Subject: Second law, observed but circumvented - Thermal to Potential Energy - more --
From: keithb
Date: 16 Nov 1996 01:49:57 GMT
Energy from the Environment.
It is conceded that the extraction and
conversion of the Thermal Energy (degrees
absolute) of the environment, to Potential
Energy, i.e. the ability to perform work,
is a theory that is generally considered
unacceptable.
Nevertheless, a proven technique, in another
field, circumvents the restrictions of the 2nd
Law of Thermodynamics, without contravening
them, and offers an unprecedented opportunity
to secure such an energy conversion, with the
most profound and immediate future benefit.
The theoretical considerations are unique in
the energy field, as was the concept of the
geo-stationary satellite, to it's application,
and this new concept can actually be
demonstrated by a currently unexplained, but
factual example.
This is, specifically, NOT the "heat pump",
which does realise thermal energy from the
thermal environment.
It is, specifically, NOT potential energy
conversion from existing NATURAL thermal
gradients, in selected areas,(OTEC).
These new proposals offer conversion within a
UNIVERSAL environment, where ever the thermal
capacity of an accessible energy source is
sufficient to sustain the potential energy
drain, which is the only limiting factor.
The profound implications of such a
breakthrough are most obvious to the discerning
physicist, however it is of particular
note, that the massive capacity of oceans, to
absorb and retain, the radiated heat from the
sun, coupled with Oceans' thermal convection
and physical flow characteristics, make an
ideal source of virtually unlimited renewable
unpolluting energy.
There are also countless other components in
the earth's environment which have profound
practical applications. Not the least important
in the impending, pollution catastrophe, is
the transient energy in the ambient air or
water, of a moving vehicle or vessel.
The conviction that there IS an indirect route,
via old and largely neglected technology, to
the realisation of energy from the environment,
has been met, not unexpectedly, with profound
derision, impatience and an unwillingness to
consider such a possibility.
Over many years, however this criticism has
only served to engender even more effort to
substantiate the conviction.
Now in the evening of his retirement from a
life time of substantial scientific
involvement, the author is anxious that the
perceived value of his concept will not be
lost.
Access to outline practical proposals setting
out, a low cost prototype power unit, operating
on the fore-going principles, will be offered,
following a full simultaneous international
disclosure, to selected bona-fide individuals,
at absolutely minimal obligation.
The technology which is the basis of these
proposals is purely an extension of the natural
phenomena employed by nature herself, to
derive the potential energy, (which we
harvest with wind generators and
hydroelectric turbines, etc.), from the world
environment, in the Natural "Water Cycle".
Interested?
keithb@indigo.ie
"Is it conceivable that when God created the
earth, he omitted to provide the human race with
an alternative to suffocating in its own waste?"
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 22:32:01 -0700
On 15 Nov 1996 17:57:28 GMT, api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
wrote:
>In article <328dc2a6.567423812@news.primenet.com>,
> ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) writes:
>>Where nuclear makes sense (and this was where we started in this
>>thread) is if you need to reduce CO2 emissions. I am not convinced
>>that we have to, but we might. Otherwise efficient natural gas
>>provides the lowest known cost of energy.
>>
>>I will also be interesting to see what happens with power competition,
>>because of the huge investment in all sorts of inefficient centralized
>>plants - coal, fuel oil and nuclear. If we just turn competition
>>loose, those facilities will go bankrupt, which will really cream the
>>markets. On the other hand, competition will *probably* produce much
>>lower prices to industry (but probabaly higher costs to consumers).
>
>Competition creates higher cost to consumers? I think not. How much does
>a Pentium microprocessor cost now compared to when it was introduced. The
>computer industry is one of the least regulated and most fiercly competitive
>industries, so it is an excellent example of competitive capitalism in action.
>Price goes down, quality goes up.
Please consider the specific special case here, which is far from the
free market. Today consumers are substantially subsidized by utility
rate setting. With deregulation, the producers of energy (as opposed
the distributors) are free to adjust their prices in conformance with
the market. The most significant early impact may be to lower prices
on bulk consumers (ie, big businesses of certain kinds) and raise them
for individual consumers, who are significantly more expensive to
service. We can hope that in the long run the competition and
separation of production from monopoly distribution will produce
efficiencies enough that we all win. I believe that in the long run
that is exactly what will happen.
To use your analogy, if I as an individual go buy a chip (as I often
do), I will pay more than someone with a bigger buy. This is normal.
