--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
"It isn\'t that democrats are ignorant. Far from it... it\'s just that
they know so much that just isn\'t so" -Ronald Reagan
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
How severe can senility be? Just check out Slowman.
I've been arguing for a while that the solar minimum would lead to cooler climate.
Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:
formatting link
/quote
B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23
Scope of Program
In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment. For example: Causes ? Solar output
Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947; * Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age; * Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum; * Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 22; * Effectively no sunspots; * The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and * Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.
--
It\'s good to see us _all_ enjoying ourselves, but it\'s not a fan club.
It\'s more like a party where we get to play pin-the-tail-on-the-Sloman
(sorry, Graham ;) but we don\'t have to wear blindfolds.
It\'d be more fun if you were like a piñata, but a piñata is full of fun
toys and candy, not shit.
I respect Jim's skills as a chip designer, not that I've been too impressed with those chips of his that I have got to use. He certainly doesn't know much about anything else, and he has a touching in faith in the correctness of his comical opinions on subjects outside of electronics.
Again, Michael may be the world's greatest expert on radio transmitter facility design, but he doesn't seem to know much outside of this rather narrow expertise.
Since the proper way to use the 555 is to throw it in the waste bin, your boasted skill is just evidence that you haven't kept up with modern electronics.
That may be your impression, but in fact what you are saying is that I'm not susceptible to your silly ideas, no matter how enthusiastic you may be about infecting other people with your misconceptions
We all see the world in the way that makes us feel comfortable. Your perceptions, like Jim's, don't have much to do with reality, but if that's what you need to protect your vulnerable little ego, go ahead an enjoy yourself. It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.
You've yet to establish that modern tantalum electrolytic capacitors don't offer lower and more stable leakage currents than modern aluminium electrolytics.
You went to the rouble of identifing an aluminium electrolytic capacitor that you thought would be good enough to do the OP's job, but you didn't tell him where he could buy them, or explain why he should jump through hoops to find your special aluminium electrolytic, when any regular tantalum electrolytic would do a perfectly respectable job.
um
Since you've utterly failed to prove that my advice was bogus, you've just advertised your terminal stupidity one more time.
You are perhaps being a little over-confident here.
It's nice to have an ambition, but you really need to find an ambition that you are equipped to achieve.
I'm happy to accept competent criticism. If you had any sense you'd have realised that you - once again - have gotten yourself excited about a bizarre misinterpretation of what I wrote.
You aren't being critical - you've just got it wrong. Again.
Sloman is the only person I've ever seen who makes his delusions of adequacy, very boring.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I
will not see your messages.
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
With clear sky and sun near zenith, that figure is roughly correct. Worldwide average is more like 235 watts per square meter including absorption in the atmosphere (Kiehl-Trenberth), as high as 250 according to one disputing Kiehl-Trenberth.
What about when population hits 9 billion? Prepare for 1 person per
56,000 square meters.
Not that I am against fusion or other nuclear power, but some of these numbers here appear to me to need corrections that may show us enough heat that maybe we need to prepare for it.
It looks to me as if the world is burning fossil fuels at a rate accounting for 6.4 or more gigatons of carbon per year. Coal produces 8 kilocalories per gram burned, natural gas produces about 11, and oil about or a little over 10. Let's say overall average 9 for the sake of argument
- probably a bit on the low side. And when combustion is incomplete, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons will get oxidized in the ozone layer and by urban tropospheric ozone and nitrogen oxides within years to a few decades - so I consider heat from full combustion to be reasonably truthful.
6.4 gigatons/year * 1 E+15 grams per gigaton * 9 calories per gram *
4.19 watt-seconds/calorie * 1 year/31557600 seconds = about 7.65 E+9 watts.
Divide that by current global population of maybe 6.6 billion people, looks like current global energy usage is 1.15 kilowatts per person, plus the little bit that nuclear energy amounts to.
With the widely-spouted figures of USA having 5% (or less) of global population and 20% of global energy consumption, I figure USA having energy consumption of 4.6 kilowatts per person. Somehow, I have impression of Europeans having less, maybe 3 KW per person even with "western" lifestyle.
Maybe the worry is should we get a prosperous industrialized planet with average inhabitant being a member of a society sufficiently industrialized/"westernized" to have average energy consumption of 2 KW per capita. Keep in mind that a major fusion power industry will allow billions to drive electric cars!
I would prepare for 9 billion people consuming 2KW apiece on average, or
18 terawatts, 1.8 E+13 watts. Possibly 10 billion people consuming (even if indirectly) 2.5 KW each, amounting to 2.5 E+13 watts.
Then again, with Earth surface area being 5.1 E+14 square meters, finding more-alarmist figures for direct thermal heating likely later this century only finds approaching .05 watt per square meter.
Should the truth end up being double this, that is still 1/15 of a figure that has been tossed around a fair amount for effect of CO2 increase as of a year or two ago.
Even with correction of a bad number, I would favor nuclear options such as fusion to reduce CO2 production.
