Drunken Master said:
Does the field of EME surounding a running electric motor prove any theories?
Is global warming bad?
- Thread starter shadeau
- Start date
Does the field of EME surounding a running electric motor prove any theories?
Um, well, I suppose it does. Theories pertaining to electro-magnetic energy.papasmerf said:
anybody else understand what the hell smerf's point is?
Drunken Master said:
the·o·ry (th-r, thr)
n.
1.
A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
2.
Abstract reasoning; speculation.
This might help
my bad thought you knew the meaning
my point is
if you are to argue that you are correct and use theory to validate your point. You had better be prepared to defend you position with proofs. In that theory will not hold 100% of the time unless it is proven. And even then it may well be proven in a very narrow sense.
if you are to argue that you are correct and use theory to validate your point. You had better be prepared to defend you position with proofs. In that theory will not hold 100% of the time unless it is proven. And even then it may well be proven in a very narrow sense.
Okay, I'll play, and then I'm going to join Ranger in retiring from this thread.
Theories exist to explain certain demonstrable facts. These theories will, in turn, predict the observation of other facts. If these other, predicted facts are observed, then the theory may be said to be correct.
There are two basic models of how scientific theory relates to facts.
There first is verificationism. This suggests that each theory must produce a series of hypotheses about demonstrable facts - predications about observable data. Once enough conforming observations have been made, the theory is said to be proven, although there remains room for additional observations and counter-observations.
Thus when Darwin first noticed that organisms adapt to environment, he suggested that within a relatively isolated environment we would directly observe such a relation. Sure enough, on an isolated island in the Pacific, Darwin discovered a number of long-beaked birds and a number of flowers with long petals; the birds "evolved" a long beak to get at the nectar within. More recently, observations about the curvature of light around the moon during an eclipse confirmed a hypothesis of Enstein's Theory of Relativity.
Theories are not, this model suggests, "proven" strictly speaking, but once enough information accures to support them they may be considered to be correct
The second model is associated with the work of philosopher Karl Popper, and is called "falsificationism." Popper objected to the idea that there can really be something like inductive verificationism, that once we accumulate enough data we will have "proven" a hypothesis. He suggested that we instead accept all theories as being true until they are conclusively disproven by some observable fact.
It is an fact that global temperatures are rising. The theory of global warming explains this fact. No counter-factual evidence has yet arisen to disprove this theory. There are, on the other hand, several facts - like the widening hole in the ozone layer, to give only one example - that are predicted by this theory and have in fact been demonstrated to be true.
Okay? Is it nap time yet, papasmerf?
Theories exist to explain certain demonstrable facts. These theories will, in turn, predict the observation of other facts. If these other, predicted facts are observed, then the theory may be said to be correct.
There are two basic models of how scientific theory relates to facts.
There first is verificationism. This suggests that each theory must produce a series of hypotheses about demonstrable facts - predications about observable data. Once enough conforming observations have been made, the theory is said to be proven, although there remains room for additional observations and counter-observations.
Thus when Darwin first noticed that organisms adapt to environment, he suggested that within a relatively isolated environment we would directly observe such a relation. Sure enough, on an isolated island in the Pacific, Darwin discovered a number of long-beaked birds and a number of flowers with long petals; the birds "evolved" a long beak to get at the nectar within. More recently, observations about the curvature of light around the moon during an eclipse confirmed a hypothesis of Enstein's Theory of Relativity.
Theories are not, this model suggests, "proven" strictly speaking, but once enough information accures to support them they may be considered to be correct
The second model is associated with the work of philosopher Karl Popper, and is called "falsificationism." Popper objected to the idea that there can really be something like inductive verificationism, that once we accumulate enough data we will have "proven" a hypothesis. He suggested that we instead accept all theories as being true until they are conclusively disproven by some observable fact.
It is an fact that global temperatures are rising. The theory of global warming explains this fact. No counter-factual evidence has yet arisen to disprove this theory. There are, on the other hand, several facts - like the widening hole in the ozone layer, to give only one example - that are predicted by this theory and have in fact been demonstrated to be true.
Okay? Is it nap time yet, papasmerf?