Also, please understand... I am not passing a value judgement here. I
am in general in favor of deregulation.
Of course I have a personal, selfish motive to oppose it (as opposed
to my ideological reason to support it): as an owner of a large house
in Phoenix, AZ area, I have a very high electric usage and could not
tolerate a very big rate increase.
But that's neither here nor there... it just whets my interest in the
subject :-)
>I have an idea regarding biomass: Why do big companies, freeway medians, etc.
>need mowed lawns? Why not just allow unused areas to grow wild and then send
>around a truck to gather biomass? That way, all these unused areas could act
>as a large solar collector (and would also contribute to preserving
>biodiversity).
How about just harvesting the grass clippings... probably as
efficient... except here in arizona where we have cactus in our
medians, etc.
My problem with biomass is the amount of space required, and the
amount of water, fertilizer, etc, and frankly, the environmental
impact of it all. If we were to go to biomass in the short run, I
think we would be suffering known and significant costs and
environmental impact, in order to maybe help in the future.
I consider farming to be the biggest environmental impact in the US in
a historical sense. The entire midwest used to be wild land, but today
it is hard to find any wilderness at all except in mountainous regions
like the ozarks.
>
>>Hydrogen has to come from somewhere. It is best produced by
>>electrolysis (I think) and then you have to produce the power for the
>>hydrogen, Hydrogen is most likely to be a good fuel for remote or
>>mobile engines and generators (such as cars - on the high likelyhood
>>that adequate battery technology will not be developed).
>
>This is where I think nuclear may have a big niche. We could power all
>automobiles, trucks, and even some aircraft off nuclear energy this way, and
>have zero CO2 (and other smog) emissions. Would make L.A. a lot cleaner.
>Just use nuclear energy to split water and produce hydrogen in a centralized
>plant and convert the natural gas pipelines over to carrying hydrogen.
I agree. I know that you can lyse water into H2 and O2 using
radiation, but I don't know if that makes sense as a production
technology. Otherwise, the nuclear->heat->steam->dynamo is still a
good thing.
However, nuclear has proven to be expensive, and although
overregulation and environmentalist extremist opposition is part of
the cost, there is still a lot more: decomissioning costs, complex
equipment that needs space launch levels of reliability, disposal
costs.
>Forgot geothermal and hydroelectric, but those are only available in select
>areas.
I know. And geothermasl is difficult to tap, although I have met a guy
who made tons of money with it near China Lake, CA.
Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP with SCHOOL - Short Ecology Survey!
From: "John A. Keslick, Jr."
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 22:13:30 -0500
> Yes, I recycle trees with my chain-saw, they make excellent firewood!
Here, as in all Medicine, the first principle must be: "FIRST OF ALL DO
NO HARM!" This implies, of course, a thorough understanding of the
healthy organism i.e. in this case, the tree biology. This, in turn,
brings us to a second principle: "DON'T HURT THE TREE AND YOU WON'T
HURT YOURSELF!" An unbelievable example is about a fellow who for
twenty years engaged in the practice of drilling holes into trees and
injecting pesticides and: fungicides. Well, he did not help the trees,
but he developed such severe bone cancer that at the end of his life he
could not visit his trees anymore.
99% of the injections are for money only. Once you begin to understand
trees and the effect's two or more chemicals mixed can have on human
health than those with common sense do not pump chemicals in trees.
Who can provide me with a claim from a chemical injection company that
says it is SAFE? I hardly believe it because putting a safe claim on
any pesticide is illegal. Can anyone give me the research on what
happens when two or more chemicals are mixed inside the tree, i.e., when
we chip the brush and the dust is inhaled? How about when we burn the
wood in your next door neighbors' fire place and we expose the chemicals
to extreme heat, i.e., when it comes in your window and you and your
hypersensitive children breathe the vapors? What happens when you have
a tree like a walnut that will drip on people and cars? Show me the
research. See it is the lack of proper research on your end that tells
the tale. Nevertheless, resent studies show that when two or more
pesticides are mixed together the effects can be as high as 100 times
more harmful to the human body. Where does the tree store these
chemicals? Why are people injecting trees with chemicals anyway? I
have never injected a tree and I am very happy and in good health.
Also could someone send me the data to show what effects' injections
have on the trees associates. An example is squirrel's make their sun
spots with green leaves. Now when the chemicals go to the leaves, what
does your research say about this and the other associates? See, what
we do to trees affects us and the associates. In this case I want to
read the data under proper research because we affect associates in ways
we are unaware of but accountable for. E.g., the kola bears and the
tanning of the leaves of the tree they feed on.
