The Future Of Solar Power

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00555717$0$13391$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

L.A.T. wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0054f565$0$13524$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:09:18 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


I'm saying that there's not, because while a huge airconditioning load
is a strong predictor of the sun shining,
Wow, so that is what makes the sun shine.
Do you really think that prediction equals causation? That would explain
a lot.

Sylvia.
You are wasting your time.
Your posts make sense, they are grammatically consistent, and you haven't
said fuck once.
Have you perhaps stumbled into the wrong newsgroup?



Well, perhaps.

But lack of understanding on the part of the public on issues like this is
a constant problem that interferes with good government. The best
decisions can be counterintuitive.

I still come across otherwise apparently intelligent people who believe
that Sydney did not need a desalinator, prefering to think that
alternatives such as rainwater tanks, recyling, storm water capture, or
building more dams, were the way to go, despite the reality that all those
options were either unfeasible, not effective, much more expensive than
the desalinator, or all of the above.

So the NSW Labor government gets castigated for the unusual course (for
them), of actually getting on and building a piece of infrastructure.

**Bollocks. We don't need a desalinator. What we need is realistic water
pricing and a population policy. Sydney is one of the most water-wasteful
cities on the planet. And, the big reason why the NSW government was
castigated for the desal plant is it's location. Running huge pipes across
Botany Bay makes no sense whatsoever. It's expensive and dumb.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00d35fc6$0$28973$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

A way wround that would be to use potable recycling. But Toowomba showed
how unpopular that idea is. No NSW government is going to impose it.

**Bollocks. Not only do several Sydney suburbs employ water recycling now,
but people in Sydney are not (in general) hamstrung by the failed education
system that Toowoomba residents are. We're smart enough to realise that
water recycling is, ultimately, the only way to go.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"keithr" <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4ade4e9b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Even if the virus is present in a swamp cooler tank, it cannot travel
onwater vapour.

"People usually get Legionnaires' disease by breathing in Legionella
bacteria in very fine droplets of water called aerosols."

Your reference does not agree with your premise.
(However I do agree that by simply using fresh water for evap coolers,
the
risk is much less than with poorly maintained Air-Con cooling towers.)


How do you work that out? You get legionnaires' disease from water
droplets (aerosols), cooling towers produce them swamp coolers don't.


What the bloody hell do you think they do other than add water droplets
to
the passing air flow!!!!!!!!!

Believe it or not, there is a difference between water vapour and water
droplets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

And your "evapourative" cooler BOILS the water to evapourate it, does it?
Mine sure doesn't.
While it might be called an Evapourative cooler, it does nothing more than
pass an air flow over cold water, causing "water droplets" to be carried by
the air flow!

And to quote my cite again in case you didn't understand it the first time

"The evaporative units sometimes used in home air conditioning units
have not been known to cause Legionnaires' disease."

Note the word "Evaporative" and then think abiut it's connection to
water vapour.

Yes I understood your cite, it seems YOU don't! "Have not been known" are
the operative words. It does NOT say "Cannot".
In any case I already agreed evap coolers have little if any connection to
Legionnaires disease, that was never in dispute. But only because fresh
water is used, NOT because the water drops cannot possibly carry it as you
have suggested above.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"keithr" <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4ade4ff5$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

I assume that the one confused about the facts is Mr T who doesn't seem
to understand the difference between water vapour produced by swamp
coolers and water droplets that can carry legionnaires' disease.

Nope, tell me how your "evap cooler" works? Mine simply passes air flow over
water to pick up water drops. NO boiling of the water occurs, and in any
case as soon as real water vapour hit cooler air it condenses back into
water droplets, so that wouldn't help anyway!
(other than the act of boiling the water would surely reduce any risk even
futher of course)
However boiling water to produce water VAPOUR may NOT be what you want in
device designed for COOLING.
But hey, you are welcome to do what YOU want!

Read the cite again, the health commission of the state of Victoria
certainly doesn't see them as a threat, and I would tend to trust them
over an unknown Usenet poster.

I NEVER said there was a health problem with evap coolers, I said you were
WRONG as to why, and you are still wrong, and just making a bigger idiot of
yourself.

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4adeb629$0$6091$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7k6lhnF38un4tU1@mid.individual.net...
A few extra bucks to track rogue asteroids and comets might be well
worth
our while.

Since we can do nothing if we find one, why bother?

**That would depend on how much time we have. If the trajectory can be
predicted early enough, then it is (barely) possible that an
international
effort could be co-ordinated to do something to deflect it.