Drunken Master said:
Since i am a binary kind of guy I only accept ones and zeros. I will not accept theories. When one depends on random factotrs to prove theory they dismiss factors which do not fit the proflle.
take cold fussion for instance. Not too many year back someone said cold fussion was accomplished in the lab. Thus far no one has been able to duplicate those results. Once duplicated cold fussion might become a practical energy source.
OK Getting back to the issue of GW
It is a given GW is bad. Also as long as the Oil Industry remains firmly entrenched in setting energy policy, as they are now, there is little chance of being liberated from present national oil addiction. There are easy alternates to oil out there.
Did is little research and came up with this interesting find on how much GW may be limited if say we switched BACK to Alcohol fueled vehicles...like the USA HAD in the past and what Brazil DOES today running 95% of their vehicles on Alcohol fuel.
Did you know that straight alcohol or moonshine was the original auto fuel that all cars ran on?
Henry Ford’s Model “A� was designed to run on either alcohol OR gasoline, whichever was available to the driver! Except during Prohibition, (the passage of which was funded to the tune of $4 millon dollars by Rockefeller) alcohol has been available at the pump until the end of WWII. Oil companies over the past 100 years have deliberately made sure that gasoline remains the only commonly available auto fuel.
The Model "A" had a Spark advance lever, that was used for changing ignition timing when going from fuel to fuel or accelerating.
Did you know that alcohol-fueled cars are virtually pollution free?
Global Warming could be stopped or reversed if all cars were converted to using alcohol fuel? Alcohol is plant-based. It is essentially liquid solar energy. No net amount CO2is released in the exhaust of alcohol-fueled vehicles; the CO2 in exhaust from alcohol plus excess CO2 from dirty fuels are reused by plants to produce the following year’s energy crops. Alcohol’s clean burning triples engine life too!
Can you imagine a guilt-free SUV?
Plus those small 'econo-box' vehicles would vanish to be replaced by those big 'land-cruisers' of past that we really still want!
Did you know cars that run on alcohol, gasoline or any mixture of the two starting selling in 2000? By law, these “Flexible Fuel Vehicles� cannot cost one penny more than the gasoline-only cars! While not publicly promoted, these autos are easily available at a lower cost to the buyer than gasoline only models when you figure in tax credits. More than 1 million FFV’s will be sold in 2004. There are over 65,000 of them in California now.
Link:
http://www.permaculture.com/alcohol/FAQ.htm
Growing our own fuel....what a novel idea and a boon for our farmers!
It is a given GW is bad. Also as long as the Oil Industry remains firmly entrenched in setting energy policy, as they are now, there is little chance of being liberated from present national oil addiction. There are easy alternates to oil out there.
Did is little research and came up with this interesting find on how much GW may be limited if say we switched BACK to Alcohol fueled vehicles...like the USA HAD in the past and what Brazil DOES today running 95% of their vehicles on Alcohol fuel.
Did you know that straight alcohol or moonshine was the original auto fuel that all cars ran on?
Henry Ford’s Model “A� was designed to run on either alcohol OR gasoline, whichever was available to the driver! Except during Prohibition, (the passage of which was funded to the tune of $4 millon dollars by Rockefeller) alcohol has been available at the pump until the end of WWII. Oil companies over the past 100 years have deliberately made sure that gasoline remains the only commonly available auto fuel.
The Model "A" had a Spark advance lever, that was used for changing ignition timing when going from fuel to fuel or accelerating.
Did you know that alcohol-fueled cars are virtually pollution free?
Global Warming could be stopped or reversed if all cars were converted to using alcohol fuel? Alcohol is plant-based. It is essentially liquid solar energy. No net amount CO2is released in the exhaust of alcohol-fueled vehicles; the CO2 in exhaust from alcohol plus excess CO2 from dirty fuels are reused by plants to produce the following year’s energy crops. Alcohol’s clean burning triples engine life too!
Can you imagine a guilt-free SUV?
Plus those small 'econo-box' vehicles would vanish to be replaced by those big 'land-cruisers' of past that we really still want!