Oh yes, what if a tree is loaded with chemical pesticides and the chips
when removed, go to an area where children come in contact, e.g.,
DAYCARE CENTER?
The next time you see a child chewing on a pop sickle stick, ask your
self "did that tree have chemical pesticides in it." More important is
the question, "if so, was I responsible in some way?"
How does season long systemic and injections effect protected wildlife
like sap suckers? -
John A. Keslick Jr. If you are not OUTRAGED you're not
Tree Anatomist & Tree Biologist paying attention.
Phone: 610-696-5353 Support ORGANIC FARMERS.
organic tree treatment web site:
http://www.ccil.org/~treeman/ OR http://www.ccil.org/~kenm/env/
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 06:12:27 GMT
On 16 Nov 1996 02:53:37 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>
> >On 15 Nov 1996 18:38:59 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> >
> >> bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> >> >Precisely my point. Genocide has zero economic benefit. But the
> >> >"economism" of people like you is what brings this about.
> >>
> >> This is false. Genocide is the result not of any "economism,"
> >> whatever that may be, but of reversion to pre-economic racisms. In
> >> Rwanda as in Germany, it is the expression of ancient tribalism.
> >>
> >> -dlj.
> >
> >This is simply not correct, sorry. The problem in Bosnia, Rwanda,
> >Burundi, Azerbajan, Los Angeles and many other places is that a
> >relatively affluent minority rules. As in the French and Russian
> >revolutions, a point comes when the majority revolts and sets about
> >killing off the minority. This is political economics, not tribalism.
> >The tribal differences are historic and lie behind the minority rule
> >but are not the cause of the revolt.
>
> This is clear as mud. I still don't know what the hell Yuri's
> economism is, but Mason's "political economics" has nothing to do with
> politics and economics. It is just another word for tribalism as far
> as I can see from the, uh, explanation above.
>
> -dlj.
OK, I'll need to expand a bit. Take Bosnia. The muslims, descendants
of the Ottoman empire, occupied the cities, the Serbs the countryside.
OK, OK, many exceptions. But the overall pattern was and is as stated.
When Yugoslavia broke up and the Slovenes, Croats, and then the
Bosnians (Muslims) (tribe) ceceded, the Serbs countryfolk (tribe) found
themselves threatened by the dominance of the relatively affluent Muslim
(tribe) minority in Bosnia. These tribes had been living in peace together
under the control of Tito. During that time the Muslim minority did not rule
Yugoslavia or Bosnia. The new Bosnia would have been ruled by that
minority (and still may be).
The revolt of the Serbs and attempt to drive the Muslims was revolt of
the majority against the ruling minority. The rule was political; the
consequence of that rule was economic in the relative affluence of the
Muslims. Politics and economics are Siamese twins - not separable.
Too often this is forgotten in theories of either, hence I much prefer the
term "political economics" and it has an honorable history.
I will post more examples of political economic revolts and the history
of the term if there is need here. Always eager for an opening.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark masonc@ix.netcom.com
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210
or: www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------
Subject: New book published: British radioactive waste disposal
From: Chris McKeown
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:32:58 +0000
Radioactive waste disposal at Sellafield UK:
site-selection, geological and engineering problems
R S Haszeldine & D K Smythe (editors)
University of Glasgow 1996, Soft cover, 520pp. incl 50 Figures.
Index, Key point summaries, Overview.
uk 12 pounds (personal); uk 60 pounds (industry) incl
European post & pack
ISBN 0 85261 524 -8
Orders to:-
Geology and Applied Geology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ,
Scotland
E mail
For the first time, the nuclear waste disposal industry in Britain has
been challenged on its scientific concepts, and detailed results. A
group of independent scientists and engineers came together in 1995-6,
to demonstrate that proposals to "go underground at Sellafield" were
ill-thought out, flawed and premature. This book brings together the
detailed legal Proofs of Evidence presented by fourteen Expert
Witnesses at the Planning Inquiry into UK Nirex's appeal for planning
permission to develop a "Rock Characterisation Facility" beneath
Longlands Farm, near Sellafield, West Cumbria in the UK. This
underground
laboratory is proposed to be the final confirmatory phase
of site investigation, before construction of a Britain's first
full-scale
radioactive waste repository.