I'll say it once more, we would need a rocket capable of travelling at
least
twice the velocity the object is travelling, not allowing for
acceleration,

**Nonsense. Here is a possible scenario:

Through careful measurement and investigation, it has been determined that
an asteroid will strike the Earth at 7:30AM, 26th June 2039. That provides
humans with 30 years to ensure that a means to alter the trajectory of that
asteroid by that date is accomplished. The rocket need only travel at a
velocity sufficient to meet with that asteroid sometime before the due date
to alter it's trajectory. The earlier the strike takes place, the energy
that will be required.

and possibly deceleration depending on what it is you actually propose to
do
when it gets there? Then you need measurements and calculations that it is
GUARANTEED to hit the earth when it is at that distance, before possibly
making the situation worse.

**Which is why MUCH more investigation should be put into place. We have the
technology to detect the problem. We *may* have the technology to avert
disaster.

All of these things are beyond our capabilities at the moment, but IF you
think you have *proof* they aren't, I'm sure there are MANY people who are
interested.

**They may well be beyond our technical capacity right now. If, however, a
potential disaster is discovered and predicted to occur within (say) 50
years, then I guarantee the technology will be developed.

IF we could somehow calculate that an orbiting object like a comet would
hit
the earth on it's 3rd future visit say, the we could attempt to do
something
on it's next visit of course. Unfortunately that still leaves the fact we
*cannot* make such predictions with any certainty, and we don't really
have
anything to destroy it at the moment anyway. So the easiest course of
action
is to simply wait until we do, and if you think it helps, prey in the mean
time.
But I still see no point in looking for problems we can do nothing about,
when we already have ones that we could do something about, IF we wanted
to.

**You'll get no argument from me there. We are well aware of impending
disaster, but appear to have extreme reluctance to do anything about it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4adeb629$0$6091$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7k6lhnF38un4tU1@mid.individual.net...
A few extra bucks to track rogue asteroids and comets might be well
worth
our while.

Since we can do nothing if we find one, why bother?

**That would depend on how much time we have. If the trajectory can be
predicted early enough, then it is (barely) possible that an
international
effort could be co-ordinated to do something to deflect it.


I'll say it once more, we would need a rocket capable of travelling at
least
twice the velocity the object is travelling, not allowing for
acceleration,
and possibly deceleration depending on what it is you actually propose to
do
when it gets there? Then you need measurements and calculations that it is
GUARANTEED to hit the earth when it is at that distance, before possibly
making the situation worse.

**One more point:

There are things in the universe that will be well beyond our ability to
deal with. Ever. Stuff like:

* Nearby (a few dozen light years) super Novae.
* Our Sun turning into a red giant.
* Roving black holes.
* Et al.

OTOH, stuff like rogue comets, asteroids and the like are within our
capacity now, or within the not too distant future.

Furthermore: I never once considered anything as silly as placing humans on
said comet/asteroid/whatever in order to alter it's course. Anything that
can be done will be a one way trip only. No decelation will be required, nor
should it be, as it is far too wasteful.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7k82n0F36tk1gU1@mid.individual.net...

Through careful measurement and investigation, it has been determined that
an asteroid will strike the Earth at 7:30AM, 26th June 2039. That provides
humans with 30 years to ensure that a means to alter the trajectory of
that
asteroid by that date is accomplished. The rocket need only travel at a
velocity sufficient to meet with that asteroid sometime before the due
date
to alter it's trajectory. The earlier the strike takes place, the energy
that will be required.

And that's where it falls down. We cannot measure and calculate with
sufficient accuracy for an object at that distance. Even if we could, it
takes current rockets nearly that long to reach the outer reaches of the
Solar system. So at least do tell us what velocity you think the object
might be travelling, and tell us exactly how you are going to alter it's
course, and what distance you think we may be able to intercept it, and how
long it will take to develop the technology and build the necessary devices?

**Which is why MUCH more investigation should be put into place. We have
the
technology to detect the problem. We *may* have the technology to avert
disaster.

You do understand the concept of worrying first about things with similar
consequenses that are far more likely to happen, and those which you have
some real hope of doing something about, right?
Alternatively let's not worry about any of it, and just enjoy life while you
still can.

**They may well be beyond our technical capacity right now. If, however, a
potential disaster is discovered and predicted to occur within (say) 50
years, then I guarantee the technology will be developed.

