Newsgroup sci.energy 66363

Directory

:Welfare was originally intended not as a system to "pay people not to
:work" but rather as a method of helping people remain viable as
:potential workers instead of being shipped to the poor farm (the
:physical hole from which they could not work their way out).  People
:should have some mechanism available for getting back into the work
:force.  Also, those few people on welfare because they cannot work (such
:as a friend of mine who was seriously injured on the job) should not be
:given a death sentence.
As I stated, the private charities could easily handle the very
few people who cannot work.  I have worked in stores and lived in
areas filled with welfare bums and I can tell you that the only
way to get them back in the work force (assuming they were ever
in it) is hunger.  There are plenty of jobs available. The bums
don't want them because they are not hungry. They are, however,
lazy.
:> Yes, but there is plenty of fresh water in most parts of the
:> world.  There are those, however that don't want the rivers
:> diverted and/or damed. The big problem is more political than
:> anything else.
:
:You are mistaken as to the availability of fresh water.  The surplus is
:of people.
Not on this planet.  There are a few areas, like I said.  But the
kooks do not want the water diverted.
:Regards,
:
:Lon.
William R. James

Lon Levy wrote:
> 
> Michael A. Fishman wrote:
> > In evolutionary terms, any individuals operating ``for the benifit of
> > the species'', rather than for their own short-term, selfish advantage,
> > has less descendants than the selfish individuals. So, even if genes
> > for altruism appeared once, they would quickly disappear.
> > Selfishness is our evolutionary heritage!
> 
> So, are we to breed like bacteria in a closed container, until we reach
> the point of total collapse and die out as a species?  I would like to
> think that our sapience would give us some other path.  Certainly there
> would have to be some mechanism for enforcement so that short term greed
> does not destroy the chance of long term survival.
>
Very moving. Why don't you abolish the law of gravitation,
as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian.
                                                    Gibbon
--------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:00:12 -0400, "Steve Spence"
 wrote:
: Is that similar to the sport we used to avail ourselves( when I was in the
:navy) called buffalo tipping?
Most likely, yes.
William R. James

Mark J. Mihalasky wrote:
> 
> IF YOUR TOPICS OF DISCUSSION ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO
> 
> GEOLOGY (IN THE STRICT SENSE), PLEASE DO NOT CROSS-POST
> 
> TO SCI.GEO.GEOLOGY.
> 
> STILL THEY PERSIST...  AND YET STILL.
> 
> THANK YOU.
Ho hum!  Another self appointed bandwidth policeman crossposting 
meaningless drivel about crossposting.  Now, was it geology you were 
interested in or psychoceramics (cracked pots)?
Chuck Szmanda
chucksz@ultranet.com

Anco S. Blazev wrote:
> 
> Lon Levy  wrote:
> 
> : Alternate methods cannot keep up with exponential population growth.
> : Continued migration implies that there is still some frontier to which
> : to move.  Neither appears viable.  It is time to stop population growth.
> 
> How do you propose to "stop population growth?"  Not like they do in
> China, I hope...  :-)
> 
> A. Blazev
The world already has tested, familiar, well-proven, though involuntary
population control measures---war, famine and disease.  The Black Death
felled as much as one-third of Europeans.  Lebensraum, drang nach Osten
and Gott mit uns wiped out an entire generation of young men.  An
overcrowded Japan committed the rape of Nanking in search of space and
raw materials.  The tausend jahr Reich was launched and brought to a
jarring halt in 1945, but not before 30,000,000 mostly Russians, died.
Before, during and after, there were smaller events---a million and
a half Irish starved to death, another million or two died in the
killing fields of Cambodia, a smaller number in a war over oil in Kuwait
and Iraq, innumerable religious and ethnic territorial or economic wars
in Israel, Bosnia, India and Africa, and starvation in North Korea add
their bit in countering high population
density. 
With over a billion people occupying a rapidly degrading agricultural
base, China has two and a half options.  One is to stabilize the
population by "one family, one child", the other to invade its neighbors
to displace their population with Chinese.  The half-option is to
increase exports to pay for food imports.  This is a temporary
palliative and only delays option two if efforts to stabilize the
population do not succeed.  They haven't.  The religion industry will
applaud the failure---until their childred die as a consequence in an
Asian war.