Issues addressed by the evidence are the method for choosing the site,
the geochemical and fluid-flow suitability of the site, the geological
structure of the site, the possibility of modern earthquake activity at
the site, the role of computer modelling in predicting fluid flow and
making a safety case, the timescale of investigations to date, the
quality of the investigations, and the role for the proposed
underground laboratory. These Experts were acting on behalf of the
Objectors:- Cumbria County Council, Greenpeace Ltd, and Friends of the
Earth Ltd.
The scientific Proofs are accompanied by an outline of the three
Objectors' philosophies and legal cases. This highlights the
complementary approaches to planning legislation adopted by each
Objector. The final summing-up of each case by the Objectors'
barristers is also included. The book has a full Index, and key points
of each scientific Proof are abstracted. The book acts a unique
reference compendium, and records part of Britain's most extensive
Planning Inquiries. The scientific problems are now easily accessible
both for public debate, and to inform future research.
--
Chris McKeown
Geology & Applied Geology, Glasgow University, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK
Tel: 44-(0)141-330-5469, Fax: 44-(0)141-330-4817
Subject: re: Environmental Philosophy
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 16 Nov 1996 07:07:54 GMT
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> >Nuclear power and genetic engineering are hardly two examples of
scientists
> >"thinking short". They have the capacity to be the two biggest boons to
> >man ever created.
>
> Or, perhaps, two of the biggest boondoggles...
>
Possibly. You quite sharply point out the difference between our two
camps, Don.
On my side, the Cornucopians. Believing that any problem will bow to the
intellect of man, that each year we will accomplish more than ever before,
give more to our children, and our children more still to theirs. A strong
viewpoint, but we have three thousand years of history on our side,
including the past six decades, in which more humans have been fed,
clothed, and educated than in all of recorded history combined.
On your side, the Doomsayers, possesing a sour defeatist attitude,
believing the best efforts of man are doomed to failure, that nature will
defeat us in the end, and we should stop wishing for more, but learn to
live with less. That we are insignificant motes, and that the life of a
deer, a bird, or even a tree, is as important as one of ours. That every
action we take will have unknown consequences, so we must thus huddle in
fear and confusion.
Don, my side will win. No question, we will win. How much will you hold
us back, though, before we do?
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Nothing is more conducive to progress than the widespread
belief that it can occur."
--Charles Van Doren
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
From: Robert F. Heeter
Date: 9 Nov 1996 21:59:24 GMT
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller. See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.
Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer: While this section is still evolving, it should
be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute
it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
# Written/Edited by:
Robert F. Heeter
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
# Last Revised February 26, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A. Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Contents
This file is intended to indicate
(A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists,
(B) what it discusses,
(C) how to find it on the Internet, and
(D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project
* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?
The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
research. Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which
explains much of the jargon of the field. The Conventional
Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide
answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions
about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and
other resources for those interested in learning more. The
Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
brief explanations of the language of the field.
* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
(primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and
muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion). I
have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
as possible, while still covering everything I felt was
important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
* 4) How to Use the FAQ:
This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately). Hopefully it
will not be too hard to use. Part (C) below describes how to find
the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.
* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:
This is an evolving document, not a completed work. As such,
it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.
This document should not be distributed for profit, especially
without my permission. Individual sections may have additional
restrictions. In no case should my name, the revision date,
or this paragraph be removed.
- Robert F. Heeter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************
(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)
Section 0 - Introduction
Part 1/3 - Title Page
Table of Contents
How to Find the FAQ
Current Status of the FAQ project
Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
Part 3/3 - Revision History
Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power
Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding
Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)
Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
Section 6 - Recent Results
Section 7 - Educational Opportunities
Section 8 - Internet Resources
Section 9 - Future Plans
Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List
Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements
Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
Part 0/26 - Intro
Part 1/26 - A
Part 2/26 - B
[ ... ]
Part 26/26 - Z
---------------------------------------------------------------
*** C. How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
---------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
### The FAQ about the FAQ:
### How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************
* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)
(A) World-Wide Web: http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html
(B) FTP: rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq
* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups
Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers,
sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to
find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading
sci.physics.fusion periodically. (Please note that not
all sections are completed yet.) Because the FAQ is quite
large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.
All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official"
distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers,
and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by
waiting long enough.
* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):
Several Web versions now exist.
The "official" one is currently at
We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server
() soon.
