Driver to drive?

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:39:38 -0800 (PST), a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com
wrote:

Are you sure the lab's risetime measurement is accurate? I'm guessing
your 150 ps with that skinny trace is real, but you never know. How
are they doing it?

Don't know. The engineer is overworked so I stepped into the lab this
afternoon and will test myself.
It's chaos, there's only one 13GHz infiniium and only one 12GHz probe,
all the other stuff is 6GHz stuff.

I use a Tek 11801/SD24 tdr sampling scope, 20 GHz, with around a 28 ps
effective risetime as a combined pulse generator/scope. Under $2K on
Ebay these days.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:47:18 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:22:39 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:17:07 -0800 (PST), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:



For real microwave apps, there's Sonnet Lite and Puff, both free, ................snip

what is "puff"?

Mark

What is "google"?

John

I have a copy of "Puff" around here somewhere ;-)

Though I may have tossed it... IIRC it was on a 5-1/4" floppy :-(

Is it available for "modern" operating systems?

...Jim Thompson

Ask google!

John

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:06:24 -0500, "Charles"
<charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:ac6a28fd-ec05-4b75-a019-8e41f90f5aea@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...


I recently reminded you that both Greenland and Antarctica are
experieincing a nett loss of some 100 gigatons of ice per year from
their ice-caps - more snow is falling on both ice-caps because the
surrounding oceans are warmer and evaporating more water, but even
more ice is sliding off the edges.

Methane gas is being released as the ice caps melt. This gas, released into
the atmosphere, could be 10 to 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse
agent.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025174618.htm

Other sources predict a more rapid release of methane which could be a
future nexus in global warming, from which it could become a runaway system
with no hope of anthropogenic intervention. Positive feedback should be
well understood in this forum, but is entirely ignored in discussions of GW.

Most of the geniuses here just don't care.

Please remember, within the past 400 Million years there has been no
thermal runaway, both with CO2 concentrations both far lower and far
far higher than today. Second, by track record, CO2 in the atmosphere
follows temperature, the rises we are seeing now are most likely the
result of the middle ages warm period, rather than any human activity.
Yes the lags are that high! Restudy the ice core data.

Not that i am some genius, but i do care about the environment. I
believe in cleaning up after ourselves. I do not believe in imaginary
bugaboos used to promote political agendas. The easily verifiable
fraud of the Michael Mann submittals makes my hair stand on end, high
school students have contested it, successfully (in unbiased forums).

Make no mistake, i love our national parks, state parks, ... and
municipal parks. I like trees and frogs and wasps and bushes and
mushrooms and flowers and beetles and ground hugging plants and slugs
and ferns and microflora and microfauna all the rest of wild life.

 

[Sylvia Else]

MooseFET wrote:

On Jan 13, 4:51 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Raveninghorde wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:39:25 -0800 (PST), MooseFET
kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Jan 13, 5:14 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:47:22 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:18:56 -0800 (PST), Arumugham
easyshoppingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Use dimmer control or rheostat / variable resistance to control
brightness of table lamps.
How much does that save? If we all set our lamps to 50% what would the
power factor be? Would we be able to shut down a power station every
1/4 of a cycle?
Use energy saving lamps like CFL (compact fluorescent lamp).
When using computers, make use of power saving modes, turn off
peripherals when they are not in use.
Power saved is power produced.
Visit
http://severaltips.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-electricity-save-energy-...
CFL is crap. The use hazardous chemicals and we are told in the UK to
treat them as hazardous waste and to call the council if we break one.
A lot of them are so dim at power up that you have to leave them on
the whole time. I bought some that take over 5 minutes to get up to
half brightness.
I'm waiting for decent led lamps.
And CFL lamps have typical power factor of 0.5. That is twice as much
power has to be generated as you would expect from the lamps power
rating.
The power factor does not mean that extra power must be created. They
draw lagging current so the power company needs to connect more power
factor correction capacitors.
That doesn't sound like a cheap option.
http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=article&articleID=9310
/quote
Wasserman, a consultant and program manager for a Minnesota utility
company, expects that a power factor correction penalty could be added
to residential energy bills in the future to offset the unproductive
power created by the influx of millions of low power factor CFL bulbs
The situation isn't so simple. The power factor sense of a CFL depends
on the type of ballast it has. An electromagnetic ballast introduces a
lagging power factor, which is a problem, but an electronic ballast
usually has a leading power factor.

