it.

Dont need any luck, just an understanding of the Supreme Court's role.

Its nothing like what you claim it is.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote

Jerry Kraus wrote
Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote
jmfbahciv wrote
j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote

Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove
them wrong! Example- DNA research will have no utility, Crude
flying machines will never be useful for transport. The list
goes on and on.-

Ummm....The science of Genetics, the basis for DNA research, was
developed by Gregor Mendel, a Monk and Abbott, not a professional
scientist. The airplane was invented by the Wright brothers,
bicycle mechanics, not professional scientists. My criticisms are
not of the process of science, or the concept of science, but of
the professional scientific bureaucracy, specifically. Which I
consider to be exceedingly self-serving, inefficient, and corrupt.

Neither of you seems to know the difference between science and engineering.

Nor how many model airplanes the Wrights made.

I think one could make a case that the Wright brothers development
and use of a wind tunnel involved doing science in the traditional
sense. They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.

The fact that they continued on through the engineering stages
of designing, building, and test flying successful aircraft based
on their original research shouldn't really detract from their
fundamental scientific efforts which enabled them to reach that goal.

See:http://www.wrightflyer.org/WindTunnel/testing1.html-

The question is, why did the Wright Brothers realize
the necessity of the Wind Tunnel, while no one else did?

I'd say it's because they were skeptics.

More fool you. It was actually a useful idea that allowed them to work out how flying machines work.

To this day, most successful pilots are highly skeptical, and tend not to take things for granted.

And fuck all of them bother to use wind tunnels to prove that a particular aircraft will fly.

Skepticism is also one of the requirements for true science.

Irrelevant to whether they were engineers or scientists.

Once the wind tunnel had been invented, the development
of manned flight was inevitable. Without it, people like Otto
Lillenthal broke their necks before they could get much work done.

 

[Rod Speed]

John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.

And thats just engineering, not science.

Look at the state of science in 1903.

It was a hell of a lot more than just engineering even at that time.

Most obviously with what Curie and Rutherford etc were getting up to etc.

Pasteur in spades.

It is silly to judge things outside of their own time.

No one is doing anything like that.

I could be as silly and suggest that if a scientist did that today he would come up with a theory, peers would review
it, and nobody would ever get off the ground. Oh, well I just said it.

Anyone with a clue would have noticed that birds and insect fly fine.

And that kites had been doing that for millennia too.

 

[Rod Speed]

John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

And there was plenty of manned flight that didnt use windtunnels at all.

After the Wrights had worked out the first hard part.

Nope, the others didnt all use what they worked out.

Improving is far easier than making the break-through.

They made no 'break-thru'

They just happened to be arguably the first to demonstrate powered manned flight.

That would have happened even if they had crashed and been killed, by others.

 

In sci.physics John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.

And thats just engineering, not science.

Look at the state of science in 1903. It is silly to judge things
outside of their own time.

That things can fly had been know since the first caveman saw the
first bird.

That manmade things can fly had been known for many hundreds, if not
thousands of years.

That a glider, kite, or balloon could fly carrying a human had been known
for many years.

The engineering problems that the Wrights solved were could an engine
be small enough and still powerfull enough to keep a man carrying
aircraft in the air and control of the direction of flight.

This doesn't belittle the Wright's accomplishments, but there were
no new laws, theorems or science as a result of their work.

They did, however, establish a new field of engineering.

If you want to know why the water in your toilet swirls, ask a physicist.

If you want know how to build a toilet that works, ask an engineer.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rob Dekker]

<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:96625e68-87a8-4770-97b5-3d241c105816@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

That's one possible explanation.
I have another one :

They looked at the presented evidence very carefully, and very thoroughly and after considerable analysis and looking at the
facts
came to the conclusion that the evidence showed 'beyond reasonable doubt' that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our
economy
and ultimately our health as well. Which makes it a pollutant.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably to be right ?
Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better than you did ?

Maybe oxygen is a pollutant too ?

Once our oxygen emissions end up increasing the O2 quantity in the atmosphere by more than 50% that question would be a good one
to
investigate.

2 orders of magnitude more than CO2 emissions?

What activity would cause that?

None.
It was to show that O2 cannot be considered a pollutant, since it does not 'endanger public health or welfare' (to use the Supreme
Court definition) until we change the concentration very significantly.

Bret Cahill

 

[KMK]

"Tom Biasi" <tombiasi***@optonline.net> wrote in
newsPydnY64F-5q6DTVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@giganews.com:

"RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f29d6cf5-7887-4670-9353-d4f82fefb9dc@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 15, "Tom Biasi" <tombiasi...@optonline.net> wrote:
What is a static power switch?

