Michio Kaku ??

[The Starmaker]

Michio Kaku.


Now, I'm a little confused...
about this guy...Michio Kaku.

You've seen him on TV.

Everytime the 'scientific community' yells

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling"
they put this Michio Kaku on the TV news.

He explains why "The sky is falling".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPdqr2v1rTQ

What I'm confused about...


What I'm confused about is...

Who does Michio Kaku represent,
the 'scientific community' or the
'science fiction community'?


The Starmaker



Is he a trekie?


Where can I guy a internet contact lens?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K54LN9q1jSs

[Richard Tobin]

In article <50F1B...@ix.netcom.com>,

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>You've seen him on TV.

No.

-- Richard

[HVAC]

On 1/12/2013 2:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Michio Kaku.
>
>
> Now, I'm a little confused...
> about this guy...Michio Kaku.
>
> You've seen him on TV.
>
> Everytime the 'scientific community' yells
>
> "The sky is falling, the sky is falling"
> they put this Michio Kaku on the TV news.
>
> He explains why "The sky is falling".
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPdqr2v1rTQ
>
> What I'm confused about...
>
>
> What I'm confused about is...
>
> Who does Michio Kaku represent,
> the 'scientific community' or the
> 'science fiction community'?

Kaku is a well know homosexual.

Not there's anything wrong with that.




--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[The Starmaker]

Let me translate TV for you...a telly.

[benj]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:07:40 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/12/2013 2:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Michio Kaku.

>> What I'm confused about is...
>>
>> Who does Michio Kaku represent,
>> the 'scientific community' or the
>> 'science fiction community'?

Pretty much the same, these days.

> Kaku is a well know homosexual.
>
> Not there's anything wrong with that.

When is there something "wrong"? Would that be if it's not "well known"?

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 12, 12:08 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Who does Michio Kaku represent,
> the 'scientific community' or the
>  'science fiction community'?

He definitely doesn't represent the science fiction community. But a
lot of real scientists don't think he is a very good representative of
their community either, even if that's where he came from.

John Savard

[David Mitchell]

OTOH, I enjoyed _Hyperspace_, one of his earlier books.

--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================

[A.G.McDowell]

On 13/01/2013 07:20, David Mitchell wrote:
> On 12/01/13 22:53, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 12:08 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Who does Michio Kaku represent,
>>> the 'scientific community' or the
>>> 'science fiction community'?
>>
>> He definitely doesn't represent the science fiction community. But a
>> lot of real scientists don't think he is a very good representative of
>> their community either, even if that's where he came from.
>
> OTOH, I enjoyed _Hyperspace_, one of his earlier books.
>

I got "Physics of the Future" for Christmas and enjoyed it, although I
found it difficult not to believe that air resistance would block some
of the improvements he suggested were possible in the energy efficiency
of motor cars. However I see from
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cA/page_259.shtml that
rolling resistance is very noticeable for cars, and a really big deal
for trains - so I guess he's right and I'm wrong. That might have
something to do with the fact that he's a professor of Theoretical
Physics and writes books about this stuff, and I'm not and don't.

There's also a Wikipedia page on him at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku. I know his personal decisions
aren't a good way to judge his work and his advice, but I can't help but
be impressed that he trained as an infantryman for the Vietnam War -
although it ended before he was deployed.

I doubt if anybody represents the scientific community, but there seems
to be some evidence that he knows what he is talking about.

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 13, 6:41 am, "A.G.McDowell" <andrew-mcdow...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
> I
> found it difficult not to believe that air resistance would block some
> of the improvements he suggested were possible in the energy efficiency
> of motor cars. However I see from

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cA/page_259.shtml

> that
> rolling resistance is very noticeable for cars, and a really big deal
> for trains - so I guess he's right and I'm wrong.

I haven't read that book of his, so I can't comment on what he said
specifically.

But the graphs seem to imply, to me, that large improvements in the
efficiency of cars are not possible.

The air resistance, strongly dependent on speed, can only be reduced
so much by a more aerodynamic design.

Given the definition of rolling resistance given on that page, to
improve it one basically would have to improve the bearings in a car.
This would tend to make them more fragile. among other things, and
would likely be fundamentally incompatible with the way an engine
works.

That being said, though, we have historical proof that it's possible
to make cars efficient enough so that an electric car could be powered
by lead-acid batteries.

An electric car with a good range already exists, but it isn't street-
legal because it would be unsafe in an accident with the existing
gasoline-powered behemoths already on the roads. If global warming
becomes taken seriously enough that we shut down all our fossil-fueled
electrical power plants to replace them with nuclear (an obvious first
step that wouldn't change our way of life), then there's an obvious
solution to that problem.

Or you could just have everyone commute to work on trolley buses.

John Savard

[H�gar]

"HVAC" <hv...@physicist.net> wrote in message
news:kcsj95$tgr$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 1/12/2013 2:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Michio Kaku.
>>
>>
>> Now, I'm a little confused...
>> about this guy...Michio Kaku.
>>
>> You've seen him on TV.
>>
>> Everytime the 'scientific community' yells
>>
>> "The sky is falling, the sky is falling"
>> they put this Michio Kaku on the TV news.
>>
>> He explains why "The sky is falling".
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPdqr2v1rTQ
>>
>> What I'm confused about...
>>
>>
>> What I'm confused about is...
>>
>> Who does Michio Kaku represent,
>> the 'scientific community' or the
>> 'science fiction community'?
>
>
> Kaku is a well know homosexual.
>
> Not there's anything wrong with that.

There is, however, something wrong with your brain, Harlow.

Michiu Kaku was in the US Army
He is also married and has two daughters
He is also highly intelligent, a trait you're obvious unfamiliar with.
He is a professor of Astronomy and studies the functioning of the Universe.
Your dysfunctional Universe is "Here comes Honey Boo Boo"

Because, if you had a brain, you simply could have Googled him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

But then your anti-Asian hatred is just as legendary as your
pre-occupation with anything homosexual.
Some day you'll open the Closet door ...

[A.G.McDowell]

Kaku's prediction is room-temperature superconductors for maglev for
cars (superconducting roads!) and trains. So drastic reductions in
rolling resistance. He also throws out as at least a theoretical
possibility running maglev trains in vacuum tunnels to make extremely
high speeds practical.

Personally, I think public transport will always be second best as long
as it gains its economies by moving people around in bulk, because then
you have to make them wait until there are enough of them to make it
worth moving them all - and jamming in as many as possible at the cost
of passenger comfort seems to be an irresistable temptation.

My own prediction would be for small, light, slow, automatically driven
cars running on natural gas with in-car internet for the passengers
(everybody!) to make up for the slow speed - though slow auto-cars might
actually be faster in practice if automation reduced traffic jam by
faster scheduling and reduced distances between cars.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Now, I'm a little confused... about this guy...Michio Kaku.

: You've seen him on TV.

Never heard of him.

: Who does Michio Kaku represent, the 'scientific community'

: or the 'science fiction community'?

Neither.

[Rod Speed]

"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:250068bb-27dd-427d...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 13, 6:41 am, "A.G.McDowell" <andrew-mcdow...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
>> I
>> found it difficult not to believe that air resistance would block some
>> of the improvements he suggested were possible in the energy efficiency
>> of motor cars. However I see from
>
> http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cA/page_259.shtml
>
>> that
>> rolling resistance is very noticeable for cars, and a really big deal
>> for trains - so I guess he's right and I'm wrong.
>
> I haven't read that book of his, so I can't comment on what he said
> specifically.
>
> But the graphs seem to imply, to me, that large improvements in the
> efficiency of cars are not possible.
>
> The air resistance, strongly dependent on speed, can only be reduced
> so much by a more aerodynamic design.
>
> Given the definition of rolling resistance given on that page, to
> improve it one basically would have to improve the bearings in a car.
> This would tend to make them more fragile. among other things, and
> would likely be fundamentally incompatible with the way an engine
> works.
>
> That being said, though, we have historical proof that it's possible
> to make cars efficient enough so that an electric car could be powered
> by lead-acid batteries.

> An electric car with a good range already exists,

Yes, pity about the price tho.

> but it isn't street-legal because it would be unsafe in an accident

> with the existing gasoline-powered behemoths already on the roads.

That's not right.

> If global warming becomes taken seriously enough that we shut down
> all our fossil-fueled electrical power plants to replace them with nuclear
> (an obvious first step that wouldn't change our way of life), then there's
> an obvious solution to that problem.

It likely makes more sense to use hydrogen produced by nukes to
fuel the cars on the batterys alone.

> Or you could just have everyone commute to work on trolley buses.

Electric trains make a lot more sense.

[Marvin the Martian]

My beef with Kaku is that he's a hucker selling junk science. Look at his
website:

http://mkaku.org/

It's all selling himself and science whoredom. Vanity and kewl pictures
that have shit to do with science. It's all money and vanity.


You can whore-ship him if you want, but the schtick to his act is that
physics is *exciting!* for everyone.

No, it isn't. Most people find physics boring. You end up with a bunch of
physic 101 students who want to skip mechanics and go straight to string
theory. It results in sci.physics being filled with people trying to
refute SR who don't even know what it IS.