That depends a lot on the sort of ballast. The two tube ones often
are near unity power factor. You can still find some fixtures that
use them. Almost all now use electronic ballasts. Next time you go
into the local Ace hardware store, take a look at the name plates on
the replacement ballasts.

The power fact certainly varies, with some claiming 0.9. But that's not
unity. No doubt these are more expensive as well. Even informed
consumers will go for the cheaper ones, on the rational ground that
increasing the power factor does not reduce their electricity bill.

Some high power factor models may be sold by misleading the buyers as to
the significance of the power factor.

Sylvia.

 

[MooseFET]

On Jan 13, 7:19 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:39:25 -0800 (PST), MooseFET



kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Jan 13, 5:14 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:47:22 +0000, Raveninghorde

raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:18:56 -0800 (PST), Arumugham
easyshoppingt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Use dimmer control or rheostat / variable resistance to control
brightness of table lamps.

How much does that save? If we all set our lamps to 50% what would the
power factor be?  Would we be able to shut down a power station every
1/4 of a cycle?

Use energy saving lamps like CFL (compact fluorescent lamp).
When using computers, make use of power saving modes, turn off
peripherals when they are not in use.
Power saved is power produced.
Visit
http://severaltips.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-electricity-save-energy-...

CFL is crap.  The use hazardous chemicals and we are told in the UK to
treat them as hazardous waste and to call the council if we break one..
A lot of them are so dim at power up that you have to leave them on
the whole time.  I bought some that take over 5 minutes to get up to
half brightness.

I'm waiting for decent led lamps.

And CFL lamps have typical power factor of 0.5. That is twice as much
power has to be generated as you would expect from the lamps power
rating.

The power factor does not mean that extra power must be created.  They
draw lagging current so the power company needs to connect more power
factor correction capacitors.

That doesn't sound like a cheap option.

http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=article&articleID=9310

/quote

Wasserman, a consultant and program manager for a Minnesota utility
company, expects that a power factor correction penalty could be added
to residential energy bills in the future to offset the unproductive
power created by the influx of millions of low power factor CFL bulbs

It is still a much smaller cost than the energy for the bulbs they
replace. The power supplies in things like PCs and TV etc are getting
a lot better about the power factor. Big energy users like
airconditioners and stoves and the like draw a lot more power than a
few light bulbs.

 

[krw]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:04:25 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
<null@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:57:22 -0600, krw wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:12:08 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Here's my gun license:

Amendment II, Constitution of the United States:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
--
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

How does that work out for you in California? Do you carry concealed?

You have to, here in the People's Republic. If they saw it in plain view,
they'd gun you down in cold blood.

I meant, are permits easily obtained? Here, concealed is the only
legal way to carry.

 

[MooseFET]

On Jan 13, 4:51 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

Raveninghorde wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:39:25 -0800 (PST), MooseFET
kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

On Jan 13, 5:14 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:47:22 +0000, Raveninghorde

raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:18:56 -0800 (PST), Arumugham
easyshoppingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Use dimmer control or rheostat / variable resistance to control
brightness of table lamps.
How much does that save? If we all set our lamps to 50% what would the
power factor be?  Would we be able to shut down a power station every
1/4 of a cycle?
Use energy saving lamps like CFL (compact fluorescent lamp).
When using computers, make use of power saving modes, turn off
peripherals when they are not in use.
Power saved is power produced.
Visit
http://severaltips.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-electricity-save-energy-...
CFL is crap.  The use hazardous chemicals and we are told in the UK to
treat them as hazardous waste and to call the council if we break one.
A lot of them are so dim at power up that you have to leave them on
the whole time.  I bought some that take over 5 minutes to get up to
half brightness.
I'm waiting for decent led lamps.
And CFL lamps have typical power factor of 0.5. That is twice as much
power has to be generated as you would expect from the lamps power
rating.
The power factor does not mean that extra power must be created.  They
draw lagging current so the power company needs to connect more power
factor correction capacitors.