There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions
from the newsgroup postings. I haven't hunted all of these down
yet, but I know a major one is at this address:
Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
automated software from the newsgroup postings. In particular
we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary,
so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.
(Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
much of the WWW development.)
* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro
All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP
from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu. The
address for this archive is:
Please note that sections which are listed above as having
multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are
stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro.
Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
given above is the easiest to use.
There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
many of which carry the fusion FAQ. These are listed below.
* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)
There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
at the bottom of this file.
* 5) Mail Server
If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the
rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message
to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
in it (cut-and-paste if you like):
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit
The mail server will send these two introductory
files to you. You can then use the outline (part2)
to determine which files you want. You can receive
any or all of the remaining files by sending another
message with the same general format, if you substitute
the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the
part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.
* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer:
Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.
Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.
Sections which are still being drafted are only
posted to sci.physics.fusion. If there's a section
you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know
what's up with it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Written FAQ Sections:
Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
being written. Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
remain to be completed.
Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and
confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on
international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.
*** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***
* 2) Building a Web Version
A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
especially aesthetic) exists now. Would like to add graphics and
cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and
to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).
* 3) Nuts & Bolts -
I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the
rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.
* 4) Status of the Glossary:
# Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.
# Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
Technical Information.
# Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)
# World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.
# Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.
# Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists,
scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out
what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet
soup." Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those
"trivial" words we use every day. The glossary and FAQ should be
useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences. Students will
also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)
Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:
[ Note that the connection type is on the left. I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]
Belgium
-------
gopher cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
anonymous FTP cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
mail-server listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be get avail faqs
Canada
------
gopher jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70
Finland
-------
anonymous ftp ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm
France
------
anonymous FTP grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
gopher gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
mail server listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
Germany
-------
anonymous ftp ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
gopher gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
gopher.uni-paderborn.de
mail server archive-server@Germany.EU.net
ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
World Wide Web http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
FSP ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
gopher index gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP
Korea
-----
anonymous ftp hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers
Mexico
------
anonymous ftp mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers
The Netherlands
---------------
anonymous ftp ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
gopher gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
mail server mail-server@cs.ruu.nl
Sweden
------
anonymous ftp ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet
Switzerland
-----------
anonymous ftp ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
anonymous UUCP chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
mail server archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
telnet nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"
Taiwan
------
anonymous ftp ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
mail server ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw
United Kingdon
--------------
anonymous ftp src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
FSP src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
gopher src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
mail server ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
telnet src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
World Wide Web http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/
United States
-------------
anonymous ftp ftp.uu.net:/usenet
World Wide Web http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html
Subject: Re: Food production Was:(Re: Paul...)
From: gakp@powerup.com.au (Karen or George)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 02:36:51 GMT
In article , steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk
(Steinn Sigurdsson) wrote:
>
>antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818) writes:
>> FAIR trade would be a good start. Just about every economist in the
>> world will tell you that it is totally predictable that the EU's
>> totally irresponsible agricultural production and trade practices
>> are screwing up the whole world's agricultural systems, with
corresponding
>> resource implications.
>>
>> To force the EU to cease and desist, the sheepishly ignorant and
uninterested
>> EU citizenry ought to force their own politicians to find less
internationally
>> destructive ways of mollycoddling a small rural population. If you read
>> around a little you may even find that this is the very thing the IMF
would
>> recommend too.
>
>However, from conversation I have some understanding of
>why the Common Agricultural Policy is as it is - and it
>is changing, slowly, with excess subsidised production
>decreasing - but, there are two non-trade factors at
>work here: there is the issue of security of food supply,
>most of the EU countries have acute memories still
>of the first half of the century and few would like to
>be in a position of possible mass starvation should there
>be future political upheaval or war, so they subsidise
>local, inefficient producers, to have a local production
>base for security; there is also the issue of land control,
>historically if you allow rural regions to depopulate
>you lose them,
These are all true and indeed clear to those who studied
EU agricultural policy.
Strictly speaking, however, solving the perceived problems
the way they are being solved is very much a trade issue,
as the costs are partly exported to everyone around the
globe.
The whole approach smacks of hypocrisy, though. Ensuring
Europe's food security at the expense of Africa's, for
example, and wanting to preserve the neat rural country-
side in its pristine condition (i.e., denuded forest)
while lecturing the Brazilians why they should not clear
forests for agricultural land.
George Antony
Subject: Re: forests
From: Don Staples
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 22:39:13 -0800
I know I will regret this.