[Rod Speed]

"A.G.McDowell" <andrew-...@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kcuspt$kfd$1...@dont-email.me...

And even when they don't do that, its still much more awkward
for those using it than personal vehicles like cars, particularly in
the lower volume of people times of the day etc.

And I cant see it being viable for the delivery of stuff bought online
either.

> My own prediction would be for small, light, slow, automatically driven
> cars running on natural gas with in-car internet for the passengers
> (everybody!) to make up for the slow speed - though slow auto-cars might
> actually be faster in practice if automation reduced traffic jam by faster
> scheduling and reduced distances between cars.

Trouble with natural gas power is that it does nothing for the
global warming problem, in fact makes it much worse just
because methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

I think its more likely they would be hydrogen
powered with the hydrogen produced by the nukes.

That's got some technical problems to be fixed first tho,
particularly with the storage of the hydrogen.

[Wayne Throop]

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: That being said, though, we have historical proof that it's possible

: to make cars efficient enough so that an electric car could be powered
: by lead-acid batteries.

It's possible to "make cars efficient enough" so that an electric car
could be powered by AA carbon batteries. What was your point?

: An electric car with a good range already exists

One with >100mi range? Without gas motor for recharging?
At an affordable price? (I think this last one nixes the Tesla.)

: but it isn't street- legal because it would be unsafe in an accident

: with the existing gasoline-powered behemoths already on the roads.

I presume that this lack of safety is because somebody cursed it
with bad luck or something, since there doesn't seem to be anything
in the nature electrical power systems that would make it prohibitive.

(And if you mean the Tesla, it looks like it has nothing to do with
what kind of cars it shares the road with, but rather the fact that it's
airbags aren't up to US specs for such.)

(Also, the fact that only about 2500 sportsters were made, and they are
still selling down their inventory, doesn't seems to bode well for
a practical widely-used BEV.)

ANYways... looking at the Chevy Spark, one can note that the fully
electric version (for next year) costs twice as much as the gasoline
powered one, and has only 60mi range. That's not enough for me to visit
my family. On the other hand, it is supposed to do 0-60 in 8 seconds.
So there's that.

During a Q&A session someone had once asked Flicker how fast she could
go from 0 to 60. Her answer of "Too fast to see" made people laugh,
but they stopped when she explained that in the 270 picoseconds it
would take, light would only travel about about 3 inches, and it
was dangerous to stand that close to her if she was accelerating
that fast, so it was literally too fast to see.

--- http://docfuture.tumblr.com/

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: I think its more likely they would be hydrogen powered with the

: hydrogen produced by the nukes.
: That's got some technical problems to be fixed first tho, particularly
: with the storage of the hydrogen.

One simple way to store hydrogen quite densely is to synthesize methanol,
or any number of other energy-dense-compared-to-non-chemically-bound
hydrogen. Sure, to be carbon-neutral you have to take carbon out of the
atmosphere to do the synthesis, but chemically combined with carbon is
a very very very convenient way to store hydrogen.

That tends to trade off seculative production methods for methanol vs
speculative storage methods for hydrogen, but the smaller infrastructure
impact of methanol and the ability to deploy incrementally with less
duplication of effort can have significant economic benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy

[HVAC]

On 1/13/2013 1:47 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> It's all selling himself and science whoredom. Vanity and kewl pictures
> that have shit to do with science. It's all money and vanity.
>
>
> You can whore-ship him if you want, but the schtick to his act is that
> physics is *exciting!* for everyone.
>
> No, it isn't. Most people find physics boring. You end up with a bunch of
> physic 101 students who want to skip mechanics and go straight to string
> theory. It results in sci.physics being filled with people trying to
> refute SR who don't even know what it IS.

He's also a figure skater.

Do the math.

[Paul Cardinale]

He's a media personality who pretends to explain physics. He often
gets it wrong.
He vets his ideas by presenting them to trekies and checking the
applause.

[James Silverton]

But methanol is poisonous and I hate to think of breathing it in a
filling station or a crash.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 13 January 2013 18:59:55 UTC, Wayne Throop wrote:
> One simple way to store hydrogen quite densely is to synthesize methanol,
> or any number of other energy-dense-compared-to-non-chemically-bound
> hydrogen. Sure, to be carbon-neutral you have to take carbon out of the
> atmosphere to do the synthesis, but chemically combined with carbon is
> a very very very convenient way to store hydrogen.
>
> That tends to trade off seculative production methods for methanol vs
> speculative storage methods for hydrogen, but the smaller infrastructure
> impact of methanol and the ability to deploy incrementally with less
> duplication of effort can have significant economic benefits.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy>

No love for <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_economy>?

It's not maglev automobiles but who are you kidding...

[Marvin the Martian]

You can tell he's a great physicist by his long wild white hair.

Except he's an astronomer, not a physicist.

[The Starmaker]

Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:57:37 -0800, Paul Cardinale wrote:
>

> > On Jan 12, 11:08Â am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> Michio Kaku.
> >>
> >> Now, I'm a little confused...
> >> about this guy...Michio Kaku.
> >>
> >> You've seen him on TV.
> >>
> >> Everytime the 'scientific community' yells
> >>
> >> "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" they put this Michio Kaku on
> >> the TV news.
> >>
> >> He explains why "The sky is falling".
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPdqr2v1rTQ
> >>
> >> What I'm confused about...
> >>
> >> What I'm confused about is...
> >>
> >> Who does Michio Kaku represent,
> >> the 'scientific community' or the

> >> Â 'science fiction community'?

> >>
> >> The Starmaker
> >>
> >> Is he a trekie?
> >>
> >> Where can I guy a internet contact lens?
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K54LN9q1jSs
> >
> > He's a media personality who pretends to explain physics. He often gets
> > it wrong.
> > He vets his ideas by presenting them to trekies and checking the
> > applause.
>
> You can tell he's a great physicist by his long wild white hair.
>
> Except he's an astronomer, not a physicist.

His last two book have the word "Physics" in the title, not 'Astronomy'.

Physics of the Impossible:

and

Physics of the Future:


and he is listed in wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku
Michio Kaku born January 24, 1947) is an American theoretical physicist, ...

Is Einstein an astronomer, not a physicist?


I don't alow misinformation to be posted in my threads.
My policy in my threads is information must be accurate, correct and true.

(i know it's differcult for the 'scientific communtiy' to be "accurate, correct and true", but you must try harder)



The Starmaker

[Bast]

Marvin the Martian wrote:

Kaku is a media whore, plain and simple.

He gets on TV to give a shpeel about any psuedo-science the media pays him
to legitimize.
....He lost my support when he took the road on tree-hugging and global
warming scare, and tried to make it sound like legitimate science.

But I'm sure Al Gore gave him funding for some research, or ongoing funding
to the university that locks his Tenure for life, and he has to help Gore
now

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Now, I'm a little confused... about this guy...Michio Kaku.
> : You've seen him on TV.
>
> Never heard of him.

I said seen, not heard. For all I know you could be deaf...

>
> : Who does Michio Kaku represent, the 'scientific community'
> : or the 'science fiction community'?
>
> Neither.

How would you know if you never heard of him? For all I know...

[The Starmaker]

I don't know...but I get a sense that Michio Kaku is a H.G.Wells wanna be.

H.G. Wells was the type of person to search for new products from the science community
around the world and inject it in his books as...coming in the future, predictions.

For example...in his new book: Physics of the Future by Michio Kaku

"He predicts we will solve our energy problems with fusion in the next half century, be able to control objects with our minds,
and grow replacement organs in tissue factories: a person of 70 could have the organs of a 30-year-old. "


Now, I saw on 60 minutes the other week "be able to control objects with our minds".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3a5u6djGnE


So, what Michio Kaku does is what H.G.Wells did...goes around and find upcoming science products and
pretends to predict the future.

Con Artists, the both of them.

But which science does Michio Kaku represent? Science fiction or what the others call "real science"?

I'm confused.


Also, Michio Kaku wrote a book before called:

Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos
by Michio Kaku
432pp,


How could he possible write 432 pages of something not proven to exist? Is it a science fiction book??



The Starmaker


the sky is falling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jFqpUPGxb0

[Moriarty]

On Jan 14, 5:25 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

> : Now, I'm a little confused...  about this guy...Michio Kaku.
> : You've seen him on TV.
>
> Never heard of him.

He's reasonably well known as a writer/presenter of popular science.
Certainly not as well known as Hawking, but perhaps the next tier
down. If he were to turn up as a guest star on The Big Bang Theory,
as Brian Greene did, it wouldn't surprise me.

-Moriarty

[The Starmaker]

Sarcasm is invisible on the internet. It's all over the internet but people cannot see it...it's invisible.

He's trin to 'mock me'...but it won't work...I'm unmockable.


He's married, which means he's not gettin any...


The Starmaker

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13581...@sheol.org...

I still think that the other ways of storing hydrogen are better,
essentially
because they don�t involve getting carbon from the atmosphere.

How viable they are tho, remains to be seen.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/13/13 2:05 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Except he's an astronomer, not a physicist.

