oil spill?
Judgement Day
Set it on fire.
Mike Dworetsky
> Set it on fire.
Good trick, when most of it is deep under water.
At least your solution would solve the air pollution problem...by creating
huge amounts.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Judgement Day
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Judgement Day wrote:
> > Set it on fire.
>
> Good trick, when most of it is deep under water.
So you think that oil possesses the magic ability to lose its
flammability
when it is under water.
Steven L.
news:30a02a61-9a85-4738...@f16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> Set it on fire.
If Obama had a spine,
He would have done with the Soviets did in the 1960s when they had a
similar problem:
Detonate a tactical nuclear warhead at the mouth of the bore-hole.
This would generate a local shock wave of 15,000 psi, pushing the oil
(under 10,000 psi) back down into the ground, collapsing the bore-hole
and sealing it off permanently.
The side effects of a nuclear detonation would be limited since the
detonation would be a mile under the surface of the sea. Sure, some
fish would be contaminated, but far fewer than the fish that are being
contaminated by all this oil.
That's what I said should be done. I've been saying that ever since the
well blew its top.
-- Steven L.
Mike Dworetsky
Yes, but it isn't magic.
Water is pretty effective at preventing oxygen from being involved in
combustion under water. Did you never learn about how firemen put out
fires?
You probably do not realize what happens under water, if only because you
are so shallow yourself.
Judgement Day
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Judgement Day wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2:07 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
> > <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Judgement Day wrote:
> >>> Set it on fire.
>
> >> Good trick, when most of it is deep under water.
>
> > So you think that oil possesses the magic ability to lose its
> > flammability
> > when it is under water.
>
> Yes, but it isn't magic.
>
> Water is pretty effective at preventing oxygen from being involved in
> combustion under water. Did you never learn about how firemen put out
> fires?
>
> You probably do not realize what happens under water, if only because you
> are so shallow yourself.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_test_for_dissolved_oxygen
The Winkler test is used to determine the concentration of dissolved
oxygen in water samples. Dissolved Oxygen, abbreviated D.O., is widely
used in water quality studies and routine operation of water
reclamation facilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_test_for_dissolved_oxygen#History
The test was first developed by Lajos Winkler while working on his
doctoral dissertation in 1888. The amount of dissolved oxygen is a
measure of the biological activity of the water masses. Phytoplankton
and macroalgae present in the water mass produce oxygen by way of
photosynthesis. Bacteria and eukaryotic organisms (zooplankton, algae,
fish) consume this oxygen through cellular respiration. The result of
these two mechanisms determines the concentration of dissolved oxygen,
which in turn indicates the production of biomass. The difference
between the physical concentration of oxygen in the water (or the
theoretical concentration if there were no living organisms) and the
actual concentration of oxygen is called the biochemical demand in
oxygen.
Mike Dworetsky
> "Judgement Day" <t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:30a02a61-9a85-4738...@f16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Set it on fire.
>
> If Obama had a spine,
> He would have done with the Soviets did in the 1960s when they had a
> similar problem:
>
> Detonate a tactical nuclear warhead at the mouth of the bore-hole.
>
Hadn't heard of this one. True, or a factoid?
> This would generate a local shock wave of 15,000 psi, pushing the oil
> (under 10,000 psi) back down into the ground, collapsing the bore-hole
> and sealing it off permanently.
>
> The side effects of a nuclear detonation would be limited since the
> detonation would be a mile under the surface of the sea. Sure, some
> fish would be contaminated, but far fewer than the fish that are being
> contaminated by all this oil.
>
> That's what I said should be done. I've been saying that ever since
> the well blew its top.
>
Kewl. That ought to make everyone happy..... :-) Only a few fish
contaminated...for the next 50 years at least...I can just see it now, all
US fish counters providing free Geiger counters with every halibut. People
will be even happier when the beach sand starts coming up highly radioactive
over the next decade or two and the contaminants start to appear.
Right.
Mike Dworetsky
Fine. Is this actually relevant to whether oil can burn when under water?
