Hole in the Antarctica

[rasselasss]

Well spotted Art,its Ir.tipped (atomic no.77)i'm hoping to use it as a non-load bearing for the upper mount on a minature gyro running in a diamond socket,(i need it to run to at least 500-1000 r.p.m.,time will tell) whilst examining it under the microscope the image i thought similar to the topic of this thread....just a bit of fun.....Good Luck..

[Furcurequs]

Bill, I am no fan of the oil companies but I don't blame them for defending themselves from the lies.

That's what was said by some about the tobacco industry. They even employed doctors to stand up, hand on heart, and say that smoking tobacco was healthy. They created doubt about the scientific evidence that tobacco was harmful in order to score another few decades of free commerce. The sugar industry is at that same early stage right now. A little doubt sprinkled over a superstitious world can be worth billions.

I was skimming the thread and saw this, and it reminded me of the movie The Insider from 1999. I would highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.

It's based on the true story of the tobacco industry whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand who appeared on 60 Minutes- and who is played by Russel Crowe.

I remember it was a really good movie and apparently it received seven academy award nominations.

It's been awhile. I may have to watch it again, even though I rarely ever watch movies more than once.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140352/

Dwayne

[rlortie]

Well spotted Art,its Ir.tipped (atomic no.77)i'm hoping to use it as a non-load bearing for the upper mount on a minature gyro running in a diamond socket,(i need it to run to at least 500-1000 r.p.m.,time will tell) whilst examining it under the microscope the image i thought similar to the topic of this thread....just a bit of fun.....Good Luck..

I have recently been researching gyroscope driven machine designs. If you wish to get anything out of a miniature, I suggest you add another zero to your 500-1000. Suggest a little Google research into avionic compass gyros or military tracking gyros, You will find that anything below 10,000 rpm to be considered slow.

A diamond or jewel socket will take it, I remember as a child, a pocket watch was rated by the number of jewels it used for bearings. If you owned a 17 jeweled pocket watch you were uptown.

Ralph

[rasselasss]

Riortie,the speed for my 1st.test is really immaterial,the Gyro,is the easiest form for a rotor device,i'll try and explain what i'm at......firstly i'm making minature as its easy made and if it achieves r.p.m. as stated i'll use a different format to enlarge etc.....the gyro will be fixed to a base and enclosed by a glass tube which i'll hopefully create a vacumn with a fridge compresser and seal by glass welding ....the pivots and vertical shaft will be of non-magnetic material BUT the rotor will,..obviously you'll know what comes next..... a strong neo magnet passing close to the enclosed rotor in a sweeping action to start the speed of the rotor...withdrawing when max.is attained and measurement of running time taken...the result will determine if the idea can be reversed or enlarged in a different manner ie.the magnet inside driving or wheel shaped ,whatever...the whole idea being a "friction"type drive with no seals,glands etc.that would cause leakage and unreliability ...whether its up to the job or not is another question...Good Luck.

[Art]

.

Hi rasselass ,

As Vlad the Impaler would probably have said “ a good post can go anywhere ! � . . : )

Sounds like you are really working on a miniature scale there ! If you can pull that off you could make very interesting little gyroscopes that could be immersed in water or fluids where you could examine precession under unusual circumstances ( eg using flotation devices to supply the precessing force ) .

I don’t think we really know whether the precessing force always acts at exactly 90 Degrees or not . Observation of how a partially floating gyroscope would orbit in a liquid would give a nice straightforward answer to that !

Good luck with the placement and evacuating , -- if at first you don’t succeed , then probably neither would anybody else . So have another few goes !

All the Best

[eccentrically1]

http://ncse.com/climate/climate-change- ... anging-now

Further reading

[daxwc]

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/trac ... ure-fraud/

[ovyyus]

Daxwc, I dare you to do a little research on "Steven Goddard". I think you'll find the value of his contributions to the climate change discussion is sub-zero. Actually, that's probably too generous.

[Ed]

Yes, waaay to generous.