Marvin--why do you always post misinformation?

Michio Kaku, born January 24, 1947) is an American theoretical
physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics in
the City College of New York of City University of New York, a
futurist, and a communicator and popularizer of science.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 13, 3:21 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> He's trin to 'mock me'...but it won't work...I'm unmockable.

Ah, yes. After all, you're "The Starmaker".

Hence, given the meaning of that term from the works of Olaf
Stapledon, Galatians 6:7 applies.

John Savard

[Hägar]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> Marvin the Martian wrote:

Once again, that man's educational record is beyond reproach and attached
below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

When ignorant cunts like you and HVAC can come close to the REAL scientist's
education, post your diplomas. All you two have to be proud of is stained
toilet paper and a collection of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" reruns..

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 13, 12:59 pm, James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
wrote:

> But methanol is poisonous and I hate to think of breathing it in a
> filling station or a crash.

Unlike ethanol, it can be produced in a carbon-neutral manner from
biomass without conflicting with human food needs. The nozzles used
for fueling methanol based cars can be redesigned to reduce leakage.

John Savard

[David DeLaney]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:25:39 GMT, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
>: Now, I'm a little confused... about this guy...Michio Kaku.
>: You've seen him on TV.
>
>Never heard of him.

He's written several high-concept-physics-popularization books, of which I
own two and think I've read both. He's not an Isaac Asimov, but he gets the
job done, mostly.

>: Who does Michio Kaku represent, the 'scientific community'
>: or the 'science fiction community'?
>
>Neither.

Correct; he's the 'science-explaining community'. You know, Starmaker's mortal
enemies and collective nemeses.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Bast]

H�gar wrote:
> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you held him and his politically correct global
warming scary talk, so seriously.
You better send Al Gore a donation, to prove you still care.

[Joseph Nebus]

In <slrnkf6gj...@gatekeeper.vic.com> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:

>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:25:39 GMT, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>>The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>

>>: Who does Michio Kaku represent, the 'scientific community'
>>: or the 'science fiction community'?
>>
>>Neither.

>Correct; he's the 'science-explaining community'. You know, Starmaker's mortal
>enemies and collective nemeses.

Now I'm picturing Starmaker off in his underground, basement-level
Lairmaker apartment, fresh with notes from the last time he was in the
bookstore, comparing all the names of the pop science writers and adding
them to the board. ``Charles Seife? Ian Stewart? Write on, young fools
... someday you will be mine'', he cackles, never suspecting just how
much excitement he'd get from that book Marc Levinson wrote about the
history of containerized cargo because it *just ain't pop science*,
danged it. He turns from the board, pours himself half a tumbler of
Mello Yello Zero, and looks at the portrait hung over the awful 1970's
cardboard imitation fireplace meant for Christmas use only, and then
points at it. ``And don't you think,'' he shouts to the image of Forest
Ray Moulton, ``that the icy hand of death has saved you from *my* wrath,
either!''

Emboldened, he sits at the computer to see what Usenet has to
say about him today.

--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: Returning to Arthur Christmas http://wp.me/p1RYhY-o4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The Starmaker]

Excuse me, I'm from brooklyn new york, i've never of people living in
basements. You must
live in a different universe than me...

and people who a sig link are just stealth marketers looking for an
excuse to
sell their wares.

The question was "Who does Michio Kaku represent?", not who is the
starmaker.

People are not interested in what I have to say, they are only
interested in
others knowing what they have to say...and use me as an excuse!


I don't like 'stealth marketers' on my threads. Having you heard of the
World Wide Web?


The Starmaker

[Marvin the Martian]

What does his education have to do with anything? Do you have a reasoning
disorder?

It was pointed out he's a media whore who is out for fame and fortune by
pushing junk science.

[Marvin the Martian]

That wasn't coherent.

[Wayne Throop]

::: Who does Michio Kaku represent, the 'scientific community' or the

::: 'science fiction community'?

:: Neither.

: d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
: Correct; he's the 'science-explaining community'. You know,

: Starmaker's mortal enemies and collective nemeses.

And though a member (and arguably of all three), he doesn't
represent the science popularization community.

[Rod Speed]

"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:a2228b78-5a02-4360...@vb8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 13, 12:59 pm, James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> But methanol is poisonous and I hate to think of breathing it in a
>> filling station or a crash.

> Unlike ethanol, it can be produced in a carbon-neutral manner
> from biomass without conflicting with human food needs.

So can ethanol if you want to do it like that.

> The nozzles used for fueling methanol based
> cars can be redesigned to reduce leakage.

I'd still rather go the ethanol route for the reason he listed.

Indy cars did too.

[Marvin the Martian]

Kaku claims to be one of the co-founders of the non-science of string
theory.

Which shows he doesn't even know what science IS.

[David DeLaney]

Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>Joseph Nebus wrote:

>> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:
>>>Correct; he's the 'science-explaining community'. You know, Starmaker's
>>>mortal enemies and collective nemeses.
>>
>> Now I'm picturing Starmaker off in his underground,
>> basement-level
>> Lairmaker apartment, fresh with notes from the last time he was in the
>> bookstore, comparing all the names of the pop science writers and adding
>> them to the board. ``Charles Seife? Ian Stewart? Write on, young fools
>> ... someday you will be mine'', he cackles, never suspecting just how
>> much excitement he'd get from that book Marc Levinson wrote about the
>> history of containerized cargo because it *just ain't pop science*,
>> danged it. He turns from the board, pours himself half a tumbler of
>> Mello Yello Zero, and looks at the portrait hung over the awful 1970's
>> cardboard imitation fireplace meant for Christmas use only, and then
>> points at it. ``And don't you think,'' he shouts to the image of Forest
>> Ray Moulton, ``that the icy hand of death has saved you from *my* wrath,
>> either!''
>>
>> Emboldened, he sits at the computer to see what Usenet has to
>> say about him today.
>
>That wasn't coherent.

Neither is Starmaker, usually.

Dave, it's part of his lack-of-charm

[Bast]

Marvin the Martian wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, H�gar wrote:
>
>> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

Poor hagar is still enamoured with pieces of paper.
Where the rest of us know that the smartest people don't need 3 lines of
accreditations after their name.

Intelligence can not be taught,....you can only be taught to memorize facts
others already discovered.
As the old saying goes,....."Those who can, do,......Those who can't, teach"

...And I dare you to find a professor in ANY school, who will teach you
that.

[Hägar]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:45udnfc97fYOwm7N...@giganews.com...

Junk Science ??? and you know this how ???
Global Warming is a fact. However, it is a cycle the Earth experiences
periodically and has absolutely nothing to do with man made pollution.

In the mid 1400s the Viking were growing crops and raising live stock
on Greenland ... explain that, you pseudo scientist hack.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <kcv1mb$hbl$3...@dont-email.me>, HVAC <hv...@physicist.net> writes:

>On 1/13/2013 1:47 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

>> You can whore-ship him if you want, but the schtick to his act is that
>> physics is *exciting!* for everyone.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Most people find physics boring. You end up with a bunch of
>> physic 101 students who want to skip mechanics and go straight to string
>> theory. It results in sci.physics being filled with people trying to
>> refute SR who don't even know what it IS.
>

>He's also a figure skater.
>
>Do the math.

I'd much rather do math than go skating. Go figure.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Visualize whirled peas!

[Mahipal]

On Jan 14, 11:20 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Marvin the Martian wrote:

> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, Hägar wrote:
>
> >> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message

> >>news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

> >>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:58:13 -0800, Hägar wrote:
>
> >>>>> "HVAC" <h...@physicist.net> wrote in message

I heard they have a little green pill for that, which btw I love,
reasoning disorder. Shades of green pills if plural disorders and all
that.

> > It was pointed out he's a media whore who is out for fame and fortune by
> > pushing junk science.
>
> Poor hagar is still enamoured with pieces of paper.
> Where the rest of us know that the smartest people don't need 3 lines of
> accreditations after their name.

Not need so much, but forced to be required to acquire the piece of
paper.

> Intelligence can not be taught,....you can only be taught to memorize facts
> others already discovered.
> As the old saying goes,....."Those who can, do,......Those who can't, teach"
>
> ...And I dare you to find a professor in ANY school, who will teach you
> that.

Conscious professors especially, would be hard pressed... would be
last to acknowledge... the thought even exists.

Kaku is a bit too flamboyant and ridiculously chippy, for my taste.
Somehow Michio is always way too familiar with all the absurd ideas
that anybody has ever proposed. It's like his staff is stalking Usenet
like sharks. Which is actually a more scary idea than at first
glance.

It would be funny to see Kaku and Sheldon on TBBT compete on filling
up whiteboards. Media mafia is very incestuous and they know it.

Morgan Freeman, a name Lincoln would've adored, with his dark matter
waving palms, is funny too. All his 321million episodes begin with
"When I was young and or a kid.... Science prepared me to see my hands
waving before me... like this and this and that."