That doesn't sound like a cheap option.

http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=article&articleID=9310

/quote

Wasserman, a consultant and program manager for a Minnesota utility
company, expects that a power factor correction penalty could be added
to residential energy bills in the future to offset the unproductive
power created by the influx of millions of low power factor CFL bulbs

The situation isn't so simple. The power factor sense of a CFL depends
on the type of ballast it has. An electromagnetic ballast introduces a
lagging power factor, which is a problem, but an electronic ballast
usually has a leading power factor.

That depends a lot on the sort of ballast. The two tube ones often
are near unity power factor. You can still find some fixtures that
use them. Almost all now use electronic ballasts. Next time you go
into the local Ace hardware store, take a look at the name plates on
the replacement ballasts.

Since other domestic equipment
containing inductive loads have lagging power factors, the use of CFLs
with electronic ballasts will reduce the net reactive power.

Sylvia.

 

[qrk]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:56:09 -0800, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

qrk wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:30:30 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Hal Murray wrote:
gEDA is rather strange with the power pins in multi-part packages. Kicad
does that nicely but has a raggedy looking title block and coordinate
frame, both of which cannot be customized well and cannot be removed at
all by the user.
Can you dance around their klutzy frame and title block by ignoring
them and putting your own smaller frame inside their frame, and then
running some postscript postprocessing to crop down to what you want?

That's what I want to try next because it seems there is no interest in
the gEDA community to look at the power pin issue and none in the Kicad
community to look at the frame thing. I'd love to write corrected code
myself by I am not a programmer. Being a hardware guy it's tough to
figure out PS postprocessing, could use some more mainstream file format
and do a crop by hand. Won't be very precise though.

If I have my druthers I'll fire up the old OrCad SDT. It was perfect but
didn't do zoom, print and stuff too well in a DOS window. I'll have to
see if it's better in a virtual machine with a clean native DOS on
there. Printing will probably remain an issue.

I still use SDT386+ as my primary schematic tool. With macros and a
keyboard with the function keys on the left side of the keyboard, this
is a very efficient way of designing. SDT386+ and PCB386+ drivers have
been constantly upgraded over the past 12 years outside of Orcad.

The biggest improvement: you don't need a real DOS environment
anymore. SDT & PCB now run in a real window in W2k, XP, and supposedly
Vista. A team effort by two people created video drivers so SDT and
PCB make real Windows graphics calls. One guy wrote VESA drivers in
assembly and another guy recoded in C, then created the GDI drivers.


Wow, thanks, Mark. I did not know that new drivers had been written. My
version is SDT-III so I'll have to look around on the Yahoo group again,
maybe it can be resurrected. Now where are those disks ... oops, would
be 5-1/4" ... now where's that old 5-1/4" drive ...

This would be cool. Back then I thought OrCad SDT was the best thing
since pivot irrigation.


As for printing, all my schematics are printed out to PDF which makes
them searchable. My work colleague wrote a tricky batch file which
automatically resizes any size drawing to a paper space of your choice
using Ghostscript. I modified an Open Office font which creates text
that closely matches what you see on the screen. To print a schematic
file to PDF is one command line batch file.

If you like printing to laserjet printers, there are drivers available
to do that.


That would be an issue since not all printers are HP-LJ compatible
anymore. But if one can print to PDF that problem goes away. Yeehaw!


If you need a GIF drawing to paste the schematic in a document, there
are conversion tools available to do that or you can convert your PDF
to bit map.


OrCad always put out nice bitmaps. In fact I did fully integrated docs
in MS-Word as early as 1989. Back then it was HPGL though and AFAIK
MS-Word has lost the ability to import that.


Want to stack a bunch of pins on top of another? Composer has been
modified to allow that which is useful for FPGA parts with dozens of
power and ground pins. 27 ground pins only require one pin space on
the schematic.

All this can be found on
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/OldDosOrcad/ . There are a bit over
300 members. The files section has new drivers and exe files to
support modern methods. Plus, there are a few dozen people who
actively use SDT and PCB on a daily basis which provide good
information on use and setup of old DOS Orcad.