Did you know cars that run on alcohol, gasoline or any mixture of the two starting selling in 2000? By law, these “Flexible Fuel Vehicles� cannot cost one penny more than the gasoline-only cars! While not publicly promoted, these autos are easily available at a lower cost to the buyer than gasoline only models when you figure in tax credits. More than 1 million FFV’s will be sold in 2004. There are over 65,000 of them in California now.
Link:
http://www.permaculture.com/alcohol/FAQ.htm
Growing our own fuel....what a novel idea and a boon for our farmers!
Re: OK Getting back to the issue of GW
Until consumers change their habbits, there is no reason for oil suppliers and refineries to look for alternatives.
On a different subject:
How come that the whole world is buying crude oil at the same price, but there such differences in the price of gasoline?
The answer is Taxes.
Which makes me believe that maybe some goverments are not in a big rush either to push for change.Just a thought.
It will take market demand to force change. Why gasoline prices have risen, we have not reached the "pain treshold" yet. There are early signs that the high prices of gasoline are registring, there is some demand for fuel efficent or fuel alternative vehicles, but there is no major shift yet.WoodPeckr said:
Until consumers change their habbits, there is no reason for oil suppliers and refineries to look for alternatives.
On a different subject:
How come that the whole world is buying crude oil at the same price, but there such differences in the price of gasoline?
The answer is Taxes.
Which makes me believe that maybe some goverments are not in a big rush either to push for change.Just a thought.
Re: Re: OK Getting back to the issue of GW
1. Consumers have NO choice. We are held captive by Big Oil, gasoline is the only show in town and this is the way they and Bush/Cheney another couple of oilmen plan on keeping it. There is no market demand to change the present status-quo, nor is it desired by them. All they will provide towards alternative fuel is 'lip service.'
2. We don't NEED or WANT Oil interests involved in Alcohol Refineries or supply. Better off letting the farmers and a whole new fuel industry develop here. Big Oil would just sabotage it as they did 'gasohol' awhile back, when they squealed like stuck pigs at having to blend just 10% of gasoline with alcohol.
3. Taxes are a non issue because they will no doubt be added to the price of any future alcohol fuel developed just as they are now added into the price of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, electricity, home heating oil, etc. So either way the governments will get their cut of the action.
It's that now government is being KEPT FROM PUSHING for any change by the 'powers in charge.'
lange, you must work for the oil lobby right, because you completey miss the whole point with invalid reasoning.langeweile said:
1. Consumers have NO choice. We are held captive by Big Oil, gasoline is the only show in town and this is the way they and Bush/Cheney another couple of oilmen plan on keeping it. There is no market demand to change the present status-quo, nor is it desired by them. All they will provide towards alternative fuel is 'lip service.'
2. We don't NEED or WANT Oil interests involved in Alcohol Refineries or supply. Better off letting the farmers and a whole new fuel industry develop here. Big Oil would just sabotage it as they did 'gasohol' awhile back, when they squealed like stuck pigs at having to blend just 10% of gasoline with alcohol.
3. Taxes are a non issue because they will no doubt be added to the price of any future alcohol fuel developed just as they are now added into the price of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, electricity, home heating oil, etc. So either way the governments will get their cut of the action.
It's that now government is being KEPT FROM PUSHING for any change by the 'powers in charge.'
Re: Re: Re: OK Getting back to the issue of GW
Trucks and large SUV sales have skyrocketed. Engines have become bigger and more thirsty for gasoline.
While there have been some smaller and more efficent engines and some hybrids. Sales of those are very limited in comparisson.
READ IT.
Under the surface oil companies (the smart ones) have and are postioning themselves as the energy suppliers of the future. They are perfectly positioned, because they can utilize their current infrastrcuture.
No you are missing the point. Gasoline IMHO is still too cheap. There are still too many one child families driving a Suburban. Or man that feel the need to drive an F150 to work. If people would be fed up with the prices there would be a much larger dash to smaller and more efficent cars. While you now might see some move in to that direction, the big trend is just not there.
More efficency is the right first step to force manufacturers to pay attention. As long as the Hummer and the Escalade are still seen as a status symbols. We are not ready yet.
NO I am not working for an oil company. i am just tired of people pretending they care, but are not willing to take the first step to make a change.
If gas prices are soo bad.