Enjo(y)... Cheers!
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.

http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/

[HVAC]

On 1/14/2013 12:46 PM, Michael Stemper wrote:
> In article<kcv1mb$hbl$3...@dont-email.me>, HVAC<hv...@physicist.net> writes:
>> On 1/13/2013 1:47 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>>> You can whore-ship him if you want, but the schtick to his act is that
>>> physics is *exciting!* for everyone.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. Most people find physics boring. You end up with a bunch of
>>> physic 101 students who want to skip mechanics and go straight to string
>>> theory. It results in sci.physics being filled with people trying to
>>> refute SR who don't even know what it IS.
>>
>> He's also a figure skater.
>>
>> Do the math.
>
> I'd much rather do math than go skating. Go figure.

Then YOU aren't gay.






--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[HVAC]

On 1/14/2013 1:00 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>
> Kaku is a bit too flamboyant and ridiculously chippy, for my taste.

AKA He's queer.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <50F333...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>Sarcasm is invisible on the internet. It's all over the internet but people cannot see it...it's invisible.
>
>He's trin to 'mock me'...but it won't work...I'm unmockable.

Some things are just beyond parody.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>

"Parity is for farmers"

[Marvin the Martian]

String theory makes no useful predictions thus cannot be falsified. It is
junk science.

[Rod Speed]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message

news:kd1b82$oo2$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, H�gar wrote:
>>
>>> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

Yes. But you can give intelligent people
something to apply their intelligence to.

> you can only be taught to memorize facts others already discovered.

That�s not right, you can also expose them to techniques like
randomised double blind trials that have been invented that
are very effective at working out what works and what doesn�t.

> As the old saying goes,....."Those who can, do,......Those who can't,
> teach"

That�s a separate question to what can usefully be taught tho.

Yes, some of the smartest people can actually teach themselves
to read and write, but most benefit from a bit of teaching in those
areas, even if its just being selective about what they are encouraged
to read and pointing out what librarys are about with little kids.

> ...And I dare you to find a professor in ANY school, who will teach you
> that.

There are plenty that have done that. Even you should be able to
find them using google.

[Bast]

H�gar wrote:
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:45udnfc97fYOwm7N...@giganews.com...

>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, H�gar wrote:
>>
>>> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

Don't argue with us.
You tell THAT to Michio Kaku.

HE Says,....THE POLAR BEARS ARE ALL DY'IN'

When he jumped on THAT,....that's when he lost any credibility.

As no one has ever been able to show how any polar bears are being affected
by any global warming, no matter how caused, other than to make their lives
a bit easier, saving a few from frostbite.

[HVAC]

On 1/14/2013 2:19 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> As the old saying goes,....."Those who can, do,......Those who can't,
>> teach"
>

> That’s a separate question to what can usefully be taught tho.

>
> Yes, some of the smartest people can actually teach themselves
> to read and write, but most benefit from a bit of teaching in those
> areas, even if its just being selective about what they are encouraged
> to read and pointing out what librarys are about with little kids.

Blast is a failure. At life and as at a lesbian.

Only hot young girls should be lesbians. Blast is one of those old,
flannel shirt wearing, butch lesbians that couldn't find a man who would
do her. So it was either take the cucumber or find another fat slob like
herself to fuck.

[Bast]

Mahipal wrote:
> On Jan 14, 11:20 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, H�gar wrote:
>>
>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

The act is just what the media wants, some old stodgy "expert" explaining
dry formulas, doesn't hold viewers.
And why "the Learning Channel" offers us honey boo boo, or History
Channel,.... offers us "ancient aliens", and pawn brokers.

Heck, the dumbing down of the masses all started on the big 3 networks when
Dr. Phil was offered as being an expert, with a 2 year psychology diploma
from a bird University, that he could have gotten by mail order

> Somehow Michio is always way too familiar with all the absurd ideas
> that anybody has ever proposed. It's like his staff is stalking Usenet
> like sharks. Which is actually a more scary idea than at first
> glance.

As above,...he gives the media what they want, ...as scripted.

>
> It would be funny to see Kaku and Sheldon on TBBT compete on filling
> up whiteboards. Media mafia is very incestuous and they know it.
>
> Morgan Freeman, a name Lincoln would've adored, with his dark matter
> waving palms, is funny too. All his 321million episodes begin with
> "When I was young and or a kid.... Science prepared me to see my hands
> waving before me... like this and this and that."
>
> Enjo(y)... Cheers!

Morgan Freeman doesn't know it all,.....that's why they also get Patrick
Stuart to tell us about Space Travel.
.....At least when William Shatner isn't available. <g>

[Bast]

Rod Speed wrote:
> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message

> news:kd1b82$oo2$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, H�gar wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

> That�s not right, you can also expose them to techniques like

> randomised double blind trials that have been invented that

> are very effective at working out what works and what doesn�t.

>
>> As the old saying goes,....."Those who can, do,......Those who can't,
>> teach"
>

> That�s a separate question to what can usefully be taught tho.

>
> Yes, some of the smartest people can actually teach themselves
> to read and write, but most benefit from a bit of teaching in those
> areas, even if its just being selective about what they are encouraged
> to read and pointing out what librarys are about with little kids.
>
>> ...And I dare you to find a professor in ANY school, who will teach you
>> that.
>
> There are plenty that have done that. Even you should be able to
> find them using google.

Are you referring to the "google.com" that posts the TRUTHS, of the highest
bidders ?

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:20:44 -0500, Bast wrote:

> Mahipal wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 11:20 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, Hägar wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

Physics IS a lot of dry formulas. People see these programs and then come
to physics class and expect to be entertained. "Where's the show? Are we
doing string theory or GR"? No, damnit! We're doing friction and energy
on an inclined plane, or the precession of a spinning top.

[Hägar]

"HVAC" <hv...@physicist.net> wrote in message

news:kd1o00$e27$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 1/14/2013 2:19 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> As the old saying goes,....."Those who can, do,......Those who can't,
>>> teach"
>>
>> That's a separate question to what can usefully be taught tho.
>>
>> Yes, some of the smartest people can actually teach themselves
>> to read and write, but most benefit from a bit of teaching in those
>> areas, even if its just being selective about what they are encouraged
>> to read and pointing out what librarys are about with little kids.
>
>
> Blast is a failure. At life and as at a lesbian.
>
> Only hot young girls should be lesbians. Blast is one of those old,
> flannel shirt wearing, butch lesbians that couldn't find a man who would
> do her. So it was either take the cucumber or find another fat slob like
> herself to fuck.
>

Wow ... he/she/it looks like Rosie O'Donnell ???
Talk about losing an erect tongue .....

[Hägar]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message

news:D5adnaBpkOVFz2nN...@giganews.com...

Let's end this by just saying that Micho Kaku peddles his scientific
"smut" on the public air waves for large sums of money, while you
pollute the NGs with your whiny crap. Hope that helps.

[Bast]

Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:20:44 -0500, Bast wrote:
>
>> Mahipal wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 11:20 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, H�gar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

Of course it is. Especially theorectical physics, which BTW Kaku is
supposedly the expert in.
It is all on paper and you don't even get to play with the spinning top.

Yet he goes on TV talking about every other aspect of science, even biology
and global warming, and aliens.
Geeeesus, the guy would be even more lost without a teleprompter than Obama
or Bush.

But with a few degrees, people like Hagar just swallow everything he
parrots.
Even if his degrees have never produced any papers that offer us any
enlightenment to how things actually work.

BUT,....I'm sure he does mark his New York University class papers on time.
And is cheaper to hire than any profs from MIT.

[Rod Speed]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message

news:kd1ple$pp7$1...@dont-email.me...

>
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:kd1b82$oo2$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, H�gar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>> That�s not right, you can also expose them to techniques like

>> randomised double blind trials that have been invented that

>> are very effective at working out what works and what doesn�t.

>>
>>> As the old saying goes,....."Those who can, do,......Those who can't,
>>> teach"
>>

>> That�s a separate question to what can usefully be taught tho.

>>
>> Yes, some of the smartest people can actually teach themselves
>> to read and write, but most benefit from a bit of teaching in those
>> areas, even if its just being selective about what they are encouraged
>> to read and pointing out what librarys are about with little kids.
>>
>>> ...And I dare you to find a professor in ANY school, who will teach you
>>> that.
>>
>> There are plenty that have done that. Even you should be able to
>> find them using google.
>
>
>
>
> Are you referring to the "google.com" that posts the TRUTHS, of the
> highest bidders ?

They don�t with that stuff.

[Bast]

Gee, you two are psychic as well ?
Or perhaps I think you better ask for a refund on thise Ouiji boards.

Notice I'm not even mentioning "Glass houses"
Although it is comical that you STILL resort to cheap insults that even 5
year olds would be ashamed of, when you lose logical debates.

[Bast]

Rod Speed wrote:
> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:kd1ple$pp7$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:kd1b82$oo2$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, HīŋŊgar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>>> ThatīŋŊs not right, you can also expose them to techniques like

>>> randomised double blind trials that have been invented that

>>> are very effective at working out what works and what doesnīŋŊt.

>>>
>>>> As the old saying goes,....."Those who can, do,......Those who can't,
>>>> teach"
>>>

>>> ThatīŋŊs a separate question to what can usefully be taught tho.