Anco S. Blazev wrote:
> 
> Lon Levy  wrote:
> 
> : Alternate methods cannot keep up with exponential population growth.
> : Continued migration implies that there is still some frontier to which
> : to move.  Neither appears viable.  It is time to stop population growth.
> 
> How do you propose to "stop population growth?"  Not like they do in
> China, I hope...  :-)
> 
> A. Blazev
The world already has tested, familiar, well-proven, though involuntary
population control measures---war, famine and disease.  The Black Death
felled as much as one-third of Europeans.  Lebensraum, drang nach Osten
and Gott mit uns wiped out an entire generation of young men.  An
overcrowded Japan committed the rape of Nanking in search of space and
raw materials.  The tausend jahr Reich was launched and brought to a
jarring halt in 1945, but not before 30,000,000 mostly Russians, died.
Before, during and after, there were smaller events---a million and
a half Irish starved to death, another million or two died in the
killing fields of Cambodia, a smaller number in a war over oil in Kuwait
and Iraq, innumerable religious and ethnic territorial or economic wars
in Israel, Bosnia, India and Africa. 
With over a billion people occupying a rapidly degrading agricultural
base, China has two and a half options.  One is to stabilize the
population by "one family, one child", the other to invade its neighbors
to displace their population with Chinese.  The half-option is to
increase exports to pay for food imports.  This is a temporary
palliative and only delays option two if efforts to stabilize the
population do not succeed.  They haven't.  The religion industry will
applaud the failure---until their childred die as a consequence in an
Asian war.

:Along these lines, there was a fascinating piece in Science News this
:week, suggesting that the very chemicals that are regarded to have
:anti-cancer properties in some veggies, are also sensed as intensely
:bitter and distasteful to about 25 % of the population.  Interesting
:article.
:
:	Eric Lucas, who senses some loneliness in his love of broccoli
Hot peppers and such are considered antioxidents.
William R. James

On 16 Jul 1997 13:34:30 +0200, David Kastrup
 wrote:
:spam@here.not (Wm James) writes:
:
:> And what about the animals who eat meat? should they be killed
:> off?  And what about the vegatarians who have the animals killed
:> to make room for the growing of vegtables?
:
:For your information: you need about eight times more "room" for
:growing vegetables if you happen to process them into meat via animals
:before eating them.
This is a very common misconception. Most cattle are raised in
areas that would not support vegtables very well.  Cattle eat
mostly grass.  Feeding them a bit of corn makes the meat a little
better, as well as producing more meat per cow.  But you do not
need it.
My point however was that from the "animal rights" stand  point,
if killing animals is a bad thing, you should eat neither meat
nor vegtables since both require the killing of animals.
:> And what about the
:> vegatarians who kill animals like tapeworms, heartworms,
:> leaches,ticks, fleas, ect...
:
:Perhaps they had not explicitly *raised* them for the purpose of
:killing them?
Most deer are not raised for the purpose of killing them either.
: Although I would not be too surprised if cultivating
:tapeworms (preferably made sterile by some measure) would not sometime
:become a popular measure for losing weight...
Actually I heard that idea a few years ago, and I would not be
surprised either.  Kinda strange, but who knows?  
:-- 
:David Kastrup                                     Phone: +49-234-700-5570
:Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de       Fax: +49-234-709-4209
:Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
William R. James

Well, I've been searching the web for information on peltier junctions,
but can't find anything. Does anyone know of some net-info on them?
Thanks,
Greg
In article <5qg2ml$ruv$8@news>, hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) wrote:
> In article <33cb1317.4120803@192.189.54.145>,
> Rotes Sapiens  wrote:
> >On 4 Jul 1997 18:21:26 GMT, "CyBER LiNK" 
> >wrote:
> >
> >>i'm trying to make a thermocouple for use as an energy source.  Does anyone
> >>have any suggestions on materials to use or how to make it?
> >
> >Have you looked at peltier junctions?  They provide much more voltage.
> 
> Voltage isn't the problem. But Peltier junctions are better than
> thermocouples.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>     ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
>     *                Daly City California:                *
>     *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
>     *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

In article <5qiou7$ihj@valhalla.comshare.com>,
Michael Pelletier  wrote:
>In article <5qimfp$mfb@milo.mcs.anl.gov>,
>	Michael Richmann   wrote:
>>eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>>>
>>>As Mike P. says, it is to be reused in nuclear fuel.
>>
>>Not in this country.  Seems there's a political side to the equation
>>as well as a scientific one...
>
>At least the political winds have the ability to change, whereas
>the laws of physics do not.   ...
Most amusing. Modern science education has a lot to answer for... ;-)
-- 
R. Kym Horsell
KHorsell@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU              kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU 
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell  http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym

In article <33cc7d3c.33972409@news.syd.aone.net.au>,
Greig Ebeling  wrote:
>On 15 Jul 1997 15:51:58 +1000, khorsell@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym
>Horsell) wrote:
>
>>Ahhh.... we're back to the one square metre argument again. ;-)
>>
>>
>>As I said -- argument appears to assume a lot of things as yet to be proven
>>by anything more than de facto practices...
>
>Ahhh.... we're back on the old psychobabble argument again. ;-)
You seem to label everything from genetics to logic as "psychobabble".
But then you can confuse observation and theory, too. ;-)
-- 
R. Kym Horsell
KHorsell@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU              kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU 
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell  http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym

John McCarthy (jmc@steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: Mr. Nudds is so eager to go on the attack that he misread "five
: gigabytes" as "five megabytes".
  John McCarthy thinks my response to him was an attack.  He is apparently
eager to portrey himself as a victim.  How sad.