I know that it can burn when floating on the surface. Not the same. Not to
mention that water also reduces the temperature of burning substances to
below the combustion temperature.
haiku jones
What? Of course not. No more than
you have the magic ability to lose
your capacity to respire when you are
under water.
haiku jones
Well now, *that* was stunningly irrelevant.
(and I was that as someone who has run
hundreds of Winklers, way back when the
method was still widely used)
Boikat
> >news:30a02a61-9a85-4738...@f16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Set it on fire.
>
> > If Obama had a spine,
> > He would have done with the Soviets did in the 1960s when they had a
> > similar problem:
>
> > Detonate a tactical nuclear warhead at the mouth of the bore-hole.
>
> Hadn't heard of this one. �True, or a factoid?
Supposedly, true.
>
> > This would generate a local shock wave of 15,000 psi, pushing the oil
> > (under 10,000 psi) back down into the ground, collapsing the bore-hole
> > and sealing it off permanently.
>
> > The side effects of a nuclear detonation would be limited since the
> > detonation would be a mile under the surface of the sea. �Sure, some
> > fish would be contaminated, but far fewer than the fish that are being
> > contaminated by all this oil.
>
> > That's what I said should be done. �I've been saying that ever since
> > the well blew its top.
>
> Kewl. �That ought to make everyone happy..... �:-) �Only a few fish
> contaminated...for the next 50 years at least...I can just see it now, all
> US fish counters providing free Geiger counters with every halibut. �People
> will be even happier when the beach sand starts coming up highly radioactive
> over the next decade or two and the contaminants start to appear.
>
> Right.
Instead of a nuke, perhaps just several thousand pounds of some high
explosive?
Boikat
marks...@yahoo.com
> Set it on fire.
If you missed it they are doing that where there are large floating
masses of oil. They are using fireproof boom and corraling oil which
is then set on fire.
I rather liked the tactical nuke idea myself. I get the impression
that BP is not worried about the contamination , they want to harvest
that oil.
Obamas statement that it all will be totally clean at some future date
seems overly optamistic.
haiku jones
> "Judgement Day" <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:30a02a61-9a85-4738...@f16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Set it on fire.
>
> If Obama had a spine,
> He would have done with the Soviets did in the 1960s when they had a
> similar problem:
>
> Detonate a tactical nuclear warhead at the mouth of the bore-hole.
>
> This would generate a local shock wave of 15,000 psi, pushing the oil
> (under 10,000 psi) back down into the ground, collapsing the bore-hole
> and sealing it off permanently.
>
> The side effects of a nuclear detonation would be limited since the
> detonation would be a mile under the surface of the sea.
The base surge at its maximum size was 2.5 mi (4.0 km) in
diameter and 1,000 ft (300 m) high.[2]
The heights of surface waves generated by deep
underwater explosions are greater because more energy
is delivered to the water. Deep underwater explosions are
thus particularly able to damage coastal areas, because
surface waves increase in height as they move over shallow
water, and can flood the land beyond the shoreline.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_explosion
> �Sure, some
Judgement Day
My bad.
At least i don't persist when i am mistaken, and
go on and on about it, as that would be *gasp* crazy ...
Judgement Day
> On Jun 14, 4:36 pm, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Set it on fire.
>
> If you missed it they are doing that where there are large floating
> masses of oil. They are using fireproof boom and corraling oil which
> is then set on fire.
So they did that.
I don't follow the news much these days ...
Paul J Gans
I think that, and I'm a chemist.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Richard Clayton
Edward Teller, is that you?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Judgement Day
> Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 15, 2:07 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
> ><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Judgement Day wrote:
> >> > Set it on fire.
>
> >> Good trick, when most of it is deep under water.
> >So you think that oil possesses the magic ability to lose its
> >flammability
> >when it is under water.
>
> I think that, and I'm a chemist.
You didn't follow the thread, did you?
Paul J Gans
>"Judgement Day" <t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:30a02a61-9a85-4738...@f16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>> Set it on fire.
>If Obama had a spine,
>He would have done with the Soviets did in the 1960s when they had a
>similar problem:
>Detonate a tactical nuclear warhead at the mouth of the bore-hole.