What would happen if you typed "What is a static power switch?"
into Google?

[snip]

I actually tried "What is a static power switch?" and
"static power switch" at both google, and ask.com.

ask.com has an "expand your search" box, which listed, among other terms, "on
off switch", which is how I got to the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch
but it has nothing about "static power switch" or "static switch".
ask.com has 3850 hits for "static switch", but I can't tell whetehr those are
the same as "static power switch".

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

So what's causing the climate change? ?We see that the sunspot
correlation is crapola. ?Is the climate changing and the north pole
melting because we fart too much? ?Are you seeing something in coal
that you do not see in auto exhausts and can you formulate a
correlation?

Particulates.

Diesel puts out more and exactly where you don't want it.

Check with The Trucker but I understand that semi-rigs will soon be
required to be retrofitted with cat converters like cars ~ $10,000.

California just prohibited ships from burning of cost effective bunker
oil within 25 miles of the coast.

Some cancers were 500 times more prevalent near Long Beach than the inland deserts.

Bare faced lie.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48AA5CA8.EE36D32F@hotmail.com...

nurk wrote:

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
nurk <nurk@nurk.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker wrote
John Larkin wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

<snipped long yes-no dialog>

Its nothing like what you claim it is.

Considering it came from Rob Dekker, that's hardly surprising !

That's not nice Graham.
There is no reason for your statement.

Maybe he ought to learn about the carbon cycle ?

Don't get me started.
I've had discussions with global warming deniers many times about all
aspects of the subject.
It has been a big waste of my time. Even hard data gets denied or twisted,
similar to how evolution deniers deny data or twist it.

Thank you. I'm done.

Graham

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48AA5BFF.24B6F5C6@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Rob Dekker wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote

Sure. Light, aerodynamic vehicles that don't go very far will in
fact
reduce pollution.

Right, but that's not what was stated in the studies.

What was stated is that vehicles driven from grid electricity pollute
significantly less that similar vehicles driven from gasoline or
diesel.

When you do a 'total environmental impact' analysis I very much doubt
that
actually unless the electricity is all coming from nukes.

Sigh. So in France all air pollution problems are solved now ?

France is merely part of a large continent so it imports pollution from
the surrounding countries but I
wouldn't be surprised if thier air IS cleaner than the average.

Paris stifled by smog shroud :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1467515.stm

Rob

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48AA7813.9D63AC61@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

Paris stifled by smog shroud :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1467515.stm

Too many ancient 2CVs I expect.

Los Angeles then. Modern cars, strictest emission standards in the world,
and no coal fired power plants in the area : "Los Angeles Most Polluted US
City, According To American Lung Association Report"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070501081737.htm

Do you want me to continue ?

Face it dude : The ICE is responsible for the majority of air pollution in
all cities around the world.

Far dirtier than electricity generation, no matter by which means that is
generated.
Possible exception are the old coal fired power plants, but only for SO2 and
particulates.
And it's time these dirty plants get cleaned up too, and they will.
The UK seems to have the biggest, dirtiest coal plants with major problems
with particulates.
Is that why you prefer your Saab with air filter system over EVs ?

If so, then we are talking at different levels.
Here in California, "environmental impact studies" deal with issues like "is
it environmentally acceptable to have high-voltage wires running through the
desert (nature preserve), to reach solar power that are going to be built."
That's at a different level than filtering SO2 from coal power plants.

Rob

 

[Andy F.]

<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:751e2011-1173-4ce2-81f3-fb1200bbe6e4@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

This is not a wager. It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

The rules are simple.

1. The letterhead must be from Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von Mises
Inst.*

2. The Question must appear in the body of the letter.

3. Some text must appear to be an answer to The Question, either a
"yes" or "no" or "I dunno."

4. The signature of the outspoken economist must appear in the
letter.

5. Email BretCahill@aol.com a copy in an attached pdf or tiff file
along with a mailing address. If you are really secretive include a
map of a stump or pipe where I can stuff the cash. (Lower 48 only.)


* Other shill tanks may be considered.

Don't be silly. A professional economist with a job at the Cato Institute

isn't going to waste their time writing articles for $200.

 

[Bob Masta]

On 18 Aug 2008 10:47:16 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

you make the lock-in amplifier sound very much like a synchronous
detector. in-fact if you're not implementing the PLL it seems more
like a synchronous detector than it is a lock-in amplifier.