And I say we start worrying when we can predict with sufficient accuracy,
and we have some hope of developing technology to deal with it. And a good
chance people will still be around to need it.

Are you really suggesting we spend more time/money/resources on something
with little likelihood of happening, than something guaranteed to stuff the
earth?

**You'll get no argument from me there. We are well aware of impending
disaster, but appear to have extreme reluctance to do anything about it.

No, they will do *plenty* to combat climate change, just not what is really
necessary.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7k83k5F3995v1U1@mid.individual.net...

Furthermore: I never once considered anything as silly as placing humans
on
said comet/asteroid/whatever in order to alter it's course.

Neither did I, but robotics perhaps, IF there was something they could
actually do.

Anything that can be done will be a one way trip only.

Of course.

No decelation will be required, nor
should it be, as it is far too wasteful.

Since you have provided absolutely NO details of what you propose, how do we
know that no deceleration will be required?

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4adedf48$0$6091$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7k82n0F36tk1gU1@mid.individual.net...
Through careful measurement and investigation, it has been determined
that
an asteroid will strike the Earth at 7:30AM, 26th June 2039. That
provides
humans with 30 years to ensure that a means to alter the trajectory of
that
asteroid by that date is accomplished. The rocket need only travel at a
velocity sufficient to meet with that asteroid sometime before the due
date
to alter it's trajectory. The earlier the strike takes place, the energy
that will be required.

And that's where it falls down. We cannot measure and calculate with
sufficient accuracy for an object at that distance.

**Points:

* We can.
* Computer processing power is still doubling every 18 months or so. Moore's
Law shows no signs of slowing (yet).
* We may not necessarily need to. Given sufficient intelligence of a robotic
craft, alterations in course could be made on the demands of any mission.
* Study the Voyager mission and see what those brilliant guys at NASA were
able to accomplish with a computer running on 2kB of RAM. I expect they
could do a little more now.

Even if we could, it

takes current rockets nearly that long to reach the outer reaches of the
Solar system.

**The rockets that travel to the outer reaches of the Solar system are not
designed to self-destruct at the end of the mission. They also had to be
lauched from Earth. Neither of those are constraints we need to consider.

So at least do tell us what velocity you think the object

might be travelling, and tell us exactly how you are going to alter it's
course, and what distance you think we may be able to intercept it, and
how
long it will take to develop the technology and build the necessary
devices?

**Absolutely no idea. I'm hardly well-versed in such things.

**Which is why MUCH more investigation should be put into place. We have
the
technology to detect the problem. We *may* have the technology to avert
disaster.

You do understand the concept of worrying first about things with similar
consequenses that are far more likely to happen, and those which you have
some real hope of doing something about, right?

**Here's what we know:

* An asteroid, or some other significant object, with sufficient mass to
cause huge loss of life, WILL strike this planet in the future.

Alternatively let's not worry about any of it, and just enjoy life while
you
still can.

**Or we could investigate near Earth objects and their potential to cause us
problems. Then we could develop strategies to deal with such eventualities.

**They may well be beyond our technical capacity right now. If, however,
a
potential disaster is discovered and predicted to occur within (say) 50
years, then I guarantee the technology will be developed.

And I say we start worrying when we can predict with sufficient accuracy,

**We can already do that now. All that is required, is the will and the
money.

and we have some hope of developing technology to deal with it. And a good
chance people will still be around to need it.

Are you really suggesting we spend more time/money/resources on something
with little likelihood of happening, than something guaranteed to stuff
the
earth?

**I'm saying that ignoring something that has the capacity to extinguish
life on this planet is kinda dumb.

**You'll get no argument from me there. We are well aware of impending
disaster, but appear to have extreme reluctance to do anything about it.

No, they will do *plenty* to combat climate change, just not what is
really
necessary.

**Agreed.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7k99qpF37ugk4U1@mid.individual.net...

And that's where it falls down. We cannot measure and calculate with
sufficient accuracy for an object at that distance.

**Points:

* We can.

Your proof is where?

* Computer processing power is still doubling every 18 months or so.
Moore's
Law shows no signs of slowing (yet).

And that helps us now? However the measurement accuracy is more of a problem
than computing power in any case.

* We may not necessarily need to. Given sufficient intelligence of a
robotic
craft, alterations in course could be made on the demands of any mission.

So what?

* Study the Voyager mission and see what those brilliant guys at NASA were
able to accomplish with a computer running on 2kB of RAM. I expect they
could do a little more now.

So do I. Blowing up an asteroid is not one of them however.