>>>
>>> Yes, some of the smartest people can actually teach themselves
>>> to read and write, but most benefit from a bit of teaching in those
>>> areas, even if its just being selective about what they are encouraged
>>> to read and pointing out what librarys are about with little kids.
>>>
>>>> ...And I dare you to find a professor in ANY school, who will teach
>>>> you that.
>>>
>>> There are plenty that have done that. Even you should be able to
>>> find them using google.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you referring to the "google.com" that posts the TRUTHS, of the
>> highest bidders ?
>

> They donīŋŊt with that stuff.




Awwww, have some fun.
Type in "credible TV scientists" on Google, and be ready to laugh at the
results.

[Bast]

H�gar wrote:
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:D5adnaBpkOVFz2nN...@giganews.com...

>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:35:56 -0800, H�gar wrote:
>>
>>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
>>> news:45udnfc97fYOwm7N...@giganews.com...

>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:19:45 -0800, H�gar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kcv811$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:

You surprise me hagar,.....as you are at least half right.
Take a few more months of time off, as it seems to have improved your odds.
Before the rest, you were 100% full of shit.


...Tsk tsk tsk, And you say I never compliment you.

[William December Starr]

In article <kd1b82$oo2$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> said:

> Marvin the Martian wrote:

>> H�gar wrote:
>>
>>> Once again, that man's educational record is beyond reproach and
>>> attached below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku
>>>
>>> When ignorant cunts like you and HVAC can come close to the REAL
>>> scientist's education, post your diplomas. All you two have to be
>>> proud of is stained toilet paper and a collection of "Here Comes Honey
>>> Boo Boo" reruns..
>>
>> What does his education have to do with anything? Do you have a
>> reasoning disorder?
>>
>> It was pointed out he's a media whore who is out for fame and fortune by
>> pushing junk science.
>
> Poor hagar is still enamoured with pieces of paper.
> Where the rest of us know that the smartest people don't need 3 lines of
> accreditations after their name.

"Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most
intriguing."

-- wds, watching from rec.arts.sf.written

[William December Starr]

In article <45udnfY97fbT_W7N...@giganews.com>,
Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> said:

> Joseph Nebus wrote:
>
>> Now I'm picturing Starmaker off in his underground,
>> basement-level
>> Lairmaker apartment, fresh with notes from the last time he was in the
>> bookstore, comparing all the names of the pop science writers and adding
>> them to the board. ``Charles Seife? Ian Stewart? Write on, young
>> fools
>> ... someday you will be mine'', he cackles, never suspecting just how
>> much excitement he'd get from that book Marc Levinson wrote about the
>> history of containerized cargo because it *just ain't pop science*,
>> danged it. He turns from the board, pours himself half a tumbler of
>> Mello Yello Zero, and looks at the portrait hung over the awful 1970's
>> cardboard imitation fireplace meant for Christmas use only, and then
>> points at it. ``And don't you think,'' he shouts to the image of Forest
>> Ray Moulton, ``that the icy hand of death has saved you from *my* wrath,
>> either!''
>>
>> Emboldened, he sits at the computer to see what Usenet has to
>> say about him today.
>
> That wasn't coherent.

I'd rate it as being at least two orders of magnitude more coherent
than Starmaker's output.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <D_WdnRz8MoDZnG7N...@giganews.com>,

Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> said:

> [...] but the schtick to his act is that physics is *exciting!*

> for everyone.
>
> No, it isn't. Most people find physics boring. You end up with a
> bunch of physic 101 students who want to skip mechanics and go
> straight to string theory. It results in sci.physics being filled
> with people trying to refute SR who don't even know what it IS.

I'm gonna bet that that would have happened anyway.

-- wds

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 13, 6:14 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> People are not interested in what I have to say,

That's because you say such stupid things.

John Savard

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't think so. The problem is that through the magic of popular Fizixs
books people have easy access to the buzzwords and the basic ideas, but
they can't do and haven't done the math or studied the physics. They
don't know that SR is completely self consistent - and consistent with
Maxwell's equations and what we know of Electromagnetism.

Some of them key on the fact that Einstein was an outrageous plagiarist
who had a planned Madison Avenue style campaign to sell his ideas and
personality. One book on his life touched on this... Most of what
Einstein "did" was really done by someone else, but the physics of SR is
sound math, valid logic and confirmed by experiment.

[Hägar]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message

news:bsydnUeGprrDyWjN...@giganews.com...

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:49:25 -0500, William December Starr wrote:
>
>> In article <D_WdnRz8MoDZnG7N...@giganews.com>,
>> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> said:
>>
>>> [...] but the schtick to his act is that physics is *exciting!* for
>>> everyone.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. Most people find physics boring. You end up with a bunch
>>> of physic 101 students who want to skip mechanics and go straight to
>>> string theory. It results in sci.physics being filled with people
>>> trying to refute SR who don't even know what it IS.
>>
>> I'm gonna bet that that would have happened anyway.
>>
>> -- wds
>
> I don't think so. The problem is that through the magic of popular Fizixs
> books people have easy access to the buzzwords and the basic ideas, but
> they can't do and haven't done the math or studied the physics. They
> don't know that SR is completely self consistent

*** Well, that why we have you ... since you implied that YOU have
a solid grasp of SR, why don't you 'splain it to the rest of us, you blow-
hard ... mayhaps BeeertBrain can toss you a few hints.

> snip further Marvin drivel <

[Kip Williams]

Michael Stemper wrote, On 1/14/13 12:46 PM:

> In article <kcv1mb$hbl$3...@dont-email.me>, HVAC <hv...@physicist.net> writes:
>> On 1/13/2013 1:47 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>>> You can whore-ship him if you want, but the schtick to his act is that
>>> physics is *exciting!* for everyone.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. Most people find physics boring. You end up with a bunch of
>>> physic 101 students who want to skip mechanics and go straight to string
>>> theory. It results in sci.physics being filled with people trying to
>>> refute SR who don't even know what it IS.
>>
>> He's also a figure skater.
>>
>> Do the math.
>
> I'd much rather do math than go skating. Go figure.

So, one of you skates, and the other checks the figures. Simple!


Kip W
rasfw

[Tim McDaniel]

Wading through back articles in the newsgroup.

In article <13581...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>One simple way to store hydrogen quite densely is to synthesize methanol,
>... but chemically combined with carbon is
>a very very very convenient way to store hydrogen.
>
>That tends to trade off seculative production methods for methanol vs
>speculative storage methods for hydrogen, but the smaller infrastructure
>impact of methanol and the ability to deploy incrementally with less
>duplication of effort can have significant economic benefits.

By chance, as we call it on Middle-Earth,
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/02/pincer-ruthenium-catalyst-methanol-hydrogen-fuel-cells

A new catalyst to strip the hydrogen out of methanol (also consuming
H2O, producing CO2). Previous methods involved >200 C and pressure;
this is stated to work <100 C and at ambient pressue.

"Fuel cells can run on methanol, but these are much less efficient,
durable and stable than hydrogen fuel cells. The problem with using
hydrogen in vehicles, however, is that as a gas it is difficult to
store and handle. ..." The hydrogen density of methanol is stated in
other articles to be better than some other techniques. ("Methanol
also traps a lot of hydrogen (12.5% by weight)." --
http://www.nature.com/news/liquid-storage-could-make-hydrogen-a-feasible-fuel-1.12518
) But

"The relatively high energetic cost of producing methanol, however,
remains an immediate impediment to its use as a hydrogen
carrier. Valerie Dupont of the University of Leeds, UK, who researches
hydrogen production by advanced steam reforming processes, says: 'They
have achieved a difficult thing to do, but until there is a
significant reduction in the cost of producing methanol in the first
place then this may remain a niche application.'"

The Nature article also notes other difficulties in scaling up the
output, CO2 emission, &c.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Wayne Throop]

:: [ re: "hydrogen economy" vs "methanol economy" ]
:: That tends to trade off seculative production methods for methanol vs

:: speculative storage methods for hydrogen, but the smaller
:: infrastructure impact of methanol and the ability to deploy
:: incrementally with less duplication of effort can have significant
:: economic benefits.

: tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/02/pincer-ruthenium-catalyst-methanol-hydrogen-fuel-cells

:
: A new catalyst to strip the hydrogen out of methanol (also consuming
: H2O, producing CO2). Previous methods involved >200 C and pressure;
: this is stated to work <100 C and at ambient pressue.

Which is beside the point, since how to use methanol isn't a relatively
difficult problem; there are many other methods besides that one.

: The Nature article also notes other difficulties in scaling up the
: output, CO2 emission, &c.

The point is, you'd only be releasing CO2 you have previously gathered.
You only sow what you have already reaped. Hence the "speculative
production methods for methanol". The production and use methods for
hydrogen are quite well solved; storage is not. The storage and use
methods for methanol are quite well solved; production is not.

That is, "production is not" in the sense of "zero net carbon footprint".
If you're into that sort of thing.