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> In article <328BFDF4.1ED3@livingston.net>,
> Don Staples wrote:
>
> >Ah, the would be Dr. Braun has fashioned the weapon of his own
> >distruction, keep him talking and we can lose one more talking
> >environmental head from our future.
>
> Mr. Staples seems to spend at least as much time on the net as in
> the woods, no matter what he claims.
Indeed, in this computer world all my office time is on the computer, and my break times
are used to talk to the clowns.
>
> >D. Braun, if you read any of the posts, you will note that I have
> >repeatedly said there is little difference in our philosophy. There is a
> >great deal of difference in how we apply our abilities. I do mine in the
> >woods, you will end up in the class room.
>
> How do you know that? I meet academic biologists in the woods all
> the time, which is where so many of them do there research. You
> could perhaps learn a bit from science, rather than simply espousing
> your own industrial training and intuition as being superior.
> Ah, some of my best freinds are biologists, few are Phd's, the Phd's teach and have the
undergrads and grads do the research. It leaves the educational process intact with out
contact to the actual world. Until they get into the research end, and the cycle
continues.
> > I create for the future, with
> >your narrow views you will create problems for the future.
>
> This is yet one more way of stating that forests cannot survive without
> human intervention. There's ample evidence to the contrary, in the
> form of late-successional forests in the PNW which have existed for
> literally thousands of years, while 100 years of management has led
> to the disapperance of 90%+ of them in my region.
Not at all, but we have intervened. Now we do the best with what we have. There hasn't
been 100 years of management in your region, if you live in the PNW, less than 50. And
the fight over methods is what is happening now. Hopefully, a little of all will
remain.
>
> > No coin is
> >one sided, even occaisionally has an edge, you need to look at both.
>
> You know, it would be really, really sweet if you'd take your own
> advice for a change.
I do, but you seem to read only one side of the coin, when you cannot even see the coin.
>
> >Old ways are not bad, new ways not always better, sort them out and come
> >back.
>
> Who says old ways are not bad? Often they are. Certainly old ways
> of doing surgery, in filth, before we understood the sources of infection
> were bad, weren't they? I would claim that large-scale clearcutting,
> with no replanting, is bad for the long term health of the industry,
> not to mention for conservation - and this was a common "old way" in
> my state until laws were passed to force replanting (over the
> vehement opposition of the industry).
Interesting, industry in your state vehemently opposed replanting. A death nell to the
industry. Surely there are companies that logged out and got out, but most that I know
of have entrenched for the long run, and replant with a vengence. Of course they are
not 'ancient forests" by any definition, but still forests.
>
> Some old way are bad, some aren't.
>
> OK, on to new ways: which of the new ways is worse than the old?
> Is it the leaving of snags you object to? The leaving of some
> green trees to provide structural complexity at an earlier date?
> Just what the hell do you object to?
> I object to you and your type thinking that since it happened before you were on the
scene it must be bad; That only the New Age consciousness should be used to manage a
damaged system; That management should consist of letting it all go rough, stop any
creative use of the forest; That you feel the need to protest all forestry and forest
management based on your back yard. The old ways that work have returned the southern
piney woods. Much of it industrial plantations, but those paid for private tracts
through increased value of product.
> >The genie of ecosystem management lives on one substance, money, when you
> >get out of achadamia, and into the productive world, create that money
> >for us in the field so that we can do what we know how to do.
>
> Ecosystem management lives not only on money, but on regulatory power
> based on the public ownership of resources which co-exist on private
> land along with that private timber you cherish. Please do keep in
> mind that wildlife and water both belong to the public, and the
> public (through government) has regulatory power to protects its
> legal interest in those resources.
> A little socialism just slipped into your writing. "Public ownership of resources which
co-exist on private land along with that private timber you cherish". Wildlife and
water do belong to the public, but you cannot, yet, trespass to us the water and
wildlife on private land without permission. Your form of government is one I will
fight against.
> Sorry 'bout that, but it's true.
>
> > I dont
> >plant row crops, I manage mixed stands, for as long as economics allow,
> >and occaisionally longer.
>
> Then I guess you're not much of an old-style forester after all, despite
> your claims, since even-aged, single-species, short-rotation silviculture
> has been the forestry taught in school for decades.
You really should have gone to a forestry school, your statement is patent nonsense.