If your customer wants Capture formated files, Capture imports SDT
files, and does a good job at it if its version 7 or newer.


Yes, some clients would like Capture files.


SDT's back-end processing is so open that you can write your own
netlist formaters which we have done to support our PCB tools. The
intermediate ASCII netlist file that SDT spits out can be converted to
a netlist format of your liking.


OrCad has always been great with customizing. Then they were bought :-(

I'm pretty sure that the new display drivers won't work under SDT-III,
only SDT386+. Boy, version 3 really goes back in time! I think I still
have a 5.25" floppy in my home machine for resurrecting those old
projects.

---
Mark

 

[Hawke]

"The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
count on the support of Paul." --G.B. Shaw

Peter being the regular taxpayer, and Paul the "defence" industries?

You may not have noticed but you spend more on "defence" than the
total expenditure of next ten countries down the pecking order.


And thats the reason they dont speak either German or Russian.

You are welcome btw. I lost a lot of family members in the Low Lands.

They paid the ultimate price so you can use an American invention..and
bitch about America.

Dream on. The Russians beat the Germans in WW2. The US may have
beaten Japan, and dissuaded Stalin from pushing the Iron Curtain further
west, but that's a pretty poor justification for your current extravagant
spending on fancy weapons that don't work all that well.

As for American inventions, the Abrams tank has a German gun and
British armour. The engine is American, but so is the fuel consumption.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

We have a class of uber patriots in America and they are like a broken
record. Everything good in the world is somehow due to something America has
done in it's past. Like the saying "it's all good", that's how they see
America. And as long as they live they will keep saying the world owes
everything it has because we defeated Hitler in WWII, conveniently
forgetting the much larger role other countries played in the conflict. By
the way, those guys are really idiots. Gunner is the poster child for them,
by the way.

Hawke

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <49695708.D0743E5E@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Charles wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message

I recently reminded you that both Greenland and Antarctica are
experieincing a nett loss of some 100 gigatons of ice per year from
their ice-caps - more snow is falling on both ice-caps because the
surrounding oceans are warmer and evaporating more water, but even
more ice is sliding off the edges.

Methane gas is being released as the ice caps melt. This gas, released into
the atmosphere, could be 10 to 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse
agent.

But has a lifetime around 20 times shorter.

<SNIP from there because I only address this point>

I lost the link for now, thought I could find it in Wikipedia, but
atmospheric methane throughout the past few hundred thousand years
prior to the Industrial Revolution varied with temperature about as much
with temperature as CO2 did, and appeared to me to lag a bit more than CO2
did.

It appears to me that those termites and farting animals and whatever
else have their influence on atmospheric methane presence varying directly
with global surface or surface-level-air temperature enough to be a
slightly significant positive feedback mechanism.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <9c263039-2309-495c-9dcf-e83e7e646f53@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

X-no-archive honored

x-no-archive

snip...

At the moment we are seeing the ice sliding off faster than it is replaced
by
new snow at a rate of 100 gigatons a year for both Greenland and Antartica,
which equates to about 0.55mm per year of sea level rise, which isn't much.

The problem is that this is faster than it used to be, and probably reflects
the
effects of global warming on the ice at the bottom of the ice-cap (where
you already have buried lakes, melted by heat risng from underground).

Bill,

The 100 gigatons you quote above is the net loss of ice not replaced
by snow??... or it is the gross amount sliding off?

If 500 gigatons slide off, and are replaced with 400 gigatons of snow,
for a net loss of 100 gigatons, then the sea would rise based on the
gross amount of 500 gigatons, not 100.

But the snow comes from water evaporated from somewhere else, as in
mainly from oceans. What is sliding off is largely going back where it
came from.

Two points I am trying to make here:

1) As ice slides off the land into the sea, it causes a sea level rise
immediatly regardless of how long it takes the ice to melt. The ice
does not have to melt before is causes a rise. I'm sure you agree
with that.

2) As ice slides off the land into the sea, it casues a sea level rise
regardless of if that ice is replaced by snow or not.

So the GROSS amount of land ice that ends up in the sea determines the
sea level rise, not the net amount.

Agreed?

As I note above, no.