Exactly so! Hardware lock-in amplifiers are just sine and cosine
synchronous detectors with PLLs to sync to an external reference. I
don't know what the current situation is, but for years the lock-in
designers were off in the ozone somewhere. The typical design had a
built-in reference oscillator that appeared to be an afterthought...
it was completely separate, and even in models that allowed you to
change the reference frequency remotely (via control voltage or serial
bus), it still had to go through the PLL. Which meant you had to wait
for the PLL to settle ("acquire lock") instead of instant response
like they would have gotten had they just allowed the oscillator to
*be* the reference.

It seems there are not that many applications that really need to sync
to an independent external reference these days. The original
lock-ins were used with optical choppers, where the reference depended
on the rotation of a wheel. (And they used simple switches instead of
true multipliers, so they were effectively multiplying by square waves
and thus were sensitive to all the odd harmonics.)

Ahh, the good old days... <g>

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v4.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Bob Masta]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:55:28 -0700 (PDT), "jalbers@bsu.edu"
<jalbers@bsu.edu> wrote:

I am experimenting with various OP amp circuits based on the 741 . I
know that it is an old op amp but I have a bunch of them and I am not
trying to build anything important right now. Just trying to learn.
For example I have been experimenting with a peak detector circuit
using a single 741, diode, and capacitor. I am using a DVOM with
about 10Meg ohm input impedance to measure voltage drops at various
places around the circuit and seeing what happens. I have a feeling
that the impedance of the DVOM is putting more of an effect on the
circuit than what I would like. I am currencly using a Circuitmate
DM25L DVOM.

I am looking for an OP amp that I could use to make a voltage follower
to boost the input impedance of my DVOM up considerably. I am
primarly experimenting with DC and low frequence AC signals. I would
also like the op amp to be in a DIP package so I can plug it into my
solderless breadboard.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

I agree with the post that suggested you probably don't need a higher
impedance than the DMM already has. And you probably would discover
that it caused more problems than it solved, if you had a really high
impedance and tried to depend upon it. *Everything* is an issue at
really high impedances (say 100 Meg and above)... you start needing
special glass-bodied resistors, and teflon stand-offs, and guard rings
around the junctions on your circuit boards, and deionized water
rinse... ugh!

The other post suggested intrumentation amps, which is surely the
correct way to do this with the least fuss. But since you are
experimenting, you might want to experiment with designing your own
instrumentation amp instead of buying one in a chip. It won't be as
good, but lots more educational. There are lots of different basic
instrumentaion amp circuits you can play with. Most ordinary op-amp
app notes include a few examples. I'd suggest any decent BiFet op
amp, such as the LF351, TL081, or multiples.

One thing you will discover is that "input impedance" doesn't tell the
whole story... you also need low bias current. And the main virtue of
an instrumentation amp is low common mode rejection. You can use a
trimpot on the CMRR adjustment of your homebrew InAmp, and you can
actually get stupendous CMRR (even from an InAmp made with 741s!) ...
for a few seconds, until things drift. (That's one of the things you
pay for in a packaged InAmp.) Highly educational!

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v4.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Yukio YANO" <yano@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7Xsqk.17891$hx.14748@pd7urf3no...

Mr. INTJ wrote:
Hi,

I have a problem - our dog has developed a phobia of smoke alarm
beeps. She's always been afraid during thunderstorms, but this smoke
detector thing is a whole new level of abject terror for her. It's
gotten to the point where if one of them even pips briefly (due to low
battery), she trembles all over, and tries to burrow under furniture
(usually at some ungodly hour of the morning).

OK, so I did what any responsible adult would do... I disconnected
every single smoke detector in the house. It was only supposed to be
short-term, but behavior mod. on our dog was $$$ and ineffective, and
after several months, I still don't have a solution.

MORE INFO:

Not all beeps are created equal - only certain combinations of
frequency, amplitude (and possibly waveform) strike terror in her. I'm
a software guy by trade, but I play an EE in my spare time, so when
this first started happening, I opened one of the smoke detectors and
examined it - hoping there'd be a simple R-C circuit that I could
modify in some way to alter things enough that it wouldn't freak out
the dog.

Of course there's a big piezo disc in there that's responsible for the
piercing beeps, and it was put together in such a way that I concluded
at the time that the pitch was tied to the physical dimensions of the
disc itself (a kind of mechanical buzzer), vs. the signal being
applied... does this sound possible, or was I sleep-deprived that day?