"I rise only to reap what I have sown."
--- http://www.egscomics.com/?date=2008-05-26
"I rise to reap."
--- http://www.egscomics.com/?date=2008-05-30
"I rise only to atone for my sins."
--- http://www.egscomics.com/?date=2009-12-29

[Quadibloc]

On Mar 1, 11:53 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> The storage and use
> methods for methanol are quite well solved; production is not.
>
> That is, "production is not" in the sense of "zero net carbon footprint".
> If you're into that sort of thing.

Methanol, unlike ethanol, can be produced as a *biofuel* that doesn't
directly compete with food production. Those leaves you rake up in the
fall? Sawdust? Grass clippings?

John Savard

[Wayne Throop]

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: Methanol, unlike ethanol, can be produced as a *biofuel* that doesn't

: directly compete with food production. Those leaves you rake up in
: the fall? Sawdust? Grass clippings?

Well, first, biological sources of energy aren't really worth squat.
Fuel production from biosources gets you only a *very* small fraction
of the insolation your crop is exposed to, and is generally[1] a bad idea.
And second,

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


[1] by which I mean, used as anything but a marginal process for some
other motive that just getting fuel; ie, combined with waste removal
or the such

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 2 March 2013 23:05:16 UTC, Wayne Throop wrote:
> Well, first, biological sources of energy aren't
> really worth squat.

Can I ask where you shop for groceries?

> And second,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

...doesn't work - as it says on that page before
you get to "Contents".

[Wayne Throop]

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

: Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
: ...doesn't work - as it says on that page before you get to
: "Contents".

"Doesn't work" in the sense that it was used in production in WWI,
and several other niche markets since then. I'm assuming by "doesn't work"
you mean this bit:

These issues, along with many other difficult production challenges,
lead George Washington University policy researchers to state that "in
the short term, [cellulosic] ethanol cannot meet the energy security
and environmental goals of a gasoline alternative."[5]

First, the issue was the claim that you can't get ethanol without
impacting food production directly. That's false.

Second, *duh* biofuels in general cannot meet the energy, security and
environmental goals of a gasoline alternative. Biofuels just aren't
a very good idea at all, as a primary replacement for transport fuels.

Brazil notwithstanding.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13623...@sheol.org...

That last is overstated if you do have spare land available
and gasoline becomes unattractive price wise.

> Brazil notwithstanding.

Brazil does show what is very feasible.

[Wayne Throop]

:: Second, *duh* biofuels in general cannot meet the energy, security

:: and environmental goals of a gasoline alternative. Biofuels just
:: aren't a very good idea at all, as a primary replacement for
:: transport fuels.

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: That last is overstated if you do have spare land available and

: gasoline becomes unattractive price wise.

And with this spare land, you can meet the entire world's needs
for transport fuels? Basically... no. IIRC you only get one percent
of the insolation energy out as fuel, and that's too inefficient to
be sustainable world-wide for *all* transport fuels. Even if,
technically, by destroying lots of ecosystems and such and being
very un-green indeed, you can technically do it. Assuming none of
the rest of the world starts driving like europeans, etc.

[Rod Speed]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote

>>> Second, *duh* biofuels in general cannot meet the energy,
>>> security and environmental goals of a gasoline alternative.
>>> Biofuels just aren't a very good idea at all, as a primary
>>> replacement for transport fuels.

>> That last is overstated if you do have spare land available
>> and gasoline becomes unattractive price wise.

> And with this spare land, you can meet the entire
> world's needs for transport fuels? Basically... no.

We'll see...

> IIRC you only get one percent of the insolation energy out as fuel,

And it remains to be seen how true that is in the future.

> and that's too inefficient to be sustainable
> world-wide for *all* transport fuels.

And it remains to be seen how true that is in the future.

> Even if, technically, by destroying lots of ecosystems and such
> and being very un-green indeed, you can technically do it.

That worked fine with agriculture.

> Assuming none of the rest of the world
> starts driving like europeans, etc.

Doesn’t assume anything of the kind.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 4 March 2013 06:37:51 UTC, Wayne Throop wrote:
> And with this spare land, you can meet the entire world's needs
> for transport fuels? Basically... no. IIRC you only get one
> percent of the insolation energy out as fuel, and that's too
> inefficient to be sustainable world-wide for *all* transport fuels.

If you don't do it, you get zero per cent. That's better how?
And, the world should take a good look at its "need" for transport
fuel, such as members of a broadly land-based species[*] who want to
fucking /fly/ to visit relatives when they can see them by television
anytime nowadays. Anyway, if the relatives /liked/ them, they would
live nearby. Take the hint.

[*] There's a history of brachiation but these days hardly any of
them bother, which tells you something. Specifically, they're lazy.

[Rod Speed]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote

> Wayne Throop wrote

>> And with this spare land, you can meet the entire world's
>> needs for transport fuels? Basically... no. IIRC you only get
>> one percent of the insolation energy out as fuel, and that's too
>> inefficient to be sustainable world-wide for *all* transport fuels.

> If you don't do it, you get zero per cent. That's better how?

> And, the world should take a good look at its "need" for transport
> fuel, such as members of a broadly land-based species[*] who want
> to fucking /fly/ to visit relatives when they can see them by television
> anytime nowadays.

> Anyway, if the relatives /liked/ them, they would live nearby. Take the
> hint.

That's going too far, that may be for work etc.

> [*] There's a history of brachiation but these days hardly any of
> them bother, which tells you something. Specifically, they're lazy.

Or the density of trees is a tad lower now.

[Wayne Throop]

:: And with this spare land, you can meet the entire world's needs for
:: transport fuels? Basically... no. IIRC you only get one percent of
:: the insolation energy out as fuel, and that's too inefficient to be
:: sustainable world-wide for *all* transport fuels.

: Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
: If you don't do it, you get zero per cent.

It frees up the effort you would have put into developing and growing
biofuel crops to do something more efficient and effective and hence
more useful.

Note that I didn't say biofuels shouldn't be used, ever.
Just that "they can supply all our transport fuels"
isn't a reason. "We have this biomass we need to dispose
of it anyways" would be a reason.

[Rod Speed]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote
>> Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote

>>> And with this spare land, you can meet the entire world's needs
>>> for transport fuels? Basically... no. IIRC you only get one percent
>>> of the insolation energy out as fuel, and that's too inefficient to
>>> be sustainable world-wide for *all* transport fuels.

>> If you don't do it, you get zero per cent.

> It frees up the effort you would have put into developing and
> growing biofuel crops to do something more efficient and effective

Modern economys aren't that constrained.

> and hence more useful.

Not necessarily. Most obviously with Brazil which
would otherwise have to import crude oil etc.

> Note that I didn't say biofuels shouldn't be used, ever.
> Just that "they can supply all our transport fuels" isn't
> a reason. "We have this biomass we need to dispose
> of it anyways" would be a reason.

And 'otherwise we would have to import it instead' is too.

[Wayne Throop]

:: It frees up the effort you would have put into developing and growing

:: biofuel crops to do something more efficient and effective

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: Modern economys aren't that constrained.

Thank you for making clear you didn't understand word one.
The statement was, "if you don't do it, you get zero per cent".
That turns out not to be the case.

: Most obviously with Brazil which

has a whole lot more biomass than the world in general,
or the US in specific, and I don't think it very gentle
with their primordeal ecosystems. So, as I said upthread,
can't do *world* *wide* biofuels, and is not very green.

It's the same deal with Iceland. They use geothermal.
Fairly simple arithmetic shows it can't meet world energy demands,
but they use it anways. Why? Because they're sitting on top of
a volcanic abundance of geothermal upwelling, duh. Still doesn't
imply geothermal is a practical world-wide answer. And as it turns out,
it isn't. Nor are biofuels.

[Doug Wickström]

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:37:51 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
Throop) wrote:

>And with this spare land, you can meet the entire world's needs
>for transport fuels? Basically... no. IIRC you only get one percent
>of the insolation energy out as fuel, and that's too inefficient to
>be sustainable world-wide for *all* transport fuels. Even if,
>technically, by destroying lots of ecosystems and such and being
>very un-green indeed, you can technically do it. Assuming none of
>the rest of the world starts driving like europeans, etc.

Biofuels will work about as well as making jet fuel from sea
water. You can do it, at a very high energy cost. This makes
some kind of sense if you have, say, cool a nuclear reactor
anyway.
--
Doug Wickström

[Wayne Throop]

:: And with this spare land, you can meet the entire world's needs for
:: transport fuels? Basically... no. IIRC you only get one percent of
:: the insolation energy out as fuel, and that's too inefficient to be
:: sustainable world-wide for *all* transport fuels.

: =?utf-8?Q?Doug_Wickstr=C3=B6m?= <nims...@comcast.net>
: Biofuels will work about as well as making jet fuel from sea water.

: You can do it, at a very high energy cost. This makes some kind of
: sense if you have, say, cool a nuclear reactor anyway.

You seem to be missing the point. One percent of insolation means
you need a certain number of square miles of crop to match the world's
consumption. How many square miles of nuclear reactors do you need
for the same amount of energy? For that matter, how many square miles
of photovoltaics, or of thermal solar collectors, do you need?

(Hint: it's less. Much, much less.)

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13624...@sheol.org...