**The rockets that travel to the outer reaches of the Solar system are not
designed to self-destruct at the end of the mission. They also had to be
lauched from Earth. Neither of those are constraints we need to consider.

And that helps us how?

So at least do tell us what velocity you think the object
might be travelling, and tell us exactly how you are going to alter it's
course, and what distance you think we may be able to intercept it, and
how
long it will take to develop the technology and build the necessary
devices?

**Absolutely no idea. I'm hardly well-versed in such things.

And there is the problem with speculation based on nothing!

**Here's what we know:

* An asteroid, or some other significant object, with sufficient mass to
cause huge loss of life, WILL strike this planet in the future.

Yep, sometime before the Sun dies. Not something we should worry about
either.

**Or we could investigate near Earth objects and their potential to cause
us
problems. Then we could develop strategies to deal with such
eventualities.

Sure, it keeps scientists employed and amused.

And I say we start worrying when we can predict with sufficient
accuracy,

**We can already do that now. All that is required, is the will and the
money.

Your proof for that assertion is where?

**I'm saying that ignoring something that has the capacity to extinguish
life on this planet is kinda dumb.

There is NO doubt life on Earth will be extinguished at some point. Also no
doubt we can do nothing to stop it. The question is when, and whether we
will be able to travel to another suitable planet before then. CERTAINLY not
something we should worry about at the moment.
IMO let's worry about the things that actually do affect us now.

But hey, by all means donate YOUR money to such a search if you want!

MrT.

 

[keithr]

Mr.T wrote:

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4adc32a7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Even if the virus is present in a swamp cooler tank, it cannot travel
on
water vapour.

"People usually get Legionnaires' disease by breathing in Legionella
bacteria in very fine droplets of water called aerosols."
Your reference does not agree with your premise.
(However I do agree that by simply using fresh water for evap coolers,
the
risk is much less than with poorly maintained Air-Con cooling towers.)


How do you work that out? You get legionnaires' disease from water
droplets (aerosols), cooling towers produce them swamp coolers don't.


What the bloody hell do you think they do other than add water droplets to
the passing air flow!!!!!!!!!

MrT.


They evaporate the water, that is why they are called evaporative

coolers. Evaporation is completely different from adding water droplets
to the air stream. It is the vaporisation of the water i.e. the
transition from the liquid phase to the gaseous phase thus absorbing the
latent heat of vaporisation which cools the air and is the whole point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

 

[dmm]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:19:51 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7k6lhnF38un4tU1@mid.individual.net...
A few extra bucks to track rogue asteroids and comets might be well
worth
our while.

Since we can do nothing if we find one, why bother?

**That would depend on how much time we have. If the trajectory can be
predicted early enough, then it is (barely) possible that an international
effort could be co-ordinated to do something to deflect it.


I'll say it once more, we would need a rocket capable of travelling at least
twice the velocity the object is travelling, not allowing for acceleration,
and possibly deceleration depending on what it is you actually propose to do
when it gets there? Then you need measurements and calculations that it is
GUARANTEED to hit the earth when it is at that distance, before possibly
making the situation worse.

You can say it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that several space
probes have already intercepted comets. One has actually landed on a comet.
Recently an impactor has collided with a comet (Deep Impact) so that the
interior could be examined by the main spacecraft. In 2004 another probe, the
Stardust mission rendezvoused with comet Wiild 2 and collected particles of the
comet, then returned them to the Earth.

All of these things are beyond our capabilities at the moment, but IF you

Nonsense. It is quite within our capabilities to intercept a comet.
The Giotto mission did it with Comet Halley in 1986 and got within 600 km of the
nucleus. Giotto then got within 200 km of comet Grigg-Skjellerup in 1992 after
a flyby of Earth. The Russians got within a few thousand kms of Halley as well
in 1986.

think you have *proof* they aren't, I'm sure there are MANY people who are
interested.

IF we could somehow calculate that an orbiting object like a comet would hit
the earth on it's 3rd future visit say, the we could attempt to do something
on it's next visit of course. Unfortunately that still leaves the fact we

Why does a comet (or other body for that matter) have to have 3 visits before
something is done about it? What about the long period comets/asteroids
that may visit every million years or so, or the ones that visit once then are
gone forever into interstellar space?

*cannot* make such predictions with any certainty, and we don't really have

Periodic observations of known objects that cross the Earths orbit is the only
way to make reliable predictions. Continuous vigilence is the only way to
discover the unknown objects.

anything to destroy it at the moment anyway. So the easiest course of action
is to simply wait until we do, and if you think it helps, prey in the mean
time.