I think that the world needs to stop and reverse the population growth, in order to reduce consumption of limited natural resources until substitutes are found/developed. I don't have much concern for global thermal pollution from nuclear power including fusion power even if the world achieves 10 billion people, with per capita energy consumption close to current European average.
Please keep in mind that most societies with above-global-average population growth rate have below-global-average rate of production of scientists and engineers!
I'll agree with that... and so far the best way seems to be to raise the standard of living, paradoxically that's what reduces population growth of a group...
Lack of El Ninos greater than the century-scale-greatness one of 1998
About 14 months ago we were in the bottom of a La Nina that was to a small extent the most severe in 20 years
The "Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation" has a significant effect on global temperature and has a period around 60-70 years, and that peaked either with the 1998 El Nino or with the warm times of the middle of the decade that we are about to exit.
We have recently gone past peak of a sunspot cycle of period around 80 years, and maybe also of one of period 2 or 2-plus centuries.
Should we have any global warming at all from now to 2030 or 2035, watch out for what happens in the following 30 years or so that will have the next upswing half of the AMO and a majority of the next upswing in the 80 year cycle of solar output. I would worry about 2035-2070 achieving .2-.25 degree C/K per decade warming, for .7-.875 degree addition to the roughly .4 degree boost of the past decade from 1961-2000 average.
High side of the recent past uptick is .19-.2 degree C per decade during peak 2 or so of past 3-plus upswinging decades when effects of AMO and the 80 year cycle of solar output were favoring upswing.
If the next 2-3 decades show much smaller downswing, beware that we have warming trend on century-plus scale.
If the next 2-3 decades fail to have any significant cooling, watch out for when AMO and the roughly-80-year-solar-cycle both mostly upswing from
It appears to me that this point depends on obstacles that are political more than scientific.
For example, nuclear waste can be safely dumped under a deep "Southwest USA" salt dome. For second place example, I consider that depths of a used-up uranium mine are good enough for safe disposal. (And I say that those saying "not good enough" are "close enough to 'luddites' ").
So what? It is well known that the solar output changes by about 0.1% over the 22 year sunspot cycle and it has long since been incorporated into the climate change models. A less active sun is very slightly less luminous. See for example :
formatting link
and
formatting link
One serious effect of solar maximum is to fluff up the outer layer of the atmosphere with more aggressive solar winds and magnetic storms increasing drag and requiring more frequent adjustments to low flying satellites. It was responsible for the early reentry of spacelab.
Incidentally those solar cycle "references" that you found on the HM Treasury site subdirectory /d are entirely bogus crap. The whole lot was exposed to deep linking and search engines without appropriate HM Government disclaimers. It is not government policy and never has been.
You are *only* supposed to look at that material through their
*official* portal window where there is a feeble disclaimer considering some of the total garbage and nonsensical junk they are hosting. The official access portal is hard to find. Quoting from their statement :
#The authors of the responses published were clearly labelled and the #web page clearly states that the submissions and responses "...do not #necessarily reflect the views of either Sir Nicholas Stern or of the #Government." #
formatting link
You have to love the way every entry in the catalogue begins with "PDF file of response to the Stern Review from ".
I was eventually sent this link after making enquiries to find out how their site security had been compromised. The answer is that they are the unsolicited responses to the Stern report and that their website is very badly misconfigured by half witted cowboys.
This may change, but don't hold your breath. I think it is appalling that a UK government website should host such gibberish and nonsense "science" and expose it directly to Google and other search engines.
The responses can be online but you should get a warning when deep linking into the Treasury site that they are not the views of the UK government. Or they should prevent people from deep linking to take the stuff out of context and passing it off as a UK Government reports.
AFAICT the first AGW denialist to exploit HM Treasury's naivety was Melanie Phillips writing in the Spectator in her column of 10/4/2008.
There is some good material on the HMT website as well as a fair number of rants by delusional nutters, cranks and kooks who are glad of their
No, and you wouldn't do any worse if you were wearing blindfolds. If you don't understand what you see, your eyes aren't all that useful.
un
Kids do prefer toys and candy to the kind of stuff adults value. If they are well brought up, they don't describe things that they ought to appreciate as shit, but you were brought up in Texas.
From what I can see of your "products" and Jim's, the fact that you both are making money reflects a certain lack of sophistication in your customer base. From time to time I've been asked to present my designs as John Larkin does - as insanely good and so forth - but I've never been good enough at keeping a straight face to make that kind of exaggerated claim. Which is not to say that I haven't come up with clever solutions to specfic problems, merely that I've always been able to see how they could have been made even better.
Job hunting, with little prospect of success.
Not so much fighting as exposing their pretensions.
You aren't really equipped to see sense.
You think I'm going to take you seriously?
That is what I ought to do, but I'm bored.
Aren't we all?
Your vocabulary has suddenly expanded or - more likely - you've plagarised something from someone who can write. Possibly me.
True. You do get excited about typo's.
Ran out of inspiration? There's not a lot of it around in Texas, and you don't seem to have access to what is available.
-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
formatting link
| 1962 | I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.