>This would generate a local shock wave of 15,000 psi, pushing the oil
>(under 10,000 psi) back down into the ground, collapsing the bore-hole
>and sealing it off permanently.
Don't be an idiot. This was, in fact considered. The possibility
that it would so fracture the rock layers that there would now be
dozens or hundred of leak points was considered too high to risk.
>The side effects of a nuclear detonation would be limited since the
>detonation would be a mile under the surface of the sea. Sure, some
>fish would be contaminated, but far fewer than the fish that are being
>contaminated by all this oil.
>That's what I said should be done. I've been saying that ever since the
>well blew its top.
And possibly should now stop. You are going on sheer guesswork.
Folks Who Know about huge explosions think otherwise.
Paul J Gans
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_test_for_dissolved_oxygen
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_test_for_dissolved_oxygen#History
Which has nothing to do with the flammability of iron while
under water even if that water is saturated with pure oxygen.
Paul J Gans
<grin>
But it remains that you will not respire enough oxygen to
survive under water nor will oil find enough oxygen to burn
underwater.
And the point under discussion was the possibility of burning
underwater oil.
Paul J Gans
>Supposedly, true.
Yes. That's also been considered and rejected for the same reasons
the nuclear choice was rejected. The possibility that the rock
surface would become so fractured that oil would now leak from
dozens or hundreds of places thus making it impossible to stop.
Let me be more precise. Oil is coming up from the oil layer
spontaneously. That means that the pressure in the oil layer
is higher than the water plus atmospheric pressure plus rock
layer on the oil. This is almost certainly due to compressed
natural gas present in the rock and/or oil layer.
Hitting the covering rock layer, already under stress from the
oil pressure below and the water pressure above, with a large
impact could cause large-scale fracturing of the rock.
Folks from the national labs with access to data on underground
and undersea nuclear explosions have told the White House (or
so it is reported) that the probabilty of a bad outcome is too
high.
I don't know if that means 75%, 5%, or one in a hundred. But
the folks in charge made the decision not to risk it.
Dakota
The Russians were using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural
gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid, so there are big
differences, and this method has never been tested in such conditions.
I suspect doing so might also violate nuclear treaty obligations.
Walter Bushell
<d39fe211-f75f-4032...@a3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
marks...@yahoo.com wrote:
s/overly optamistic/bull feces/
--
All BP's money, and all the President's men,
Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
Walter Bushell
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Kewl. That ought to make everyone happy..... :-) Only a few fish
> contaminated...for the next 50 years at least...I can just see it now, all
> US fish counters providing free Geiger counters with every halibut.
Just for the halibut?
Someone had to say it.
Jeffrey Turner
Iron oxidizes under water. OK, it's a bit slow to be called "burning"
but still...
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
Judgement Day
Who was discussing the flammability of iron?
haiku jones
> On 6/15/2010 1:10 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
>
Magnesium oxidizes REAL well under water.
Of course, it's not reacting with the
dissolved elemental oxygen...
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Judgement Day
<t2jud...@gmail.com>:
>On Jun 15, 2:07 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Judgement Day wrote:
>> > Set it on fire.
>>
>> Good trick, when most of it is deep under water.
>
>So you think that oil possesses the magic ability to lose its
>flammability
>when it is under water.
That's physics, not magic. Of course, as Clarke noted, any
sufficiently advanced technology (or in this case, science)
is indistinguishable from magic, so your confusion is
understandable.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
>On Jun 15, 10:55 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
Irrelevant sidebar noted. Do you actually think this relates
to the combustibility of oil underwater?
haiku jones
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:00:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Judgement Day
Well, hey: just today alone he's revolutionized
both physics and chemistry. I can't wait
to see what tomorrow brings (probably should sell
your stock in Gentech, just to be on the safe side.)
HJ
Mike Lyle
> In article <GISdndIjfNRYCIrR...@bt.com>,
> "Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Kewl. That ought to make everyone happy..... :-) Only a few fish
>> contaminated...for the next 50 years at least...I can just see it
>> now, all US fish counters providing free Geiger counters with every
>> halibut.