Calling his site "real" science and quoting a real physicist to imply experts are ignorant, the only thing missing is the tag cloud with only one big word... Obama.

I guess soon Earth will be reclassified as flat and we'll all be living on a hot plate.

Feeling we are not in Kansas anymore yet? :-)

[daxwc]

I know why the scientists need to askew data to project greater climate change, so he must be trying to make money off of something?

[daxwc]

I seen this in the news:

A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused.
The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

Co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said: “We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made.� http://junkscience.com/2013/05/14/what- ... l-warming/

It seemed strange so I looked up some facts on the internet. Of the summaries sent out, 40% replied back; of that 97% agreed. But what is one to make of the 60% that didn’t reply? Are all these scientists really climatologists (as it says peer) or is it all scientists and could it involve university students pressured into complying? There seems to be a major muzzling of academia by leftist professors in the western world (example, just ask the pro-life groups).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming
Wouldn’t most climatologists be predisposed to believing in global warming to keep grant money and government money coming in? “Isn’t that like saying that 97% of the folks in the free beer tent drink beer?�

[eccentrically1]

It begins

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/i ... e-refugees

[jim_mich]

The Earth is constantly changing. If this were not so, then Earth would be a barren rock. The earth has warm spells and cold spells. The seas rise and fall. Mountains rise up and then are eroded down. Why is it that men think the boundaries between land and sea should remain constant over time? The boundaries change with time. If you build close to the oceans, then you take a chance of being flooded out, or you get a longer walk across the beach to get to the water.

[Ed]

I guess when the world is your stomping ground, like many in the USA think (not me of course), then things like borders and the word nought don't have any meaning? ;-)

[eccentrically1]

The point being, human activity has accelerated climate change. You can say "it was going to happen anyway", but the evidence doesn't show that.

There are only two places for our waste heat to go from accelerated energy use of the past 100 years or so; either back into space, or absorbed into the ocean. The balance the earth had been maintaining before that has been upset by the greenhouse gases we produce with our energy use. They have built up in the atmosphere faster than normal because of our waste heat from inefficient energy transformations. The infamous gas, CO2, hit the psychological level of 400 ppm recently. Here is a NOAA chart of CO2 levels over an 800,000 year time scale.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

The movie is about 3:30, you have to watch to the end to see the animation all the way back to -800,000.

Methane is even worse than CO2, holding 25 times the heat. Here are some relevant charts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheri ... of_methane


These gases reflect part of the solar radiation back into space and allow part of it through. The part allowed through changes its wavelength when it reflects off the earth. The new wavelength is then either allowed back into space or reflected back to the earth. Because the reflective gases have increased in ppm, more of that new wavelength radiation is being reflected back to earth to be absorbed by the ocean instead of being allowed back into space, in a positive feedback loop because: the ocean also has to absorb the reflective gases to maintain the balance! We are asking the ocean to do extra work than normal; absorb much, much more waste heat and more solar radiation. It is responding by warming up. Warmer water expands, it takes up more room than cooler water, raising the sea level. Warmer water means more water vapor in the atmosphere, which holds more heat than atmosphere with less water vapor. Warmer atmosphere calves more icebergs away from glaciers, raising the sea level and reducing the amount of radiation reflected by ice; and makes it more difficult for that ice to re-form. Warmer water has more energy than cooler water, which means weather events generated over the ocean such as hurricanes are going to increase in size and intensity.

The thermal expansion of the ocean is the hidden contributor. In the past 100 years, the sea has risen 6-8 inches. Projections into the future by scientists who are as serious about their work as you are, estimate by 2100 the sea level will rise between 6 and 37 inches, average 20 inches. Alaska's coastline is first. Remember Sandy had New Jersey and New York underwater last year. Katrina in New Orleans. Who knows what the future holds for the coastlines of the world? If we ignore the evidence, and don't try to reverse the unnatural accelerating trend, we have to start moving our people off those coasts, apparently beginning in Newtok for the U.S.