Mark

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <0fmqm4tj3gvnjd0obang028jkqrbi461mh@4ax.com>, JosephKK wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:06:24 -0500, "Charles"
charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:ac6a28fd-ec05-4b75-a019-8e41f90f5aea@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

I recently reminded you that both Greenland and Antarctica are
experieincing a nett loss of some 100 gigatons of ice per year from
their ice-caps - more snow is falling on both ice-caps because the
surrounding oceans are warmer and evaporating more water, but even
more ice is sliding off the edges.

Methane gas is being released as the ice caps melt. This gas, released into
the atmosphere, could be 10 to 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse
agent.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025174618.htm

Other sources predict a more rapid release of methane which could be a
future nexus in global warming, from which it could become a runaway system
with no hope of anthropogenic intervention. Positive feedback should be
well understood in this forum, but is entirely ignored in discussions of GW.

Most of the geniuses here just don't care.

Please remember, within the past 400 Million years there has been no
thermal runaway, both with CO2 concentrations both far lower and far
far higher than today.

Though it appears maybe some swings have involved runaway resulting from
sufficient positive feedback until progressing to an extent where the
positive feedback decreases.

For example, the surface albedo feedback from Arctic sea ice will
decrease should global warming destroy Arctic sea ice to an extent of
melting away or nearly entirely melting away in the summer. Should that
happen, amount of Arctic sea ice will have less dependence on how much was
present a year before.

Keep in mind that should global warming progress beyond that anyway,
a similar feedback may result rom variability in coverage of Greenland
and/or Antarctica with ice/snow. That feedback appears to me to go away
or decrease to an insignificant level or get overwelmed by lapse rate
negative feedback when global surface-level-atmosphere temperature gets to
where I saw it represented in graphs through the past few hundreds of
millions of years - IIRC 22 C or so (no warranty!).

Second, by track record, CO2 in the atmosphere follows temperature,

Only prior to the Industrial Revolution, when it was a positive feedback
mechanism without being a root cause.

the rises we are seeing now are most likely the result of the middle ages
warm period, rather than any human activity.

Currently and in recent decades nature has been removing CO2 from the
atmosphere.

<I snip from there>

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-01-14, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian &lt;null@example.net&gt; wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:34:21 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
Raveninghorde wrote:

Wasserman, a consultant and program manager for a Minnesota utility
company, expects that a power factor correction penalty could be added
to residential energy bills in the future to offset the unproductive
power created by the influx of millions of low power factor CFL bulbs

Oh the irony.

100W GLS bulbs have just been withdrawn from British shops btw.

What's a GLS bulb?

guessing: "general lighting service"

ordinary 100W bulbs, (not PAR spots or halogen rods etc...)

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:41:32 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
&lt;bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote:

"Raveninghorde" &lt;raveninghorde@invalid&gt; schreef in bericht
news:418qm4pve7mb9563a3vdtkdr1j1mrf2uqk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:50:28 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 13 jan, 10:08, Eeyore &lt;rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
You've no idea how dodgy the 19th century CO2 measurments were

The articles I've read say the exact opposite. It's not a difficult
measurement. Now
didn't the 19th century produce most Physics and Chemistry too ? How on
earth could
they have done that if they could even measure CO2 ?

They could measure it, but there are practical limits to the size of
the sealed container you can use to isolate your sample of air and
slosh it around with lime water.

As a graduate student I hooked up a 12 litre spherical flask to my
vacuum line to hold my stock of nitric oxide. It was the biggest flask
the department held in store, because it was about as big as you could
grasp securely.

It holds about half a gram molecule of air at atmospheric pressure an
room temperature (a gram mole occupies 22.4 litres at STP). In the
19th century - when the CO2 content of the air was around 300ppm -
that would have contained about 7 milligrams of CO2.

If you'd precipitated all of it as CaCO3 or BaCO3 (better) you'd get
to produce about 16 milligrams of calcium carbonate or 32 milligrams
of barium carbonate. You'd then have to get it all out of the flask
and into your filter paper, without exposing the lime water (or baryta
water) to any more carbon dioxide. You then have to calcine your
filter paper to get rid of it, which would also get rid of the CO2,
leaving you some 9 milligrams of calcium oxide to weigh, or some 25
milligrams of barium oxide.