> :: It frees up the effort you would have put into developing and growing
> :: biofuel crops to do something more efficient and effective
>
> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : Modern economys aren't that constrained.

> Thank you for making clear you didn't understand word one.

No thanks for your usual pathetic excuse for mindless
bullshit that fools absolutely no one at all, as always.

> The statement was, "if you don't do it, you get zero per cent".
> That turns out not to be the case.

Says it flagrantly mangling the quoting, as always
when its got done like a fucking dinner, as always.

> : Most obviously with Brazil which

> has a whole lot more biomass than the world in general,
> or the US in specific, and I don't think it very gentle
> with their primordeal ecosystems. So, as I said upthread,
> can't do *world* *wide* biofuels, and is not very green.

No one cept you is discussing WORLD WIDE biofuels.

Just another of your completely mindless straw men.

We are discussing whether they can be useful, a different matter entirely.

> It's the same deal with Iceland.

Nothing like it, actually.

> They use geothermal.

Which isnt available in very many places at all.

> Fairly simple arithmetic shows it can't meet world energy demands,

No one cept you is discussing WORLD WIDE anything.

Just another of your completely mindless straw men.

> but they use it anways. Why? Because they're sitting on top
> of a volcanic abundance of geothermal upwelling, duh. Still
> doesn't imply geothermal is a practical world-wide answer.

No one cept you is discussing WORLD WIDE answers.

Just another of your completely mindless straw men.

We are discussing whether they can be useful, a different matter entirely.

> And as it turns out, it isn't. Nor are biofuels.

No one cept you is discussing WORLD WIDE answers.

Just another of your completely mindless straw men.

We are discussing whether they can be useful, a different matter entirely.

[Wayne Throop]

:: They use geothermal.

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: Which isnt available in very many places at all.

Which is, of course the point. Just like geothermal, biofuels cannot be
available in enough places in enough quantity to be anything more than
a local or niche source. Doesn't mean those local or niche resources
shouldn't be used, it's just that they aren't a world-wide solution.
It's a matter of watts per surface area.

: No one cept you is discussing WORLD WIDE answers.

As so often with Speedy, that turns out not to be the case.
In <11fa33a0-c492-4aca...@googlegroups.com>,
Richard Carnegie brought it up indirectly, by asserting that the wikipedia
page on ethanol from cellulose said it "doesn't work", when all they said
was that it wasn't a gasoline alternative. I simply pointed out that
biofuels in general can't act as a gasoline alternative, in exactly the
same sense and for much the same reasons as that specific case cannot.
Biofuels in general come closer. But not really there. That is, still
"cannot meet the energy security and environmental goals".

Note that ethanol from cellulose was, and still is, actually used.
It is only when you get away from niche markets and waste disposal and
the such that either of them runs into problems. And those problems are,
they can't produce enough energy per area-x-time.

Brazil still notwithstanding.

So, to sum up, the assertion that you can't get ethanol without competing
with food crops: incorrect. The notion that Brazil makes lots of ethanol
as a biofuel means beiofuels are a viable gasoline replcement in the
sense David Carnegie introduced: incorrect.

The idea that Speedy is actually following the content of the discussion
enough to make relevant sense: also incorrect.

[Doug Wickström]

I did not miss the point.

Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to make light
petroleum fuels from seawater? It involves extracting CO2 from
water, separating the carbon, separating hydrogen from seawater,
and combining the two in a Fischer-Tropsch reaction.

The US Navy is actively considering the possibility.

It is not cost effective. It is not even up to the effectiveness
of biofuels. But it has the potential to make a carrier group
self-sufficient for jet fuel and light fuel oil, and this is a
worthwhile goal. It just requires doubling, or possibly
tripling, the reactor capacity of an aircraft carrier, and
running the reactors at full power, all the time.
--
Doug Wickström

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 5 March 2013 09:15:54 UTC, Wayne Throop wrote:
> You seem to be missing the point. One percent of insolation
> means you need a certain number of square miles of crop to
> match the world's consumption. How many square miles of
> nuclear reactors do you need for the same amount of energy?
> For that matter, how many square miles of photovoltaics, or
> of thermal solar collectors, do you need?

But, biofuel from insolation goes on working for longer than most
industrial alternatives; it's "sustainable" - for as long as the
planet remains inhabitable, that is. And, after all, that's what
biofuels are /for/.

Also, the fossil fuels originated as biofuel, in the geological past.

I think perhaps the longer-term solution will be genetically
engineered plants that operate as photovoltaic collectors,
growing together into bigger and bigger conductors probably
underground... although trees as natural electric pylons might
work, too.

[Scott Lurndal]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, 5 March 2013 09:15:54 UTC, Wayne Throop wrote:
>> You seem to be missing the point. One percent of insolation
>> means you need a certain number of square miles of crop to
>> match the world's consumption. How many square miles of
>> nuclear reactors do you need for the same amount of energy?
>> For that matter, how many square miles of photovoltaics, or
>> of thermal solar collectors, do you need?
>
>But, biofuel from insolation goes on working for longer than most
>industrial alternatives; it's "sustainable" - for as long as the
>planet remains inhabitable, that is. And, after all, that's what
>biofuels are /for/.

So is nuclear energy from Thorium, for example. The problem
with most green alternatives to fossil fuels is the poor energy
density. Sure, biofuel works, but you just can't create
enough of it when it's needed for it to supplant fossil fuels.

>
>Also, the fossil fuels originated as biofuel, in the geological past.

And had 100's of millions of years to build up the current
stockpiles which are depleting rapidly, particularly the easy-to-obtain
parts.

scott

[Rod Speed]

"Doug Wickström" <nims...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:no7bj8pi5cug0jdp4...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:37:51 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
> Throop) wrote:
>
>>And with this spare land, you can meet the entire world's needs
>>for transport fuels? Basically... no. IIRC you only get one percent
>>of the insolation energy out as fuel, and that's too inefficient to
>>be sustainable world-wide for *all* transport fuels. Even if,
>>technically, by destroying lots of ecosystems and such and being
>>very un-green indeed, you can technically do it. Assuming none of
>>the rest of the world starts driving like europeans, etc.

> Biofuels will work about as well as making jet fuel from
> sea water. You can do it, at a very high energy cost.

They work MUCH better than that, particularly with biodiesel
which mostly uses the oil waste from normal ag production.

> This makes some kind of sense if you
> have, say, cool a nuclear reactor anyway.

Don’t need that for biodiesel.

Nukes are much better where you don’t need a transport fuel.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13624...@sheol.org...

> :: And with this spare land, you can meet the entire world's needs for
> :: transport fuels? Basically... no. IIRC you only get one percent of
> :: the insolation energy out as fuel, and that's too inefficient to be
> :: sustainable world-wide for *all* transport fuels.
>
> : =?utf-8?Q?Doug_Wickstr=C3=B6m?= <nims...@comcast.net>
> : Biofuels will work about as well as making jet fuel from sea water.
> : You can do it, at a very high energy cost. This makes some kind of
> : sense if you have, say, cool a nuclear reactor anyway.

> You seem to be missing the point.

Nope, you do.

> One percent of insolation means you need a certain number
> of square miles of crop to match the world's consumption.

You're the only one mindlessly rabbiting on about one system for the
entire energy needs of the world. The real world is nothing like that.

> How many square miles of nuclear reactors
> do you need for the same amount of energy?

Stupid question, particularly with transport fuels.

> For that matter, how many square miles of photovoltaics,
> or of thermal solar collectors, do you need?

Even more of a stupid question with the transport fuels being discussed.

> (Hint: it's less. Much, much less.)

But biofuels can be a lot more viable as a transport fuel.

[Rod Speed]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote

> :: They use geothermal.
>
> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : Which isnt available in very many places at all.

> Which is, of course the point.

Pig arse it is. Biofuels are possible much more widely
than geothermal and are much more portable too so
even places like HongKong and Singapore can use
them if they are economically viable for them. They
cant with geothermal.

> Just like geothermal, biofuels cannot be available
> in enough places in enough quantity to be anything
> more than a local or niche source.

Bullshit.

> Doesn't mean those local or niche resources shouldn't
> be used, it's just that they aren't a world-wide solution.

You're the only one furiously thrashing that particular straw man.

> It's a matter of watts per surface area.

Nope, not with transport fuels, because while nukes do a
lot better on the watts per surface area question, they don’t
do anything like as well WITH TRANSPORT FUELS, essentially
because unlike hybrids turn out to be viable, hydrogen isnt
great as a transport fuel for storage and transport reasons.

> : No one cept you is discussing WORLD WIDE answers.

> As so often with Speedy, that turns out not to be the case.

We'll see...

> In <11fa33a0-c492-4aca...@googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Carnegie brought it up indirectly, by asserting that the
> wikipedia page on ethanol from cellulose said it "doesn't work",
> when all they said was that it wasn't a gasoline alternative.

That’s got nothing to do with a WORLD WIDE ANSWER.

Ethanol clearly is a viable gasoline alternative for Brazil
and biodiesel certainly is for plenty more places as well.