>
> Just for the halibut?
>
> Someone had to say it.
Just as long as nobody mentions halibuton and spoils a neat piece of
scapegoating. Let's keep quiet about Union Carbide, too.
--
Mike.
Paul J Gans
No, I didn't. I'm just responding to the question as to whether
one can burn oil under water.
Paul J Gans
>In article
><d39fe211-f75f-4032...@a3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> marks...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 4:36?pm, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Set it on fire.
>>
>> If you missed it they are doing that where there are large floating
>> masses of oil. They are using fireproof boom and corraling oil which
>> is then set on fire.
>>
>> I rather liked the tactical nuke idea myself. I get the impression
>> that BP is not worried about the contamination , they want to harvest
>> that oil.
>>
>> Obamas statement that it all will be totally clean at some future date
>> seems overly optamistic.
>s/overly optamistic/bull feces/
Now now. What's a few centuries between friends?
Paul J Gans
Ye Gods. Somebody read to the bottom of the post!!! You win
a case of virtual beer, the University of Ediacara's best!
Paul J Gans
>--Jeff
That's two cases of virtual beer!
Actually, iron is active enough to react with water, though the
other mechanism works too.
David Hare-Scott
> My bad.
> At least i don't persist when i am mistaken, and
> go on and on about it, as that would be *gasp* crazy ...
What name do you usually post under here?
David
David Iain Greig
Oh, it's I AM back.
User 'Judgement Day' banned for nymshifting.
--D. 'ha ha ha'
--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
In a few decades both of us figure to be taking a dirt nap. And not many
decades at that; I'd be lucky to get two. I do know one lady who
survived to 105, but she had a head start; she was among the very young
at heart. She went to extremes with impossible dreams.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> No, I didn't. I'm just responding to the question as to whether
> one can burn oil under water.
I am certified to breathe under water by PADI, so with enough technology
it could be done.
Judgement Day
> Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 15, 1:07�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 15, 2:07�am, "Mike Dworetsky"
> >> ><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> >> Judgement Day wrote:
> >> >> > Set it on fire.
>
> >> >> Good trick, when most of it is deep under water.
> >> >So you think that oil possesses the magic ability to lose its
> >> >flammability
> >> >when it is under water.
>
> >> I think that, and I'm a chemist.
> >You didn't follow the thread, did you?
>
Then read it and you will realize that was addressed.
Do you think you score points by taking a thread out of context to
make
either yourself appear smart or me stupid?
Since you didn't know this was addressed by me, what do you think you
have accomplished, other than make yourself appear to be the troll you
are?
Judgement Day
So much for his claim of being a chemist.
He looked up on google oxidation, and saw iron listed and
thought it would ignite ...
Judgement Day
hahahahahahaha
Kermit
> In article <hv90ma$h...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >In article
> > > marks542...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >> On Jun 14, 4:36?pm, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Set it on fire.
>
> > >> If you missed it they are doing that where there are large floating
> > >> masses of oil. They are using fireproof boom and corraling oil which
> > >> is then set on fire.
>
> > >> I rather liked the tactical nuke idea myself. I get the impression
> > >> that BP is not worried about the contamination , they want to harvest
> > >> that oil.
>
> > >> Obamas statement that it all will be totally clean at some future date
> > >> seems overly optamistic.
>
> > >s/overly optamistic/bull feces/
>
> > Now now. What's a few centuries between friends?
>
> In a few decades both of us figure to be taking a dirt nap. And not many
> decades at that; I'd be lucky to get two. I do know one lady who
> survived to 105, but she had a head start; she was among the very young
> at heart. She went to extremes with impossible dreams.
>
> --
> All BP's money, and all the President's men,
> Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
I never really grew up. does that count?
Kermit
Judgement Day
First off this wasn't an oil spill.
A spill is like spilling milk, it is in a container and it spills.
This is not what happened here.
This was apparently offshore drilling, yes?
Let daddy clean it up for you.
Oil spill, be gone ...
haiku jones
Jeffrey made no such claim.
> He looked up on google oxidation, and saw iron listed and
> thought it would ignite ...