You can pray all you like. Will it prevent an impact? No. But it may give you
some peace.

But I still see no point in looking for problems we can do nothing about,
when we already have ones that we could do something about, IF we wanted to.
;'''

There's always problems. Some of our own making, some not.
If it takes a small effort to prevent a huge tragedy, then I'm all for it.

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4adfacff$0$5419$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7k99qpF37ugk4U1@mid.individual.net...
And that's where it falls down. We cannot measure and calculate with
sufficient accuracy for an object at that distance.

**Points:

* We can.

Your proof is where?

**The fact that the trajectory of several large objects have already been
accurately been predicted.

* Computer processing power is still doubling every 18 months or so.
Moore's
Law shows no signs of slowing (yet).

And that helps us now?

**It assists with any autonomous rockets which may be sent to deal with a
problem. We no longer need to completely rely upon accurate aiming. A
robotic craft can make adjustments to cope with a wide range of variables.

However the measurement accuracy is more of a problem

than computing power in any case.

**Well, no. Intelligence (in the form of computers) on the craft allow
autonomous decision making (within reason).

* We may not necessarily need to. Given sufficient intelligence of a
robotic
craft, alterations in course could be made on the demands of any mission.

So what?

**It means that measurements alone do not determine the outcome of a
mission.

* Study the Voyager mission and see what those brilliant guys at NASA
were
able to accomplish with a computer running on 2kB of RAM. I expect they
could do a little more now.

So do I. Blowing up an asteroid is not one of them however.

**It may not necessarily need to be "blown up". A tiny adjustment of the
orbit of an asteroid deemed to be dangerous today, may obviate the need to
destroy it in (say) 30 years.

**The rockets that travel to the outer reaches of the Solar system are
not
designed to self-destruct at the end of the mission. They also had to be
lauched from Earth. Neither of those are constraints we need to consider.

And that helps us how?

**More payload.

So at least do tell us what velocity you think the object
might be travelling, and tell us exactly how you are going to alter
it's
course, and what distance you think we may be able to intercept it, and
how
long it will take to develop the technology and build the necessary
devices?

**Absolutely no idea. I'm hardly well-versed in such things.

And there is the problem with speculation based on nothing!

**Well, not quite.

**Here's what we know:

* An asteroid, or some other significant object, with sufficient mass to
cause huge loss of life, WILL strike this planet in the future.

Yep, sometime before the Sun dies. Not something we should worry about
either.

**We had a significant event around 100 years ago on this planet. We know
the Sun poses little risk to humans for several billion years. Sometime,
between now and several billion years in the future, we WILL (with a high
degree of probability) experience a large body hitting the planet that will
cause the extinction of many species. It makes sense to study potential
threats right now. We cannot (nor are we likely ever be able to) do anything
about the Sun turning into a red giant. We can (or will be able to, in the
very near future) do something about large rocks in our neighbourhood.

**Or we could investigate near Earth objects and their potential to cause
us
problems. Then we could develop strategies to deal with such
eventualities.

Sure, it keeps scientists employed and amused.

**It may also keep us one step away from extinction.

And I say we start worrying when we can predict with sufficient
accuracy,

**We can already do that now. All that is required, is the will and the
money.

Your proof for that assertion is where?

**Robotic landers that have made it to several parts of the Solar system,
along with close encounters with comets. We have the technology.

**I'm saying that ignoring something that has the capacity to extinguish
life on this planet is kinda dumb.

There is NO doubt life on Earth will be extinguished at some point. Also
no
doubt we can do nothing to stop it. The question is when, and whether we
will be able to travel to another suitable planet before then. CERTAINLY
not
something we should worry about at the moment.
IMO let's worry about the things that actually do affect us now.

**Global warming is a large concern right now, though it's more serious
effects will not be felt for almost 100 years, or perhaps even further in
the future. There is a possibility that a 'planet-killing' asteroid is a
mere 30 years away. In fact, the potential damage that could be wrought by a
large asteroid dwarfs the damage expected from global warming, even in 500
years time. It makes perfect sense to spend the relatively small amounts
needed to study such objects.

But hey, by all means donate YOUR money to such a search if you want!

**I believe I already have. As have you (if you pay tax).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4ae17161$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

What the bloody hell do you think they do other than add water droplets
to
the passing air flow!!!!!!!!!