I'm somewhat new to this discussion, but having intently studied the
postings to date, it occurs to me that the subject is somewhat
inaccurate:  wouldn't "nucyuler fool" be more appropriate?
Curiously,
	JR

B. Alan Guthrie (zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
: >
: >And perhaps you'd like to explain the US's concern about Iran buying a 
: >power reactor?
: 
:   The concern is directed really at the ancilliary facilities which
:   Iran is attempting to acquire.  The power reactors themselves are
:   not the real issue.
Gee, that's not what our government says.  Of course, you know more than 
our government, right?

On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 05:31:59 GMT, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu  wrote:
:  Do it in twenty years, instead of three or four.  The 
:full cost of the Manhattan Project, as I recall, was around 2 billion 
:dollars, in 1940 money, equivalent to about 20 billion nowadays.  
:Spread over 20 years that's a cost many countries can manage.  Not 
:all, true, but quite a lot.
Is it really that low?  I heard it was more like almost 10% of the nation's
GDP went to the manhattan project, a major diversion of resources in
time of war. 
-- 
*        Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD           -
* "People who send spam to Emperor Cartagia... vanish! _They say_ that
* there's a room where he has their heads, lined up in a row on a desk...
* _They say_ that late at night, he goes there, and talks to them... _they
*- say_ he asks them, 'Now tell me again, how _do_ you make money fast?'"

>Felonius  wrote:
>Does anyone kno exactly how a solar panel produces energy? This is just
>a matter of curiosity.  Any information would be helpful.  Thank you.
See:
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/whatispv.html

Toe wrote:
> 
> 
> I appologize if I have crowded your favorite newsgroups with stuff you
> didn't want to see. Still... it beats "FREE SEX--ONLY $2.99 A MINUTE!!!"
> doesn't it?
> 
Not by very much, I'm afraid. PLEASE KEEP THIS
ENVIRO_POLITICAL_SOCIALOGICAL_MORAL crap out of Geology.
Not that we don't have social consciences, though. We DO worry about and
care about such issues. BUT we have the good grace to talk geology on
the geology channels, chemistry in the chemistry channels, and
environment on the environment channels (and as for the
socio-politics.....)
PLEASE trim your newsgroups. SPAM is becoming a sensitive and
frustrating issue. Don't overdo it, or you'll lose it.
Nick

lparker@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
 >
 >Eric Carruthers (carruthe@candu.aecl.ca) wrote:
 >: Back in 1987, the estimate was that about 10000 cancers/year were
 >: attributable to COAL POLLUTION in North America.  
 >
 >
 >Can you cite a source?  This seens really high.  Of the 400,000 cancer 
 >deaths in the US anually, 40,000-60,000 are attributed to environmental 
 >pollutatns.  It is awfully high to say 20% of these are due simply to coal.
The deaths ascribed to coal are not are not mainly cancer but include
many other respiratory illnesses.
 >
 >: Haven't seen any recent
 >: studies which incorporate better scrubbers.  East European coal plants
 >: are/were much dirtier.  Now, how many Chernobyls per year could we have to
 >: meet this astounding safety level.  
 >
 >
 >Well, around 100,000 are projected to die as a result of Chernobyl.
I see the anti-nuclear types are upping the ante again.  Why not make
it an even million.  What's the source of the 100,000 estimate?  I
don't mean scientific source but the anti-nuke source.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Joseph Zorzin  wrote:
>Lon Levy wrote:
>> Our fresh water aquifirs are being depleted more rapidly than they are
>> replenished.  The diversion of the Colorado River is not going to keep
>> up with the increased demand for fresh water from Southern California.
>> There is talk of a pipeline of fresh water from the Great Lakes.  Here,
>> by the Great Lakes (I live in Wisconsin), the water table is dropping.
>> Two summers ago, residents of Mequon (a small city just north of
>> Milwaukee) had to sink deeper wells.  This is not a question of left
>> versus right (both are upset with much my thinking), but a question of
>> population growth versus available resources.  The former is growing
>> exponentially and the latter is being depleted.
>> 
>Of course the water shortage in southern CA, central AZ and other areas
>would lessen if water could NOT be used for golf courses, swimming pools
>and watering lawns.
Thanks to large scale clear cutting less and less water becomes ground water,
and flash floods are more frequent. When It does flood water just rushes down to
the rivers and into the ocean. Maybe during flood times we should be pumping
water back into the ground.
How about when most the land was trees, how was water conserved then. Rate of
run off would be slower and moister pick up would be lower under a canopy.
Farmers need to flood their  fields then let them sit for a few days, rather
than pumping(spaying) water into the air.
Golf coarses should be require to run weaping tube and sand under their turf to
water it hydrophonically. Under that they should have a low seepage clay layer.
It's like this: The less trees on the west coast -- the faster the run off and
the less moist air to replennish the ice sheets in the Rockys that supply the
aquifirs. 
The policies of pumping subsidies -- Use it or Loose it -- have got to be
changed to foster more responcible water management.
Hey, maybe just outlaw  grass.
--
Duncan
WARNING: The correct e-mail address for real replies is:
 - doneal@ccinet.ab.ca.............