1) Buy smaller cars or buy a hybrid
2) Move closer to the city and take public transportation
3) Vote for someone that will force a change.
Consumers DO have a choice and they are making it. I suggest you read the sales figures on automobiles in North America for the past ten years.WoodPeckr said:
Trucks and large SUV sales have skyrocketed. Engines have become bigger and more thirsty for gasoline.
While there have been some smaller and more efficent engines and some hybrids. Sales of those are very limited in comparisson.
READ IT.
Under the surface oil companies (the smart ones) have and are postioning themselves as the energy suppliers of the future. They are perfectly positioned, because they can utilize their current infrastrcuture.
No you are missing the point. Gasoline IMHO is still too cheap. There are still too many one child families driving a Suburban. Or man that feel the need to drive an F150 to work. If people would be fed up with the prices there would be a much larger dash to smaller and more efficent cars. While you now might see some move in to that direction, the big trend is just not there.
More efficency is the right first step to force manufacturers to pay attention. As long as the Hummer and the Escalade are still seen as a status symbols. We are not ready yet.
NO I am not working for an oil company. i am just tired of people pretending they care, but are not willing to take the first step to make a change.
If gas prices are soo bad.
1) Buy smaller cars or buy a hybrid
2) Move closer to the city and take public transportation
3) Vote for someone that will force a change.
Re: Re: Re: Re: OK Getting back to the issue of GW
This is America where "bigger is better," always has been and citing past 10 year sales figures when gas prices 'were' fairly stable and low, only reconfirm this fact that Americans love big vehicles and if they think gas prices will remain low they will buy big vehicles. This is of course a totally separate issue from being completely at the mercy of Big Oil. On this point we have NO CHOICE but gasoline to fuel those big vehicles we want.
Hummer and the Escalade are still seen as a status symbols and could just as easily be fueled by alcohol or hydogen fuel cells but only if those industries are given incentives, or a good swift kick in their collective fat pompous asses.
General Motors has adapted a HUMMER H2 SUT to run on hydrogen, and will share it with the office of the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The HUMMER H2H will assist efforts to learn more about hydrogen storage and refueling infrastructure development. This experimental vehicle also illustrates how industry and government can collaborate to make fuel cell technology and California's Hydrogen Highway Network viable.
"The H2H is a bold experiment that along with the Hydrogen Highway Network will help California demonstrate the economic and technical viability of hydrogen," said California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. "Californians invent the future and the H2H shows that a vehicle of today can run on the fuel of tomorrow."
link:
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/hydr_h2_102504.html
Those 3 choices you give above are pretty bad, but Big Oil loves to use them also.
A better choice would be to advance an alternative fuel like Brazil did, Alcohol, to compete with Oil and give people a REAL choice on how to fuel their vehicles. With alcohol available one could pick any size vehicle you desired since there would be none of these harmful emissions that oil produces and you wouldn't worry about public transportation or where you had to live.
Henry Ford’s Model “A� was designed to run on either alcohol OR gasoline, Henry had no problem here and that was years ago! All you had to do on that Model "A" was flip the switch to run on what you just filled up with, either gasoline or alcohol. There are still farmers today, out in the USA and Canada who make their own alcohol fuel to run their tractors and farm machinery.
Did you know that in this day of $2.00 a gallon gasoline, you can make alcohol today for only 43 cents per gallon on the small scale for your farm or personal use.
Farmers across the country are right now expanding the fuel alcohol industry thereby invigorating depressed farm communities nationwide while creating pollution-free inexpensive fuel. In fact, American farmers produced more alcohol in 2002 than the amount of oil the U.S. imports from Iraq. In the Midwest, 300 independent gas pumps already provide alcohol for vehicles.
Link:
http://www.permaculture.com/alcohol/FAQ.htm
I want NO part of Big Oil meddling in any alcohol fuel development. Big Oil would just screw it up in their favor and we would all lose, because there would be NO COMPETITION. Leave all that to the farmers and alcohol refineries. Building alcohol refineries isn't all that difficult.....Brazil had no problems here, so those in the USA should even be better.