Which part of "a bit slow to be called `burning'"
do we need to set up a flannel board and
explain v e r y s l o w l y to you?
HJ
Judgement Day
You are one dumb motherfucker.
gans, dummy.
haiku jones
> gans, dummy.
Paul did not claim that iron ignites under water.
Paul pointed out that iron does NOT
ignite -- by way of mocking you.
Paul is in fact a chemist.
As am I.
Dummy.
HJ
Walter Bushell
<635767a6-3991-40a0...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps, if you keep and obey enough adult guidance. Many men depend on
their wives for such.
yer a sleazeball
No, dummy, he claimed he was a chemist which he is clearly not.
Neither are you a chemist you fucking robotarded idiot!
haiku jones
"Clearly", says the lowbrow who wouldn't know a
pi orbital from a cyclopentadienyl ligand sandwich.
Not only is he a chemist, he's a P-chemist, someone
the rest of us everyday chemists regard with admiration
and a touch of fear.
HJ
yer a sleazeball
You obviously haven't watched anything I have posted 'tall ...
Moist Lipwig
It appears that Judgement Day is still posting the day after your
imposition of a ban, and mocking you in the process.
Below are the headers.
_____________________________________________________
Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: Judgement Day <t2jud...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: oil spill?
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 22
Sender: ne...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
Message-ID:
<c83f9f62-948f-4c2e...@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References:
In-Reply-To: <c83f9f62-948f-4c2e...@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
<30a02a61-9a85-4738...@f16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
<d9GdnRobw4gWhYrR...@bt.com>
<41569546-3db2-4ef4...@35g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>
<PPWdnSZAwIb6CYrR...@bt.com>
<d70d6c98-5309-46a6...@a29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
<OradnRjnz9IIB4rR...@bt.com>
<06feb877-7dc4-4acd...@q29g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
<hv91p1$gsn$1...@news.albasani.net>
<cabal-slrni1g5...@darwin.ediacara.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1276695940 14358 128.100.83.246 (16 Jun 2010
13:45:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:45:40 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
X-Authentication-Warning: ywd9.prod.google.com: news set sender to
ne...@google.com using -f
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.252.204.230
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.252.204.230;
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.9.2.3)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darwin.ediacara.org
id o5GDjc6p014346
Bytes: 2573
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com talk.origins:2377001
hahahahahahaha
_____________________________________________________
Kindest Regards,
Desertphile
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Judgement Day" <t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:30a02a61-9a85-4738...@f16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Set it on fire.
>
> If Obama had a spine,
> He would have done with the Soviets did in the 1960s when they had a
> similar problem:
>
> Detonate a tactical nuclear warhead at the mouth of the bore-hole.
>
> This would generate a local shock wave of 15,000 psi, pushing the oil
> (under 10,000 psi) back down into the ground, collapsing the bore-hole
> and sealing it off permanently.
>
> The side effects of a nuclear detonation would be limited since the
> detonation would be a mile under the surface of the sea. Sure, some
> fish would be contaminated, but far fewer than the fish that are being
> contaminated by all this oil.
>
> That's what I said should be done. I've been saying that ever since the
> well blew its top.
This.... it's a joke, right?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article
><d39fe211-f75f-4032...@a3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> marks...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Jun 14, 4:36 pm, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Set it on fire.
>>
>> If you missed it they are doing that where there are large floating
>> masses of oil. They are using fireproof boom and corraling oil which
>> is then set on fire.
>>
>> I rather liked the tactical nuke idea myself. I get the impression
>> that BP is not worried about the contamination , they want to harvest
>> that oil.
>>
>> Obamas statement that it all will be totally clean at some future date
>> seems overly optamistic.
>
>s/overly optamistic/bull feces/
Not really; he failed to put a limit on that date. Sleazy,
yes. Inaccurate, no.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by yer a sleazeball
<sbag...@yahoo.com>:
<snip>
>You obviously haven't watched anything I have posted 'tall ...
I have; I enjoy watching virtual train wrecks.