Ruppert Georg wrote:
> 
> tvoivozhd  writes:
> 
> >
> > Steve Spence wrote:
> > such as the sand you mention, like a "kachelhof", continuous burning
> 
> -> "Kachelofen".
> 
> Schöne Grüße,
> Georg.
> 
> +---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
> | Georg RUPPERT                         | georg.ruppert@.joanneum.ac.at      |
> | Institute of Digital Image Processing |                                    |
> | JOANNEUM RESEARCH                     | voice:  (++43/316) 876 755         |
> | Wastiangasse 6                        | fax:    (++43/316) 876 720         |
> | A-8010 Graz AUSTRIA                   |                                    |
> +---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
Danke

Mark J. Mihalasky wrote:
 >
 > IF YOUR TOPICS OF DISCUSSION ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO
 >
 > GEOLOGY (IN THE STRICT SENSE), PLEASE DO NOT CROSS-POST
 >
 > TO SCI.GEO.GEOLOGY.
 >
 > STILL THEY PERSIST...  AND YET STILL.
 >
 > THANK YOU.
 Ho hum!  Another self appointed bandwidth policeman crossposting
 meaningless drivel about crossposting.  Now, was it geology you were
 interested in or psychoceramics (cracked pots)?
 Chuck Szmanda
 chucksz@ultranet.com

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:22:42 -0400, Todd M. Bolton  wrote:
#David B. Green wrote:
#>   A well run forest
#> produces more timber as the years go by than an undisturbed forest, is
#> less prone to desease and death by disaster(fire, wind, flood) and is
#> pretty esthetically.
#
#You are slightly incorrect here.  A healthy Elm or Chestnut forest is a bit 
#hard to find these days.  Single species forests a severely suceptible to 
#disease and insect pests.  The Pine Tip Moth, Spruce Bud Worm, Hemlock Wooly 
#Adelgid and several other pests are causing havoc on many plantation and forest 
#areas.  Those with more diverse populaitons will lose much less value. 
Bio-diversity is a nice thing to have, but too much in a world where we're
nearly capable of defining our own organisms through genetic manipulation,
can lead to disaster as well.  The AIDS, Ebola, Hanta, Reston, etc., super-
viruses we can do without.  Moreover, in light of such increasing exposure
to these potentially Homo-Sapien eradicating viruses, we should begin to relax 
our philosophy that bio-diversity existing in undisturbed forests must be 
preserved.
-- 
-----------------"m"s"t"a"b"e"n"@"p"o"b"o"x"e"s"."c"o"m"-----------------
                          I speak for no-one,
                            but Me, Myself
 				 and I.

Dennis Nelson  wrote in article <33CC5943.C7D@worldnet.att.net>...
> Michael Pelletier wrote:
> > 
> > Yikes, that would be an *ENORMOUS* waste of energy.  The plutonium in
> > decomissioned weapons stockpiles alone (not including spent fuel), is
> > equivalent to about 4.2 BILLION metric tons of oil.
> > 
> 
> Much of that is already wasted.  Think of the trillions of BTUs of
> potentially useable energy that was flushed down the Columbia and
> Savanah rivers essentially unused.
> 
> Dennis Nelson
> 
Interesting series about dams entitled Cadillac Desert recently aired on PBS. Made me think of dams
from an entirely different perspective. 

Organization: University of Vermont
Distribution: World
louis wrote:
: yes but how much does one have to eat before they are poisoned? one ton?
: : broccoli - 	benzpyrene (carcinogen)
Isn't broccoli actually alleged to ward off cancers? 
: : Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
: : UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
: : uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
: : http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
: :  (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
: : "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!
: -- 
--
=========================
   Mr. Erin M. Ennis	|
  eennis@zoo.uvm.edu	|
 Water Resources Major,	|
    Uni. of Vermont 	|
=========================