They evaporate the water, that is why they are called evaporative
coolers. Evaporation is completely different from adding water droplets
to the air stream. It is the vaporisation of the water i.e. the
transition from the liquid phase to the gaseous phase thus absorbing the
latent heat of vaporisation which cools the air and is the whole point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

And they change water *completely* and permanently into it's "gaseous
phase", how exactly?

As I said, water coolers simply pass cool air flow over the water, that will
not achieve complete transformation of water into gas, nor will it remain in
the gaseous phase for long before recondensing anyway. The reduction in
temperature and air speed, coupled with the increase in room humidity soon
sees to that.

But hey, believe whatever you want.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"dmm" <dmmilne_REMOVE_@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
newsjm2e59c91eedqol21vuirrjpnt7s4tghs@4ax.com...

You can say it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that several
space
probes have already intercepted comets.
One has actually landed on a comet.

Agreed, so what?

Recently an impactor has collided with a comet (Deep Impact) so that the
interior could be examined by the main spacecraft. In 2004 another probe,
the
Stardust mission rendezvoused with comet Wiild 2 and collected particles
of the
comet, then returned them to the Earth.

And just how much was the comets orbit altered by exactly?
(Hint, not at all!)
The argument here has been that we intercept the object at a *huge* distance
so that a small affect will cause a sufficintly large change in it's
trajectory.
That was NOT the case with the comets you mention.

Nonsense. It is quite within our capabilities to intercept a comet.

So what, we still can't destroy one, or sufficiently alter the trajectory of
one that would destroy the Earth.
Better go back and read what the argument is about.

The Giotto mission did it with Comet Halley in 1986 and got within 600 km
of the
nucleus. Giotto then got within 200 km of comet Grigg-Skjellerup in 1992
after
a flyby of Earth. The Russians got within a few thousand kms of Halley as
well
in 1986.

You seem to have missed the whole point people were making. Not that we
study comets, we are doing that already!

Why does a comet (or other body for that matter) have to have 3 visits
before
something is done about it? What about the long period comets/asteroids
that may visit every million years or so, or the ones that visit once then
are
gone forever into interstellar space?

Because if we find one out in the Oort cloud, we cannot measure whether it
will hit the Earth, and we cannot reach it if we did.
We could only attempt to do something about objects once they are within the
Solar system, and then we have the problem of WHAT?

Periodic observations of known objects that cross the Earths orbit is the
only
way to make reliable predictions. Continuous vigilence is the only way to
discover the unknown objects.

Sure, let's spend up big on fixing problems a thousand years from now

You can pray all you like. Will it prevent an impact? No. But it may give
you
some peace.

If you are religious then surely it's Gods will if the earth is destoyed/


MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7kets9F3528ncU1@mid.individual.net...

**The fact that the trajectory of several large objects have already been
accurately been predicted.

But NOT at the distance required to do something about their trajectory with
current technology.
IF you *really* want to continue the debate, at LEAST tell us what you think
might be done, how, and at what distance.
Or else just believe whatever fairy stories you like, and let's get on with
our lives!

**It assists with any autonomous rockets which may be sent to deal with a
problem. We no longer need to completely rely upon accurate aiming. A
robotic craft can make adjustments to cope with a wide range of variables.

Sure it can, so we send one up to every likely object just in case it's
needed, then it does what exactly?
Don't say alter it's course, how do you propose to do that given a
sufficintly large object that poses a major risk, travelling at the usual
range of veocities for such objects?

**We had a significant event around 100 years ago on this planet.

Yep, and more people are killed in earthly disasters almost every year. And
still no proof we could have prevented it with current technology in any
case!

**It may also keep us one step away from extinction.

If it helps you sleep at night! Frankly it would do the rest of the Universe
a favour IMO

**Robotic landers that have made it to several parts of the Solar system,
along with close encounters with comets. We have the technology.

To observe them? Sure, no argument from me.

But hey, by all means donate YOUR money to such a search if you want!

**I believe I already have. As have you (if you pay tax).

Sure I do, and I prefer mine to be used on the serious problems we already
have, where money might actually help with a solution.
I guess that puts me in the minority.

MrT.

 

[dmm]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:24:42 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"dmm" <dmmilne_REMOVE_@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
newsjm2e59c91eedqol21vuirrjpnt7s4tghs@4ax.com...
You can say it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that several
space
probes have already intercepted comets.
One has actually landed on a comet.

Agreed, so what?