Paul J Gans
>In article <hv90ma$h6$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >In article
>> ><d39fe211-f75f-4032...@a3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> > marks...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> On Jun 14, 4:36?pm, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Set it on fire.
>> >>
>> >> If you missed it they are doing that where there are large floating
>> >> masses of oil. They are using fireproof boom and corraling oil which
>> >> is then set on fire.
>> >>
>> >> I rather liked the tactical nuke idea myself. I get the impression
>> >> that BP is not worried about the contamination , they want to harvest
>> >> that oil.
>> >>
>> >> Obamas statement that it all will be totally clean at some future date
>> >> seems overly optamistic.
>>
>> >s/overly optamistic/bull feces/
>>
>> Now now. What's a few centuries between friends?
>In a few decades both of us figure to be taking a dirt nap. And not many
>decades at that; I'd be lucky to get two. I do know one lady who
>survived to 105, but she had a head start; she was among the very young
>at heart. She went to extremes with impossible dreams.
Hey, I'm happy every morning because I woke up!
Paul J Gans
>In article <hv908d$h6$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> No, I didn't. I'm just responding to the question as to whether
>> one can burn oil under water.
>I am certified to breathe under water by PADI, so with enough technology
>it could be done.
Yeah, but how much technology can a puddle of underwater oil
afford?
Paul J Gans
Yes. It helps dramatically. Stay young.
Paul J Gans
>HJ
Iron burns quite well in air. Those 4th of July
"sparklers" are nothing but very small iron particles
held together by a binder.
Large chunks of metal are hard to ignite because of the
need to heat the entire chunk to a high temperature.
As is well-known, magnesium ribbon ignites nicely. Try
to ignite a magnesium rod. Heat is conducted away from
the spot one is trying to light too fast for it to ignite.
haiku jones
Yep. Or sparks off a grinding wheel. Or a fire steel.
(in water, not so much)
>
> Large chunks of metal are hard to ignite because of the
> need to heat the entire chunk to a high temperature.
> As is well-known, magnesium ribbon ignites nicely. Try
> to ignite a magnesium rod. Heat is conducted away from
> the spot one is trying to light too fast for it to ignite.
Which would also be the problem with ...what was his name
just yesterday?...oh, yeah, with `Judgement Day's burning
oil underwater (ignoring the small matter of
the rather severe lack of oxygen)
But since in today's incarnation, he has informed us
that neither of us is a chemist, what do
we know?
HJ
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> Obamas statement that it all will be totally clean at some future date
> >> seems overly optamistic.
> >
> >s/overly optamistic/bull feces/
>
> Not really; he failed to put a limit on that date. Sleazy,
> yes. Inaccurate, no.
Point taken.
Still, I think it would have served him better not to say. If it happens
in 3000 a most of us will never see it.
Of course, we may just redefine "normal". Like it's normal when visiting
the beach to get tar on your feet.
Paul J Gans
More about him than he knows about us, that's
for sure.
I really wonder where this bunch of trolls is coming
from. Do they really think that the supposed anonymity
of the internet will protect them from their own idiocy?
haiku jones
Oh, it's safe to say that it's a "bunch of one" in this case.
And what protects this particular bunch of one is
an advanced case of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
HJ
Steven L.
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:GISdndIjfNRYCIrR...@bt.com:
> Steven L. wrote:
> > "Judgement Day" <t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:30a02a61-9a85-4738...@f16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> Set it on fire.
> >
> > If Obama had a spine,
> > He would have done with the Soviets did in the 1960s when they had a
> > similar problem:
> >
> > Detonate a tactical nuclear warhead at the mouth of the bore-hole.
> >
>
> Hadn't heard of this one. True, or a factoid?
I was mistaken about one thing: The nuclear warhead was emplaced in a
well drilled parallel to the well that was leaking natural gas. The
shock wave pushed against the leaking well, essentially squeezing it
shut.
Here's a video from the U.S.S.R. about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPNQoTlacU
>
> > This would generate a local shock wave of 15,000 psi, pushing the oil
> > (under 10,000 psi) back down into the ground, collapsing the bore-hole
> > and sealing it off permanently.