Duncan O'Neal wrote:
> 
> 
> ( aids warning!: do not eat uncooked primate flesh! )
> 
The real danger is not from the feeble Aids virus but from the far more
infectious and longer lived brain viruses like Kreusfeld-Jacobs. In some
parts of Irian Jaya where ritual brain cannibalism was practiced until
recently, there is a very high incidence of these brain diseases.
Whoever invented cooking was onto a good thing. Don't knock it!
Nick,	Amateur Anthropologist......
	"Do I really need to tell you about the Disclaimer"

Lon Levy  wrote:
: Alternate methods cannot keep up with exponential population growth. 
: Continued migration implies that there is still some frontier to which
: to move.  Neither appears viable.  It is time to stop population growth.
How do you propose to "stop population growth?"  Not like they do in
China, I hope...  :-) 
A. Blazev

rabbtech@acr.net.au (Rabbo) writes:
 >
 >John McCarthy  wrote:
 >
 >>rabbtech@acr.net.au (Rabbo) writes:
 >>
 >> >
 >> >I was thinking more in terms of designing future towns and cities so
 >> >that communal heating systems could be used. 
 >> >The technicalities don't seem all that difficult. It just requires
 >> >some forward planning.
 >> >Why, for instances should large shopping malls and home unit complexes
 >> >not be equipped with their own coal or wood fired boiler rooms? The
 >> >savings would be enormous.
 >> >Of, course they might still need electrified summer cooling systems.
 >> >
 >>When I was a child, our house was heated by a coal furnace.  The
 >>problems
 >>were 
 >>
 >>(1) removing ashes
 >>(2) a coal storage area
 >>(3) lots of coal dust
 >>
 >>Schools and other institutions were also heated with coal and had the
 >>same problems.  Coal heating requires a lot of manpower and space.
 >>The only kind of heating that is worse is wood - requires even more
 >>manpower and space and dealing with wood of varied quality.
 >>
 >>Everyone was glad to get rid of wood and coal stoves and wood and coal
 >>heating.
 >>-- 
 >>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
 >>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
 >>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
 >>
 >I'm very aware of the problems of small combustion heaters. Forget about those.
 >I am suggesting that with some government insight and planning, large scale
 >systems would be not only practical and environmentally sound but also very
 >profitable.  They would easily undercut electricity producers. 
 >Central heating of large buildings has the potential to reduce costs by about
 >two thirds. We're not talking about savings of only a few percent here!  
So what do you need the Government for?  There is no law against
heating buildings with wood and coal.  Hmm. Maybe there are laws
against coal heating in places like Pittsburgh and London that had
severe coal smoke problems.  I suppose you could get them relaxed if
you could prove that the smoke wouldn't recur.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz) wrote:
: But since the last 3 actions do not actually remove CO2 from the
: atmosphere (only reduce slightly the rate at which we are adding to
: it), this would surely be false economy.
  Why does Greig Ebling believe that we must  CO2 from the
atmosphere when it is estimated that we can continue to emit 1/6th of our
current emissions without impacting the climate?
  I can only guess that Greig Ebling is attempting to make the situation
look worse than it actually is.  Presumably he does so in an effort to
promote inaction.
  It is sad that people wish to promote inaction.

Michael Pelletier wrote:
> 
> Yikes, that would be an *ENORMOUS* waste of energy.  The plutonium in
> decomissioned weapons stockpiles alone (not including spent fuel), is
> equivalent to about 4.2 BILLION metric tons of oil.
> 
Much of that is already wasted.  Think of the trillions of BTUs of
potentially useable energy that was flushed down the Columbia and
Savanah rivers essentially unused.
Dennis Nelson

:Reduce the population, reduce the power consumption, those are all
:measures that human kind can take to protect themselves from future
:disaster. Do anyone think walking for a mile instead of using a car such
:a threaten to his life? Do one think taking bus or train or bicycle
:instead of his private car a matter of death or life?
:It's a little inconvenient, but only extreme selfish men will take such
:little inconvenient as an big threaten to their lifestyle: the one they
:never want to change, while is the one threatening the future of the
:world.
For many many people it means making a living.  I can't carry my
tools everywhere on a bus or bike.  The nearist bus reaches about
5 miles from where I live anyway. 
I could move closer to work, if I only worked at one place. But I
would not choose to live where my home would be pilfered by scum
every time I went to work.  I spent two years in the city, and
will not go back unless they allow me to set lethal traps for the
trash.
Society need cleaning up far more than the environment.
William R. James

rabbtech@acr.net.au (Rabbo) writes:
 >
 >I was thinking more in terms of designing future towns and cities so
 >that communal heating systems could be used. 
 >The technicalities don't seem all that difficult. It just requires
 >some forward planning.
 >Why, for instances should large shopping malls and home unit complexes
 >not be equipped with their own coal or wood fired boiler rooms? The
 >savings would be enormous.
 >Of, course they might still need electrified summer cooling systems.
 >
When I was a child, our house was heated by a coal furnace.  The
problems
were 
(1) removing ashes
(2) a coal storage area
(3) lots of coal dust
Schools and other institutions were also heated with coal and had the
same problems.  Coal heating requires a lot of manpower and space.
The only kind of heating that is worse is wood - requires even more
manpower and space and dealing with wood of varied quality.
Everyone was glad to get rid of wood and coal stoves and wood and coal
heating.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