They teach all of the management techniques, they offer the biology you are so proud of,
they offer the bird and turtle courses that many of us have taken. Many of the schools
are and have been, for those same decades, Schools of Natural Resource. The school I
attended regularly toured the private tracts in the state, many were hardwood forest
under private non-industrial ownership that provided 100 plus rotations. We also saw
the plantations.
>
> >When you get that Phd remember there are troops in the field that have
> >gotten us to where we are, good are bad, but what we have east of the
> >Rockies is far better than it was 50 years ago.
>
> Not universally true, having been to the row-crop pinelands of the
> southeast.
There is no universl truth, there is the truth of the moment. We are at a moment of
flux, the row-crops of the south provide the masses with the necessary products, yet the
managers try to preserve a little of a re-created old southern forest. Re-creating
because none existed after the 1930'3-40's. Used for homes, fuel, etc, by the citizens.
Only in the last 50 years have the woods come back. Pictures of east Texas in the 20'
and 30's show miles of stumps. Now it is timber, plantations sure, but timber.
>
> Perhaps I can summarize the difference in our view of the health
> of these forests in three words: Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
>
Ah, the ivory billed wood pecker. Neat bird, I saw one of the last ones in the 1960's.
they disappeared with the old growth pine, cut by the citizens to provide agriculture
land, you know, to feed themselves. Now the companies have let the old growth return,
in areas, and we in the private field cultivate the old growth habit when we can. I
used to regret the species loss of Long Leaf Pine. Hard to regenerate, hard to plant,
limited sites. But here in the last 20 years the long leaf has found supporters, and
the long leaf savannah may expand from its years of suppresion.
> > Don't narrow your view to the old age stands.
>
> Strawman. D Braun, and most conservationists, argue that we
> should preserve the 10% left in the PNW. In a real sense, it is
> more accurate to state that we are narrowing our view to the
> newer stands which are already in the matrix. Manage the timber
> in the matrix and live off of what we can harvest of that second
> growth, managed forest land and leave the remaining old-growth stands
> alone.
>
I don't disagree. I disagree with the methods you espouse. If they are preserved they
will be managed, by one group or the other. No biome can stand unchanged through the
ages, with the possible exceptions of the poles, and they may have seen changes eons
ago. There will always be death and rebirth. Glad to see you support managment.
> It is industry which has narrowed its view to the old-age stands,
> which they wish to liquidate, for purely economic, not forestry,
> reasons. If they can liquidate these stands, they can delay
> mill conversions needed to handle baby sticks - a one-foot chuck
> does little good on a 10-inch stick. Etc etc etc.
Yes, industry will cut for economic reasons, but the government sells for the same
reason, change the government, through the constitutional process, and you can have the
longer rotations that will give you the larger stems you value.
>
> > We need all the competent help we can get, and
> >there is a strain of common sence in your writtings.
>
> If you weren't in such a state of denial, not to mention thoroughly
> arrogant, you might learn to craft posts full of common sense as well.
> If you were not such an arrogant little prig you would be able to identify common sense
as that which has been here for ages. I am part Cherokee, and know more of the history
of the old ways, when your people were still digging potatoes in the 'auld sod', then
you will ever learn. We managed this earth then, and we do so now. We (foresters)
respect the life out here in our world, and you cannot preserve that life, we manage it
to the end times.
--
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR
> Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
> http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza
Doesn't appear to be any common sense in your offerings.
Subject: Re: GUNS and nuts
From: Brian Liedtke
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:31:09 -0700
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Don Staples wrote:
> >
> >
> > I promised myself I would not answer any of your crap,
>
> I note:
>
> You broke your promise and you're about to pay for it. Do this often?
>
> He continues:
>
> > but, you seem hung
> > on the idea that hunters, guns, foresters, etc, are all republican, or
> > what ever.
>
> I reply:
>
> No, just the conceited, the selfish, the thoughtless, the ignorant,
> those who >like< to be told to hurt themselves, and the generally
> unintelligent. I think hunters have their place, I think guns are
> useful but dangerous tools and should not be given to children, and I
> think good foresters are a national asset. I won't pick on you for
> implying that a gun could be Republican, a simple mistake when you're
> worked up.
>
> He continues:
>
> > The quy described a group of outlaws, they dont vote, nor
> > probably, do you.
>
> I reply:
>
> Actually, I vote all of the time, at every election, and I urge others
> to do the same. You'll notice I didn't mention Republicans in my
> message, not once. Think about it.
Actually you mentioned it twice.
Brian Liedtke