Well, for someone who claims not to work for them you present your case in such a manner that would make those oil companies very very very happy. They couldn't have written a much better response.langeweile said:
This is America where "bigger is better," always has been and citing past 10 year sales figures when gas prices 'were' fairly stable and low, only reconfirm this fact that Americans love big vehicles and if they think gas prices will remain low they will buy big vehicles. This is of course a totally separate issue from being completely at the mercy of Big Oil. On this point we have NO CHOICE but gasoline to fuel those big vehicles we want.
Hummer and the Escalade are still seen as a status symbols and could just as easily be fueled by alcohol or hydogen fuel cells but only if those industries are given incentives, or a good swift kick in their collective fat pompous asses.
General Motors has adapted a HUMMER H2 SUT to run on hydrogen, and will share it with the office of the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The HUMMER H2H will assist efforts to learn more about hydrogen storage and refueling infrastructure development. This experimental vehicle also illustrates how industry and government can collaborate to make fuel cell technology and California's Hydrogen Highway Network viable.
"The H2H is a bold experiment that along with the Hydrogen Highway Network will help California demonstrate the economic and technical viability of hydrogen," said California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. "Californians invent the future and the H2H shows that a vehicle of today can run on the fuel of tomorrow."
link:
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/hydr_h2_102504.html
Those 3 choices you give above are pretty bad, but Big Oil loves to use them also.
A better choice would be to advance an alternative fuel like Brazil did, Alcohol, to compete with Oil and give people a REAL choice on how to fuel their vehicles. With alcohol available one could pick any size vehicle you desired since there would be none of these harmful emissions that oil produces and you wouldn't worry about public transportation or where you had to live.
Henry Ford’s Model “A� was designed to run on either alcohol OR gasoline, Henry had no problem here and that was years ago! All you had to do on that Model "A" was flip the switch to run on what you just filled up with, either gasoline or alcohol. There are still farmers today, out in the USA and Canada who make their own alcohol fuel to run their tractors and farm machinery.
Did you know that in this day of $2.00 a gallon gasoline, you can make alcohol today for only 43 cents per gallon on the small scale for your farm or personal use.
Farmers across the country are right now expanding the fuel alcohol industry thereby invigorating depressed farm communities nationwide while creating pollution-free inexpensive fuel. In fact, American farmers produced more alcohol in 2002 than the amount of oil the U.S. imports from Iraq. In the Midwest, 300 independent gas pumps already provide alcohol for vehicles.
Link:
http://www.permaculture.com/alcohol/FAQ.htm
I want NO part of Big Oil meddling in any alcohol fuel development. Big Oil would just screw it up in their favor and we would all lose, because there would be NO COMPETITION. Leave all that to the farmers and alcohol refineries. Building alcohol refineries isn't all that difficult.....Brazil had no problems here, so those in the USA should even be better.
Last edited:
From the Economist, January 15, 2004:
Is the politicians' favourite fuel bad for the environment and your pocket?
IT'S the one topic all presidential candidates agree on in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses: ethanol production is a very good thing and should be handsomely subsidised. Forget that this grain alcohol has always been something of an economic and environmental joke. It comes from corn (or maize), which is mostly what Iowa is famous for.
The current subsidy to the industry is worth around 50 cents a gallon—or around $1.4 billion a year. The fig-leaf covering this largesse is the idea that ethanol is a clean fuel. In the 1980s, it was touted as an alternative to leaded petrol. It got another push from the 1990 Clean Air Act; to cope with the requirement for cleaner emission standards, states made the petrol industry add more oxygenates to their fuel to make it burn better. Ethanol emerged as the main such additive.
Meanwhile, the economics of ethanol production have taken a turn for the better. Efficient enzymes have led to more cost-effective fermentation, and genetically modified high-starch corn has a better yield (and so needs less processing in the plant and fewer herbicides in the field). Today there are 75 plants distilling a record 2.8 billion gallons, with a dozen more facilities under construction
But is ethanol really that green? A debate has been stirred up by David Pimentel, an entomologist, who argues that each gallon of ethanol takes 29% more energy to make than it eventually produces. In 2002 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers the subsidies, released a report claiming the opposite: “Corn-ethanol yields 34% more energy than it takes to produce it, including growing the corn, harvesting it, transporting it, and distilling it into ethanol.�
This might have seemed the end of the matter. But Mr Pimentel claims that the USDA study is flawed. It omits about half the inputs in corn production, including the cost of water to grow the stuff, and by using averages it avoids pointing out that some ethanol plants are extremely ungreen. It may indeed be energy-efficient to distil ethanol in eastern Minnesota, which has lots of rain and is home to the nation's cheapest corn. But in dryer Nebraska around 80% of the corn has to be irrigated, normally by natural-gas powered pumps, and much of the water comes from the fast-dropping Ogallala aquifer.