On 15 Jul 1997 18:52:57 GMT, Ivan  wrote:
:Bert & Kathie Robbins  writes: > 
:
:> > >carrots -      carotatoxin (nerve toxin)
:> > >potatoes -     solanine (spina bifida in fetuses, poisonous in
:> > general)
:> > >celery -       psoralen (photosensitizer, carcinogen)
:> > >okra -                 sterculic acid (poison)
:> > >crucifers -    goitrin (turns off your thyroid)
:> > >mustard -      allyl isothiocyanate (war gas)
:> > >tomatoes -     tomatine
:> > >broccoli -     benzpyrene (carcinogen)
:> > >
:> 
:> I thought I heard somewhere that broccoli has over a dozen hazardous
:> poisons, hence, pregnant and/or nursing women are advised to avoid
:> eating it. (George Bush was onto to something :) )
:> 
:> And I'd like to add that 1/8 of a head of lettuce contains 10X more
:> caffeic acid than 1 cup of coffee (_Science_, Vol. 258, Oct. 9, 1992)
:
:Of course, none of this has anything to do with the original post,
:which concerned the amount of suffering caused by those who create
:animals for food, and kill 16 times the amount of plants just to
:feed those animals, and then complain about the so-called damage
:that our supposedly poorly educated youth are causing.  However,
:a greater percentage of youth (teens and college-age)
:than their supposedly better-educated elders minimize this huge
:suffering of animals and plants by not causing more animals to be
:brought into this world.  Note how I described the event: eating
:animal roadkill does NOT cause more suffering than was already 
:caused.  Whereas, buying tons of meat, not eating it,
:and then dumping it into the garbage can, DOES cause violence and
:pain and suffering and denial of freedom to animals and humans.
:
:John
I, like my canine teeth. The evolved for a reason.
When you convince all the other preditors to be nice to their
would be prey, then talk to me about it.
To blame food on the pitiful condition of the schools caused by
the left is not only backwards, it is fraud.
Perhaps some animal protien in your diet may help your brain to
process reality a little better.
William R. James

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 14:22:55 -0600, aristo33@hotmail.com  wrote:
:
:  In 1991 a former teacher at a community college in Austin, TX, by the 
:name of Forrest Jackson experienced a brilliantly bright "flash or light"
: while driving in his car on Nov. 27-28, 1991, near Ft. Stockton Texas. 
:He believes and alot of other people believe the flash of light was
:probably X ray or gamma radiation (ionizing radiation) and was directed 
:using "star wars"(SDI-Strategic Defense Initiative) equipment and
:satellites--possibly the Patriot Missle System. In 1992 and 1993, FJ had
:begun trying to talk to legal entities and others, had made reports to 
:the police/FBI,  and was attempting to make this "Ft. Stockton Incident" 
:public.  However in Oct. 1993, FJ was "dosed" in a restuarant in 
:Ashville, NC.  The dose had very powerful effects on cognitive abilities,
: causing regression of abilities and a loss of thinking abilities, that 
:did not allow for a state of normal abilities for a full 3 years! 
:Abilities/logic returned gradually and very slowly.
Mr Jackson should have seen a neurologist immediately.  He may have a
serious medical problem.
-- 
*        Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD           -
* "People who send spam to Emperor Cartagia... vanish! _They say_ that
* there's a room where he has their heads, lined up in a row on a desk...
* _They say_ that late at night, he goes there, and talks to them... _they
*- say_ he asks them, 'Now tell me again, how _do_ you make money fast?'"