Recently an impactor has collided with a comet (Deep Impact) so that the
interior could be examined by the main spacecraft. In 2004 another probe,
the
Stardust mission rendezvoused with comet Wiild 2 and collected particles
of the
comet, then returned them to the Earth.

And just how much was the comets orbit altered by exactly?
(Hint, not at all!)

Dunno. The relatively small mass impactor hit the comet at one end. It may
simply cause the comet to increase its rotation verrry slightly. Pretty amazing
bit of navigation though I reckon.

The argument here has been that we intercept the object at a *huge* distance
so that a small affect will cause a sufficintly large change in it's
trajectory.
That was NOT the case with the comets you mention.

That's right. They were simply experiments with no intentions of changing the
comets orbits. My intention was to point out that we actually have intercepted
comets. Something you seem to have neglected to mention in the discussion.

Nonsense. It is quite within our capabilities to intercept a comet.

So what, we still can't destroy one, or sufficiently alter the trajectory of
one that would destroy the Earth.

Destroying one is impractical anyway. The remaining bits would go flying off in
their own orbits and possibly threaten the Earth at a later date, then we'd have
to deal with the whole mess again. Really, the point is we don't know if a
comet, or asteroid can be moved. There's been a number of methods postulated,
but until they've been tested, we really don't know.

Better go back and read what the argument is about.

No need, I've got the gist.

Because if we find one out in the Oort cloud, we cannot measure whether it
will hit the Earth, and we cannot reach it if we did.

Actually we can measure the orbits of objects when they're being periodically
observed. If they cross the Earth's orbit, then they get more attention from
astronomers.

We could only attempt to do something about objects once they are within the
Solar system, and then we have the problem of WHAT?

That doesn't guarantee an Earth impact. It could take several orbits of the
object before an impact occurs. A small change to the orbit of the object would
eventually prevent a collision, especially if we're talking about years or even
centuries before the object visits the inner solar system again.

If you are religious then surely it's Gods will if the earth is destoyed/

I don't subscribe to the assertion that it's God will that the Earth is
destroyed. He's done a pretty lousy job of it every time He's tried so far.

He must be beset by a bungling bureaucracy as well. ;-)

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"dmm" <dmmilne_REMOVE_@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:bj18e5tijm8kghqn018dbpi6g1mh0c0sig@4ax.com...

That's right. They were simply experiments with no intentions of changing
the
comets orbits. My intention was to point out that we actually have
intercepted
comets. Something you seem to have neglected to mention in the discussion.

Because it wasn't relevant to the argument.

Destroying one is impractical anyway. The remaining bits would go flying
off in
their own orbits and possibly threaten the Earth at a later date, then
we'd have
to deal with the whole mess again. Really, the point is we don't know if
a
comet, or asteroid can be moved. There's been a number of methods
postulated,
but until they've been tested, we really don't know.

Can't be tested anyway because most are still waiting on technolgy
improvements.
One day perhaps.

Actually we can measure the orbits of objects when they're being
periodically
observed. If they cross the Earth's orbit, then they get more attention
from
astronomers.

Of course, but by then it's probably too late with current technology.

That doesn't guarantee an Earth impact. It could take several orbits of
the
object before an impact occurs. A small change to the orbit of the object
would
eventually prevent a collision, especially if we're talking about years or
even
centuries before the object visits the inner solar system again.

Centuries, exactly my point. By then we may be able to do something, but why
worry now?
You do realise any object that only takes a few "years" is in a very close
orbit, and we probably know about them already. Unless something blasts one
loose from the asterioid belt I guess.

No matter how much money you spend planning for things that may never
happen, something you haven't planned for will arise and bite you anyway!
Or more likely something you already know about, and have done, or can do,
nothing about anyway.

MrT.

 

[F Murtz]

dmm wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:24:42 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"dmm" <dmmilne_REMOVE_@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
newsjm2e59c91eedqol21vuirrjpnt7s4tghs@4ax.com...
You can say it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that several
space
probes have already intercepted comets.
One has actually landed on a comet.
Agreed, so what?

Recently an impactor has collided with a comet (Deep Impact) so that the
interior could be examined by the main spacecraft. In 2004 another probe,
the
Stardust mission rendezvoused with comet Wiild 2 and collected particles
of the
comet, then returned them to the Earth.
And just how much was the comets orbit altered by exactly?
(Hint, not at all!)

Dunno. The relatively small mass impactor hit the comet at one end. It may
simply cause the comet to increase its rotation verrry slightly. Pretty amazing
bit of navigation though I reckon.