> I simply pointed out that biofuels in general can't act
> as a gasoline alternative, in exactly the same sense and
> for much the same reasons as that specific case cannot.

And that is just another lie with PART of the transport fuel use.

> Biofuels in general come closer. But not really there. That is,
> still "cannot meet the energy security and environmental goals".

More bullshit.

> Note that ethanol from cellulose was, and still is, actually
> used. It is only when you get away from niche markets

Supplementing gasoline in much of the modern first world
is nothing even remotely resembling a niche market.

> and waste disposal and the such that either of them runs into problems.
> And those problems are, they can't produce enough energy per area-x-time.

Even sillier. Brazil shows that that is a lie.

> Brazil still notwithstanding.

There you go again, flagrantly dishonest.

> So, to sum up, the assertion that you can't get ethanol
> without competing with food crops: incorrect.

Nope, and its just not true of biodiesel either.

> The notion that Brazil makes lots of ethanol as a biofuel
> means beiofuels are a viable gasoline replcement in the
> sense David Carnegie introduced: incorrect.

He did nothing of the kind. You are furiously thrashing
a straw man, as always.

> The idea that Speedy is actually following the content of
> the discussion enough to make relevant sense: also incorrect.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying thru your teeth, as
always.

[Wayne Throop]

:: You seem to be missing the point. One percent of insolation means
:: you need a certain number of square miles of crop to match the
:: world's consumption. How many square miles of nuclear reactors do
:: you need for the same amount of energy? For that matter, how many
:: square miles of photovoltaics, or of thermal solar collectors,
:: do you need?

: Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
: But, biofuel from insolation goes on working for longer than most

: industrial alternatives; it's "sustainable"

And how in Bog's Blue Sky is that *relevant*?

You can keep it up. Of course, you can't run all modern transport on it,
but you can *keep* not running modern trasport on it. Yeesh.

Further, solar via photovoltaics, thermal, or hypergengineered algae in
transparent plastic piping, or even yet purely inorganic photosynthesis
pathways in that TPP, are just as sustainable as current biofuel tech,
and yield many tens of times the energy at the very least[1] (assuming
your hypergengineering or inorganic photosynthesis development works well).

Basically, biofuels are very very very very inefficient solar.
So inefficient that it can't be a solution, it can at best be a small
nich player in a total solution. Much like tidal, geothermal, or even
hydro and wind. The two bits upthread, about "given sufficient energy"
and "but it's sustainable" don't even address the basic issue.

Even further further, fission can supply current world consumption of
energy for many thousands of years (if you use breeders, and thorium
especially, but even just harvesting sea water uranium). So it's
sustainable for all emperical cetatians. Maybe even tide us over the
20 hears until fusion, and that lasts tens of millions of years iirc.

[1] Actually, the saharan nations can stop pumping oil from under
the sand, and build one form of solar or another on top of it,
and sell synthetic hydrogen or methanol or whatnot... and also
get into the "feed the grid" business, given sufficient power line
tech advances. Build the Gibraltar Bridge or something. They had
the monopoly on back gold, now they have a good grip on the coming
shiny gold of tomorrow! It might have a good chance to keep their
economies from collapsing by and by.

So basically, they should be against nuclear, for solar, for CO2
reduction, and be pushing alternate synthetic fuels right away,
and selling them at highway-robbery prices on the basis of "peak
oil is coming!" and "stop global warming!" and "you vouldn't vant
to harm mother earth, vould you?". And then start working on that
grid supplier option. Though they might get whiplash from the sudden
turnabout. Heh.

"The car of the future, today, pulls a little to the left."
--- Phineas to Ferb
(need I say it was a flyin' car?)

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: You're the only one mindlessly rabbiting on about one system for the

: entire energy needs of the world. The real world is nothing like
: that.

I was reponding to somebody else who introduced the issue.
Get the metaphorical wax out of your metaphorical ears.

:: How many square miles of nuclear reactors do you need for the same

:: amount of energy?

: Stupid question, particularly with transport fuels.

So you're ruling out the hydrogen economy, then?

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: Ethanol clearly is a viable gasoline alternative for Brazil

Just like geothermal is for Iceland.
And at a huge cost in surface area and ecological impact.

It's just as un-viable as cellulitic ethanol. Which was the
original point; the claim that ethanol would compete with
food crops and there's no way around it. There *are* ways
to get ethanol without sugars to start with, one of them
is in use, and going totally synthetic is possible.

The followup point being that biofuels, whether via ethanol, methanol,
or oils, are at best a nich market, if you want green. They require
far too much surface area. Not to mention making more huge tracts
of monoculture ecologies, always a brilliant idea. (Um, y'all know
that "brilliant" was sarcasm, right?)

::: No one cept you is discussing WORLD WIDE answers.

:: As so often with Speedy, that turns out not to be the case.
: We'll see...

If you'd open your eyes someday, maybe.
The view's pretty good already, if you open your eyes.

And indeed, the original bit (from someone who was not me) about "without
impacting food crops" is talking about being green, and that's only
relevant if you're talking global environmental impact. As was then made
doubly clear when the environmental impact issue was brought up again.
By somebody who, oddly enough, was also not me.

[Wayne Throop]

:: Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
:: Also, the fossil fuels originated as biofuel, in the geological past.

You are correct sir! Excellent, I say, *excellent* example of why
biofuels don't work. We don't draw out one year of fossil fuel
for each year of use, oh no.

We are currently burning throuh megayears of biofuel savings in mere
decades of time, like a profligate trust-fund baby headed for a rude
awakening. Headed for a life of real-time biofuel sub-sustainance,
if we keep to biofuels when our fossil biofuel savings run out.

Again, excellent point. Thenkew. Thenkew verrymuch.
The fossils have *left* the building...


I used to think that I was cool
Running around on fossil fuel
Until I saw what I was doin'
Was driving down the road to ruin
--- James Taylor, "Traffic Jam"

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13625...@sheol.org...

> :: You seem to be missing the point. One percent of insolation means
> :: you need a certain number of square miles of crop to match the
> :: world's consumption. How many square miles of nuclear reactors do
> :: you need for the same amount of energy? For that matter, how many
> :: square miles of photovoltaics, or of thermal solar collectors,
> :: do you need?
>
> : Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
> : But, biofuel from insolation goes on working for longer than most
> : industrial alternatives; it's "sustainable"
>
> And how in Bog's Blue Sky is that *relevant*?
>
> You can keep it up. Of course, you can't run all modern transport on
> it, but you can *keep* not running modern trasport on it. Yeesh.
>
> Further, solar via photovoltaics, thermal, or hypergengineered algae in
> transparent plastic piping, or even yet purely inorganic photosynthesis
> pathways in that TPP, are just as sustainable as current biofuel tech,
> and yield many tens of times the energy at the very least[1] (assuming
> your hypergengineering or inorganic photosynthesis development works
> well).
>
> Basically, biofuels are very very very very inefficient solar.

Yes, but they do produce what is very useful as a transport fuel.

It remains to be seen if the other things you can produce with
nukes or solar like hydrogen are as useful as a transport fuel.

> So inefficient that it can't be a solution,

We'll see...

> it can at best be a small nich player in a total solution.

And we will see just how small it ends up.

> Much like tidal, geothermal, or even hydro and wind.

Nothing like in fact.

> The two bits upthread, about "given sufficient energy" and
> "but it's sustainable" don't even address the basic issue.

It remains to be seen if it does become the basic issue if we
minimise the use of transport by not moving so many from
home to work and back twice a day etc because of the
difficulty with a decent transport fuel once the fossil fuels
become too expensive to use as a transport fuel anymore.

> Even further further, fission can supply current world consumption
> of energy for many thousands of years (if you use breeders, and
> thorium especially, but even just harvesting sea water uranium).
> So it's sustainable for all emperical cetatians.

Yes.

> Maybe even tide us over the 20 hears until fusion,

We'll see if that become viable anything like that quickly.

> and that lasts tens of millions of years iirc.

Yes, we may well end up with nukes used to produce a decent
transport fuel if it turns out that hydrogen isnt viable.

But its also clear that biodiesel particularly may well
be quite a viable approach as the price of fossil fuels
start to make them unviable as a transport fuel.

It remains to be seen how long that will be.

> [1] Actually, the saharan nations can stop pumping oil from under
> the sand, and build one form of solar or another on top of it,
> and sell synthetic hydrogen or methanol or whatnot... and also
> get into the "feed the grid" business, given sufficient power line
> tech advances. Build the Gibraltar Bridge or something. They
> had the monopoly on back gold,

They never did.

> now they have a good grip on the coming shiny gold of tomorrow!
> It might have a good chance to keep their economies from collapsing
> by and by.

> So basically, they should be against nuclear, for solar, for CO2
> reduction, and be pushing alternate synthetic fuels right away,

What they do in that regard is completely irrelevant to what happens.

> and selling them at highway-robbery prices on the basis of "peak
> oil is coming!" and "stop global warming!" and "you vouldn't vant
> to harm mother earth, vould you?". And then start working on that
> grid supplier option.

No one would take any notice if they did.

> Though they might get whiplash from the sudden turnabout. Heh.

Not a chance, they'd just be ignored.