Dr. Scund extends his brilliant solution proposed to bring forth the zero net 
emissions powering of all civilization, below the signature block.
"The difference between racists and Liberals is that racists don't demand 
government subsidy and enforcement of their personal indignations."
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!
                         ASK DR. SCHUND
                    (C)1997 Alan M. Schwartz
Dr. Schund, how may we assure Third World energy empowerment 
consonant with burgeoning populations?
First glimmers of humans taking charge of callously indifferent 
Gaia were seized in lightning strikes or grasslands fires by 
(surviving) proto-hominids captivated by the flames.  Pernicious 
religious effluent smokily baptized humanity.  The One True 
Church, any and all of them, pushed brand worship, forced sales, 
and damned heretical competitors ever since.  The God-flame was 
venerated, captured, and finally brought forth at will while 
bestowing blessings and curses upon priestly adepts and their 
money-up-front laity.
The God Who Eats You is hungry.  You could chop down and offer as 
sacrifice the substance of an entire forest and His appetite 
would remain unsated.  Rocks were discovered which burn - coal.  
James Watt got into steamy God business by designing better 
altars for His will to be done.  Petroleum oozed in Pennsylvania.  
Engineers gave obeisance to equilibrium thermodynamics and 
optimized unit operations.  Displaced priests sought reprisal.
Where there is wealth flowing down the highway there will be 
gypsies sitting on the soft shoulders, cursing.  There will be 
highwaymen feigning innocence and thumbing rides.  There will be 
trade in compassion and a cut of the flow excised for expenses.
Environmentalism is philosophy and dialectic in direct opposition 
to progress in its every form.  The Luddites want to burn down 
the power looms and return to joys and comforts of natural mud 
huts.  They perceive themselves grown comfortable within the 
nightmares of their ancestors.  Folks leading mobs waving 
pitchforks and babbling prattle are not about to give up their 
wood frame houses and flush toilets, oh no!  Sacrifice is for the 
masses.  Priests wear watered silk raiment and sit upon velvet 
thrones lest God ignore them.  Standards must be maintained no 
matter what the personal burden.
We are urged to abjure our luxurious consumption of natural gas 
(is that natural enough for you?), coal, and oil.  We are 
commanded by higher forces speaking through bitter little 
persons' chapped lips to burn wood - no, wait, that means hurting 
forests, Bambi and Thumper.  We'll burn dried grass or algae or 
something, billions of tonnes of it annually.  No problem.  Each 
person can grow a little bit, a tonne net dry weight each each week, 
and contribute it to the community.
Mao's Great Leap Forward killed 30+ million of his fellow Chinese 
by frank starvation, not that they weren't replaced in a week or 
two by government-unsupervised reproduction.  Our natural path is 
clearly laid before us:  Burn babies, not trees.
Babies are an abundant high-calorie resource.  Nothing short of 
French Socialism staunches their forever escalating pestilential 
profusion.  They are a singularly abundant product of the baneful 
Third World, seemingly fabricated of famine, plague and not much 
else.  They are produced on a tightly managed schedule of nine 
months, planting to harvest.  Babies are in high in fat, a choice 
fuel.  Their insignificant level of bone calcification augurs low 
ash content for net disposal post-processing.
Babies for Fuel will at a stroke extinguish the Population 
Explosion and with it Leftist rhetoric of free will exercised 
under benevolent State imposition.  Babies for Fuel ends world 
hunger and famine without a peep of Malthusian cruelty.  Human 
perserverative reproductive proclivities will be given full reign 
without repercussion.  Clone on and fire those furnaces!
The disabled, other-abled, Officially enabled... genetic, 
developmental, behavioral, and cognitive trash need not worry.  
As with education, hiring, and allocation of scarce resources we 
are bound and determined to give them absolute priority.
Babies for Fuel adjusts sourcing of economic inputs exactly in 
line with our ability to reproduce.  The Greenhouse Effect and 
the Ozone Hole will be blunted.  Massive Third World infantile 
diarrhea epidemics will be ended.  Water resources will again 
balance with remaining population (end the World Drought!).  
Those populations furthest from benefits of abundant firewood, 
methane, coal, and oil will find themselves ankle-deep in nascent 
energy generation.  The ensuing absence of baby-chewed breasts 
will naturally lead to restoration of Mammaries of Colour in 
"National Geographic."  Eden will again and finally be ours.
Will the First World suffer all sacrifice for no gain?  No!  
Defective and diseased children are economic sumps.  Immense 
investments are made in definitively poor prognoses.  The average 
super-premature child yields an 85 IQ teenager at a cost of a 
cool million dollars in Intensive Care.  Legions of bald-headed 
chemotherapy victims, their tearful eyes staring in disbelief at 
Jerry Lewis, will evaporate.
Babies for Fuel.  It fires the imagination!

In article <33CBD207.1F17@geol.niu.edu>,
Neil Dickey   wrote:
[...]
>It is my understanding that pressure vessels containing hydrogen under
>pressure as a metal hydride are considerably more resistant to
>explosion than conventional tanks containing gasoline.  It wasn't a
>hard scientific work, I admit, but a "Sci-TV" program some years
>back examined this question and showed experiments comparing the
>behavior of various types of fuels and containment schemes.
>
>The tanks were set up at a safe distance, with a source of ignition
>handy, and then shot with a high-powered rifle.  LPG and gasoline
>behaved spectacularly under these circumstances, while the hydrogen
>in its metal-hydride tank burned in rather subdued fashion.  The
>point was, I believe, that metal-hydrides release hydrogen rather
>slowly.
Now I am confuse: which was it? metal-hydride tanks (which are not under
pressure) or pressure tanks?
If a gasoline tank were built as sturdily as a pressure tank, I doubt
whether a shot from a high-powered rifle would do much of anything. I'm a
little surprised that the high-powered rifle didn't just make two small
holes throught the gasoline tank which simply leaked a small stream.
The point here is as I noted elsewhere: you need to know that the comaprison
was fair. The hydrogen tanks are quite expensive, and how would a similarly
expensive gasoline tank compare?
Furthermore, there are ways to render gasoline safe in such circumstances,
such as jellying, but the extra expense for the jellying and modification of
the engine is not deemed worth it.
The explosive potential of a vehicular hydrogen tank is definitely being
overplayed, though. Certainly the problems are not dissimilar from methane
and propane power. The disadvantages of hydrogen are considerable without
such concerns.
[...]
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