The argument here has been that we intercept the object at a *huge* distance
so that a small affect will cause a sufficintly large change in it's
trajectory.
That was NOT the case with the comets you mention.

That's right. They were simply experiments with no intentions of changing the
comets orbits. My intention was to point out that we actually have intercepted
comets. Something you seem to have neglected to mention in the discussion.
Nonsense. It is quite within our capabilities to intercept a comet.
So what, we still can't destroy one, or sufficiently alter the trajectory of
one that would destroy the Earth.

Destroying one is impractical anyway. The remaining bits would go flying off in
their own orbits and possibly threaten the Earth at a later date, then we'd have
to deal with the whole mess again. Really, the point is we don't know if a
comet, or asteroid can be moved. There's been a number of methods postulated,
but until they've been tested, we really don't know.

If it is a small asteroid may be we could land a rocket with extra fuel
nose first on it then start rockets and shove it a bit.
(have not figured how to add smileys yet)

Better go back and read what the argument is about.

No need, I've got the gist.

Because if we find one out in the Oort cloud, we cannot measure whether it
will hit the Earth, and we cannot reach it if we did.

Actually we can measure the orbits of objects when they're being periodically
observed. If they cross the Earth's orbit, then they get more attention from
astronomers.

We could only attempt to do something about objects once they are within the
Solar system, and then we have the problem of WHAT?

That doesn't guarantee an Earth impact. It could take several orbits of the
object before an impact occurs. A small change to the orbit of the object would
eventually prevent a collision, especially if we're talking about years or even
centuries before the object visits the inner solar system again.

If you are religious then surely it's Gods will if the earth is destoyed/

I don't subscribe to the assertion that it's God will that the Earth is
destroyed. He's done a pretty lousy job of it every time He's tried so far.

He must be beset by a bungling bureaucracy as well. ;-)

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

Mr.T wrote:

"dmm" <dmmilne_REMOVE_@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:bj18e5tijm8kghqn018dbpi6g1mh0c0sig@4ax.com...
That's right. They were simply experiments with no intentions of
changing the comets orbits. My intention was to point out that we
actually have intercepted comets. Something you seem to have
neglected to mention in the discussion.

Because it wasn't relevant to the argument.

The argument is should we spend money on searching for and tracking anything
that can hit us.
You claimed it wasn't possible to do anything about it if we did find one,
so we shouldn't bother. Yet we have already sent multiple probes to
succesfully intercept some of these things in the past. I'd say that's
pretty relevant to the argument.

Destroying one is impractical anyway. The remaining bits would go
flying off in their own orbits and possibly threaten the Earth at a
later date, then we'd have to deal with the whole mess again.
Really, the point is we don't know if a comet, or asteroid can be
moved. There's been a number of methods postulated, but until
they've been tested, we really don't know.

Can't be tested anyway because most are still waiting on technolgy
improvements.

That would come very quickly indeed if something was going to hit us.

One day perhaps.

Ah, so you do think we might be able to do something, it's just a matter of
development time huh?

Actually we can measure the orbits of objects when they're being
periodically observed. If they cross the Earth's orbit, then they
get more attention from astronomers.

Of course, but by then it's probably too late with current technology.

That's why more money is needed to find and track them sooner.

That doesn't guarantee an Earth impact. It could take several orbits
of the object before an impact occurs. A small change to the orbit
of the object would eventually prevent a collision, especially if
we're talking about years or even centuries before the object visits
the inner solar system again.

Centuries, exactly my point. By then we may be able to do something

Ah, so you do think we might be able to do something, it's just a matter of
development time huh?

but why worry now?

No need to worry at all.
As the old astronaut/test pilot adage goes, no need to worry unless
something actually goes wrong.
But spending an insiginifcant (in the scheme of most things) amount of money
on it now to track and keep an eye out isn't a bad investment compared to
other stuff we piss our tax money away on.
Plus it's just kinda cool to know what's out there don't you think?
Not to mention the gear can be used for other things too.

You do realise any object that only takes a few "years" is in a very
close orbit, and we probably know about them already.

And how do we know about them?
Oh, that's right, we look for and track them, not a bad idea huh?

Unless something blasts one loose from the asterioid belt I guess.

It happens.

No matter how much money you spend planning for things that may never
happen something you haven't planned for will arise and bite you
anyway!

No one is talking about planning, just looking and tracking, an area which
by all accounts is very under-funded.

Dave.

--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com