Other scientists are now trying to poke holes in Mr Pimentel's numbers. But do not expect the scientific debate about the highly subsidised crop to make a blind bit of difference to the politicians. The hand-outs for ethanol will rise again if a new energy bill goes through Congress.
OTB
Is the politicians' favourite fuel bad for the environment and your pocket?
IT'S the one topic all presidential candidates agree on in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses: ethanol production is a very good thing and should be handsomely subsidised. Forget that this grain alcohol has always been something of an economic and environmental joke. It comes from corn (or maize), which is mostly what Iowa is famous for.
The current subsidy to the industry is worth around 50 cents a gallon—or around $1.4 billion a year. The fig-leaf covering this largesse is the idea that ethanol is a clean fuel. In the 1980s, it was touted as an alternative to leaded petrol. It got another push from the 1990 Clean Air Act; to cope with the requirement for cleaner emission standards, states made the petrol industry add more oxygenates to their fuel to make it burn better. Ethanol emerged as the main such additive.
Meanwhile, the economics of ethanol production have taken a turn for the better. Efficient enzymes have led to more cost-effective fermentation, and genetically modified high-starch corn has a better yield (and so needs less processing in the plant and fewer herbicides in the field). Today there are 75 plants distilling a record 2.8 billion gallons, with a dozen more facilities under construction
But is ethanol really that green? A debate has been stirred up by David Pimentel, an entomologist, who argues that each gallon of ethanol takes 29% more energy to make than it eventually produces. In 2002 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers the subsidies, released a report claiming the opposite: “Corn-ethanol yields 34% more energy than it takes to produce it, including growing the corn, harvesting it, transporting it, and distilling it into ethanol.�
This might have seemed the end of the matter. But Mr Pimentel claims that the USDA study is flawed. It omits about half the inputs in corn production, including the cost of water to grow the stuff, and by using averages it avoids pointing out that some ethanol plants are extremely ungreen. It may indeed be energy-efficient to distil ethanol in eastern Minnesota, which has lots of rain and is home to the nation's cheapest corn. But in dryer Nebraska around 80% of the corn has to be irrigated, normally by natural-gas powered pumps, and much of the water comes from the fast-dropping Ogallala aquifer.
Other scientists are now trying to poke holes in Mr Pimentel's numbers. But do not expect the scientific debate about the highly subsidised crop to make a blind bit of difference to the politicians. The hand-outs for ethanol will rise again if a new energy bill goes through Congress.
OTB
It doesn't have to be just corn. There are better crops for this purpose out there, namely Hemp. Brazil uses jungle vegetation to produce their ethanol, of course it grows like weeds there. Anything that grows could be used including waste food, potato peels etc.onthebottom said:
I mentioned Hemp, because it was viewed as the most cost effective crop to use for ethanol production in the USA because of its rapid growth rates. However because of hemp's potentinal 'side-uses'....
.... I'm sure Bush and his christian Oliver Crownwellian Roundheads, not to mention his hommies in Big Oil, would object. Perhaps Canada, since you have a more liberal view on the use of hemp up there, would be an ideal place to lead in the growth of hemp for ethanol production.....of course.Against ongoing evidence that glaciers are receding significantly worldwide, that the North Pole is shrinking and may disappear in less then 100 years, that the oceans of the world are warming, especially in the North Pacific and Indian, that parts of the world have had record droughts; to refute all this bbk points to one summer in 1926.bbking said:
Congratulations. That Nobel prize should be showing up any day now.
It was also hotter 6 billion years ago, when the earth was a mass of molten rock.bbking said:
Your point?