Fred McGalliard (frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com) wrote:
: The shoe is really on the other foot. These
: governments will build and operate their reactors whether or not they
: get power out of them. They would throw away the power just to  get the
: plutonium. So you can't argue that building reactors for power will make
: plutonium available to them, in fact if they are using the reactor for
: power this may make it harder for them to shut it down and remove the
: plutonium. You can argue that some governments should not be permitted
: to have reactors for any purpose, and I think we have done that with
: Iraq.
  How many members does Fred McGallard propose to include in the nuclear
weapons club?

: To turn this into a discussion about only red meat is to ignore this 
:important fact.  The vast numbers of other products we get from livestock 
:range from foods other than meat (additives), construction products, 
:medicines, medical supplies, inks, cosmetics, clothing, plastics, etc., 
:etc.  It is virtually impossible to escape the use of animal products in 
:everyday life.  The home you live in contains contruction glues that are 
:derived from livestock byproducts - the list goes on and on. 
:
:Troy
Not to mention Cow Tipping.
William R. James

Wm James wrote:
> 
> :> The best way to do that is to simply stop paying people to breed,
> :> and Give the "shoot to kill" order to the border guards.
> :
> :Believe it or not, we mostly agree on this.  I do believe that we should
> :stop providing financial incentives for breeding.  People should be
> :responsible for their progeny.
> 
> True.
> 
> :> Eliminate all social programs.  The bums will stop breeding if
> :> they know they have to feed their own "baby bums".
> :
> :No.  Social programs is an extremely broad term.  Some should be
> :eliminated and others bolstered.  Terms for welfare could include
> :temporary sterility.
> 
> There should be no welfare. That is the point.  If you pay people
> not to work you will get more bums.  The new bums may not come
> from breeding.  They may come from working people looking for
> easier ways to eat.
Welfare was originally intended not as a system to "pay people not to
work" but rather as a method of helping people remain viable as
potential workers instead of being shipped to the poor farm (the
physical hole from which they could not work their way out).  People
should have some mechanism available for getting back into the work
force.  Also, those few people on welfare because they cannot work (such
as a friend of mine who was seriously injured on the job) should not be
given a death sentence.
> This is why you see signs in parks saying:
> "please do not feed the __________. " ( fill in the blank)
> 
> :> We grow enough food to feed a substantial portion of the earths'
> :> people so we have not reached anywhere the point that the
> :> environment is in danger yet, but we should make irresponcible
> :> breeding unprofitable.
> :
> :You will note that I have not been arguing that there is not enough
> :food.  Fresh water supplies are in much greater jeapordy than our food
> :supplies.
> 
> Yes, but there is plenty of fresh water in most parts of the
> world.  There are those, however that don't want the rivers
> diverted and/or damed. The big problem is more political than
> anything else.
You are mistaken as to the availability of fresh water.  The surplus is
of people.
Regards,
Lon.

Dear A Kind Person that could help me:
	I am doing combusiton research and using the Sadia Code Chemkin II.  I
have recently run into array storage problems because my kineic model
has went passed 100 species, 500 reactions mark.  has anyone else ran
into this problem and fixed it?  Could they give me any pointers?
Thanks,
Tony
--
Anthony C. Iannetti
West Virginia University
MAE Dept
G-20, ESB
Morgantown, WV 26505
phone:(304)293-3111ext466
fax:  (304)293-6689
email: tony@stokes.mae.wvu.edu

Fred McGalliard (frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com) wrote:
: Get a clue man. This country, the USA, has regulated, planned,
: legeslated, proffiterred, and sued the nuclear power industry into the
: ground. US power plants are under designed, over built, over regulated,
: and over sold. While I am never sure how much of what I pick up is just
: propaganda, I think that the US power plants are generally not as
: efficient or as clean as several popular designs in Europe, mainly
: because we have such restrictive regulations in place.
  The primary failure of the U.S. nuclear industry was the refusal to
adopt a standard reactor design.  As a result costs were not easily
contained, and standards of operation are not as easily defined.
  France was much smarter to adopt a standard design for its reactors.