It's a tedious procedure, so you won't do it often, and an analytical
balance is only sensitive to about a tenth of a milligram, so it isn't
all that precise, even if your technique is perfect.

If you looked at this link given by Don:

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

It shows the measurment techniques and notes the number of times
various scientist did them. For example Schultze 1600 measurement in 3
years, 1868-1871.

Even Keeling accepts the quality of some of the results taken in the
1870s. I note these are the ones that agree with his 280ppmv base
line. Me cynical?

Not cynical enough.

Note this sentence from the end of the paper

"Obviously they used only a few carefully selected values from
the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent
with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by
the burning of fossil fuel"

Since the crucial evidence that the rise in CO2 in air comes
burning fossil carbon is the changing carbon isotope ratio -
the Suess Effect - and is conclusive, this single sentence is
enough to reveal Ernst-Georg Beck to be an ignorant
amateur with an axe to grind.

The carbon isotope ratio in CO2 probably is changing. That doesn't
say anything about the total quantity of CO2.

My own opinion is that the measurements he's fussing about were
taken in places where people were already burning a lot of fossil
carbon, and are a great deal less reliable than he claims.

I thought your argument was people buring fossil carbon was the
problem. But you want to ignore data that may be contaminated by
people buring fossil carbon?

My own attitude to German chemists is slightly sceptical -
when doing my Ph.D. I ran into earlier work in the area from
Germany - W.Kraus, Z.Physik. Chem A175, page 295 (1936)
- which looked gorgeous, but turned out to be explicable only if
he'd failed to mix his reagents properly (as was more or less
inevitable with the equipment he was using). Because the error
was consistent from experiment to experiment, all the results
agreed perfectly, and all were consistently wrong.

So we now have to ignore all German Science.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:06:24 -0500, "Charles"
&lt;charlesschuler@comcast.net&gt; wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote in message
news:ac6a28fd-ec05-4b75-a019-8e41f90f5aea@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...


I recently reminded you that both Greenland and Antarctica are
experieincing a nett loss of some 100 gigatons of ice per year from
their ice-caps - more snow is falling on both ice-caps because the
surrounding oceans are warmer and evaporating more water, but even
more ice is sliding off the edges.

Methane gas is being released as the ice caps melt. This gas, released into
the atmosphere, could be 10 to 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse
agent.

Guess what? You are grasping at wisps of vapor, it is obvious to
skeptics. AGW always was a political scam, from long before Michael
Mann's fraud. The Kyoto accords are simply an earlier version of it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025174618.htm

Other sources predict a more rapid release of methane which could be a
future nexus in global warming, from which it could become a runaway system
with no hope of anthropogenic intervention. Positive feedback should be
well understood in this forum, but is entirely ignored in discussions of GW.

Most of the geniuses here just don't care.

I actually do care; that my children's and grandchildren's futures
aren't foreclosed by foolish adherence to some political agenda
masquerading as science.

Other than that, we really do need to kick the fossil fuel habit to
the curb.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:14:16 -0700, Jim Thompson
&lt;To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com&gt; wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:00:13 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid&gt; wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:16:37 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 10 jan, 01:27, Raveninghorde &lt;raveninghorde@invalid&gt; wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:18:44 -0800, John Larkin





jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com&gt; wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:06:24 -0500, "Charles"
charlesschu...@comcast.net&gt; wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org&gt; wrote in message
news:ac6a28fd-ec05-4b75-a019-8e41f90f5aea@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

I recently reminded you that both Greenland and Antarctica are
experieincing a nett loss of some 100 gigatons of ice per year from
their ice-caps - more snow is falling on both ice-caps because the
surrounding oceans are warmer and evaporating more water, but even
more ice is sliding off the edges.

Methane gas is being released as the ice caps melt.  This gas, released into
the atmosphere, could be 10 to 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse
agent.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025174618.htm

Other sources predict a more rapid release of methane which could be a
future nexus in global warming, from which it could become a runaway system
with no hope of anthropogenic intervention.  Positive feedback should be
well understood in this forum, but is entirely ignored in discussions of GW.