> >
> > The side effects of a nuclear detonation would be limited since the
> > detonation would be a mile under the surface of the sea. Sure, some
> > fish would be contaminated, but far fewer than the fish that are being
> > contaminated by all this oil.
> >
> > That's what I said should be done. I've been saying that ever since
> > the well blew its top.
> >
>
> Kewl. That ought to make everyone happy..... :-) Only a few fish
> contaminated...for the next 50 years at least...
Fish don't typically live for 50 years.
And most of the fish alive now and anywhere around the leaking oil well
are going to be unfit for human consumption.
-- Steven L.
John S. Wilkins
When I'm lyin' in my bed at night
I don't wanna grow up
Nothin' ever seems to turn out right
I don't wanna grow up
How do you move in a world of fog
That's always changing things
Makes me wish that I could be a dog
When I see the price that you pay
I don't wanna grow up
I don't ever wanna be that way
I don't wanna grow up
Seems like folks turn into things
That they'd never want
The only thing to live for
Is today...
I'm gonna put a hole in my TV set
I don't wanna grow up
Open up the medicine chest
And I don't wanna grow up
I don't wanna have to shout it out
I don't want my hair to fall out
I don't wanna be filled with doubt
I don't wanna be a good boy scout
I don't wanna have to learn to count
I don't wanna have the biggest amount
I don't wanna grow up
Well when I see my parents fight
I don't wanna grow up
They all go out and drinking all night
And I don't wanna grow up
I'd rather stay here in my room
Nothin' out there but sad and gloom
I don't wanna live in a big old Tomb
On Grand Street
When I see the 5 o'clock news
I don't wanna grow up
Comb their hair and shine their shoes
I don't wanna grow up
Stay around in my old hometown
I don't wanna put no money down
I don't wanna get me a big old loan
Work them fingers to the bone
I don't wanna float a broom
Fall in love and get married then boom
How the hell did I get here so soon
I don't wanna grow up
Tom Waits/ K. Brennan, "I don't wanna grow up".
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Paul J Gans
I'd never heard of that, but it is *wonderful*. You've
nailed it exactly.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <cgai16d87iopbvnit...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> >> Obamas statement that it all will be totally clean at some future date
>> >> seems overly optamistic.
>> >
>> >s/overly optamistic/bull feces/
>>
>> Not really; he failed to put a limit on that date. Sleazy,
>> yes. Inaccurate, no.
>
>Point taken.
>
>Still, I think it would have served him better not to say. If it happens
>in 3000 a most of us will never see it.
No argument, but Obama's a politician, IOW an artist of the
deceptive statement.
>Of course, we may just redefine "normal". Like it's normal when visiting
>the beach to get tar on your feet.
I remember back in the early '70s when I was back in Ft.
Lauderdale (where I'd lived in the early '60s). One of the
things I noticed most was the tarballs (mostly small, but
lots of them) which had invaded the beaches since my earlier
time there. And that was long before offshore drilling; IIRC
it was claimed to result from tanker leakage.
Mike Dworetsky
In the 1950s in S. California our family beach outings always packed along a
bottle of turpentine spirits, to remove tar from our feet. Explanations
ranged from natural seepage to tanker and fuel bunker leakages, as this was
(I think) well before offshore oil drilling on a large scale.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Steven L.
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-735565....@news.panix.com:
> In article
> <d39fe211-f75f-4032...@a3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> marks...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 4:36 pm, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Set it on fire.
> >
> > If you missed it they are doing that where there are large floating
> > masses of oil. They are using fireproof boom and corraling oil which
> > is then set on fire.
> >
> > I rather liked the tactical nuke idea myself. I get the impression
> > that BP is not worried about the contamination , they want to harvest
> > that oil.
> >
> > Obamas statement that it all will be totally clean at some future date
> > seems overly optamistic.
>
> s/overly optamistic/bull feces/
A recent Gallup Poll asked U.S. respondents when they thought the oil
spill would finally, totally, be cleaned up for good.
A majority responded "Never"
Only a few percent responded "The next few years"
-- Steven L.