Can anyone shed more light on this?

Thanks.

Mr. INTJ
San Diego, CA
I have a different proposal. In my household the Smoke Alarm usually
fires up when Dinner is almost ready ! The poor Dog is just going to have
to learn that the smoke alarm is also FEEDING TIME ! The trick now
becomes, "How to reliably trigger the smoke alarm at feeding time, so the
dog listens for the Smoke Detector. My dog tells me!, when it is 5:00 pm
and 11:00pm.

Yukio YANO

Instead of waking you up in a fire he will sit by his bowl with his tongue
out.

Tom

 

[Tom Biasi]

"KMK" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:xIqdnaChBuLa_zfVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@giganews.com...

"Tom Biasi" <tombiasi***@optonline.net> wrote in
newsPydnY64F-5q6DTVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@giganews.com:


"RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f29d6cf5-7887-4670-9353-d4f82fefb9dc@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 15, "Tom Biasi" <tombiasi...@optonline.net> wrote:
What is a static power switch?

What would happen if you typed "What is a static power switch?"
into Google?

[snip]

I actually tried "What is a static power switch?" and
"static power switch" at both google, and ask.com.

ask.com has an "expand your search" box, which listed, among other terms,
"on
off switch", which is how I got to the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch
but it has nothing about "static power switch" or "static switch".
ask.com has 3850 hits for "static switch", but I can't tell whetehr those
are
the same as "static power switch".

Try this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3726/is_200203/ai_n9070736

 

[Kris Krieger]

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in
news:cmnqk.18623$mh5.1216@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48A9EE8C.8AE9485D@hotmail.com...
[snip]

Maybe oxygen is a pollutant too ?

Once our oxygen emissions end up increasing the O2 quantity in the
atmosphere by more than 50% that question would be a good one to
investigate.

IIRC, during the Carboniferous period, insects were able to reach such huge
size (such as the infamous dragonflies with wingspans of nearly 3 feet)
becasue the percentage of oxygen in the air was very high - at that ime,
there were also supposedly more fires due to the resulting ease of combusion
(e.g. from lightening), although I don't recall whetehr that last point was
based on evidence or theory. One thing I don't recall ever reading or
hearing concerns ozone - lower-level ozone is considered a pollutant, because
it irritates human and animal respiratory membranes, but upper-level ozone
shields the earth from much UV radiation/light. One would assume that a
higher oxygen level should lead to a higher ozone level, but I don't know
whether that assumuption is correct (still looking).

HTH

- Kris

 

[Rod Speed]

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote

In the example, the Power Station is powered with a MAN 5S50ME-C7 low speed engine (95 RPM, 3'800 kW power, 159
gr/kWh specific fuel oil consumption):

Thats irrelevant, hardly anyone is stupid enough to do a power station that way anymore.

It burns also natural gas (with some modifications) ...

If you're gunna power it with natural gas, you dont use that sort of engine either.

Why not ?

Because other approaches work a lot better.

50% efficiency is very good.

Not with natural gas powered power stations of any size.

 

[Rod Speed]

John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

I could be as silly and suggest that if a scientist did that today
he would come up with a theory, peers would review it, and nobody would ever get off the ground. Oh, well I just
said it.

Anyone with a clue would have noticed that birds and insect fly fine.

They beat their wings, too.

Because they dont have engines.

Anyone with a clue can see that some birds dont beat their wings much and so that mode
should work well with powered aircraft that use an engine instead of beating the wings.

And that kites had been doing that for millennia too.

Kites did not 'fly' in the same manner at all.

Irrelevant, they clearly do fly so there is no reason why you cant have powered flight.

 

[Rod Speed]

bigfletch8@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:33 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 16, 5:32 pm, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

On Aug 16, 9:40 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove them
wrong! Example- DNA research will have no utility, Crude flying
machines will never be useful for transport. The list goes on and
on.-

Ummm....The science of Genetics, the basis for DNA research, was
developed by Gregor Mendel, a Monk and Abbott, not a professional
scientist. The airplane was invented by the Wright brothers, bicycle
mechanics, not professional scientists. My criticisms are not of the
process of science, or the concept of science, but of the
professional scientific bureaucracy, specifically. Which I consider
to be exceedingly self-serving, inefficient, and corrupt.

Then dont look at the legal profession. You will have
a desire to organise "professional cleansing".

What you are actually describing are attributes of any "group consciousness".

Actual self serving is all we are each really capable of.

Bullshit.

It is identifying the self that is the problem.

Nope.