All the "popular" AGW simulations assume large positive feedbacks.
They have to; straight CO2-induced warming is too small to get upset
about. It's not clear if the major feedbacks are indeed positive. Like
someone said, not only don't we know the magnitudes of major
atmospheric effects, we don't know the signs.

Methane has a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere, ballpark 10
years.

John

As posted previously feedback or not discussed here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-m...

Other than Bill most people will accept this guy as credible. Check
his profile on his website.

The editor and at least one reviewer at Geophysical Research Letters
found him less than convincing, if his web-site is to be believed.

Eeyore and Ravenhorde may find him credible, but people who know more
about the subject seem to have reservations.

What's the problem? Is the article too difficult for you to
understand? As always when you haven't a clue you hide behind someone
elses opinion this time an editor.

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=607

Q: Have we put too much faith in the peer review system? And should we
seek sources outside the usual scientific circles?

A: Peer review is simply a cursory check on the plausibility of a
study. It is not a rigorous replication and it is certainly not a
stamp of correctness of results. Many studies get far more rigorous
peer review on blogs after publication than in journals. I use our
own blog for the purpose of getting good review before publication for
some of my work now, because the review on blogs is often far better
and more rigorous than from journals. This is not an indictment of
peer review or journals, just an open-eyed recognition of the
realities.

Doesn't "Peer Review" mean the "peers" kiss each other's ass ?

...Jim Thompson

That depends mostly on the funding scenario.

 

[Robert Baer]

Skybuck Flying wrote:

"Robert Baer" &lt;robertbaer@localnet.com&gt; wrote in message
news:mYWdnRcUk7lqt_HUnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@posted.localnet...

Skybuck Flying wrote:

Hello,

When energy is sent towards money the money starts tranmitting a
signal/information.

For example, put money in microwave for 3 seconds and the chip will catch
fire.

Seen this myself

My question about this is:

What is the range of the signal ?

Should "we" be worried that criminals start scanning our houses in search
of money ?

The 20 euro bill I put in microwave was from 2001 and seemed to contain a
rf-chip, I am not sure though but I am bit worried about that !

Could have other privacy implications as well

Bye,
Skybuck.



Dummy, there ain't no chip in our money!
*LOOK* carefully and you will see a metal strip ($5 bills and up, do not
remember $2 bills).
*NOT* a chip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Maybe that's the antenna !

Bye,
Skybuck.



Did you know that horses process oats?

We have proof now that you eat those procesed oats.

 

[Robert Baer]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Did you know? Pictures of single electrons moving:
http://www.whatsnextnetwork.com/technology/index.php/2007/06/06/p5285
Shades of Milliken!

 

[Robert Baer]

Skybuck Flying wrote:

Hello,

Yesterday I discovered these video's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC71TjXb05w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxdyyTZvUk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV-Rz0MjlWE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL9FIfSxBCk

Today I bought American Dollar Bills to find out for myself.

Here is my website:

http://members.home.nl/hbthouppermans/WorldTradeCenterConspiracy/

I am convinced.

Bye,
Skybuck.


ALERT! The Sears Tower has attacked this nutcase!

 

[Robert Baer]

Skybuck Flying wrote:

I wonder,

Has this ever been investigated in the USA ?

Like who designed these bills ?

Maybe it was a muslim-like fella !

That could be a major hint hint hint hint hint

Maybe USA let money be designed by some Arab Country

These kinds of strange things happen all the timmmmeeee

It's called:

"Out-sourcing".

Before you know it you have more of this weird stuff ! =D

Bye,
Skybuck.

"Skybuck Flying" &lt;BloodyShame@hotmail.com&gt; wrote in message
news:b8618$496cbfb4$d5337e4d$25720@cache2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...

Hello,

Yesterday I discovered these video's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC71TjXb05w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxdyyTZvUk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV-Rz0MjlWE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL9FIfSxBCk

Today I bought American Dollar Bills to find out for myself.

Here is my website:

http://members.home.nl/hbthouppermans/WorldTradeCenterConspiracy/

I am convinced.

Bye,
Skybuck.




Been consumig more processed oats?