Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #574262 > unrolled thread

can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 15:27 -0700
    Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-29 18:04 -0500
    Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-30 00:50 +0000
      Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-29 21:39 -0500
        Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-04-29 22:36 -0500
          Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-29 21:08 -0700
      Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 21:14 -0700
        Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-30 00:09 -0500
        Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-30 02:23 -0400
          Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-30 20:26 +0000
    Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-04-29 23:31 -0700
      Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:38 -0700
    Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:34 -0700
      Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 05:30 -0700
      photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 15:17 -0700
        Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 15:07 -0700
          Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 21:17 -0700
            Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:13 -0500
              Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 15:11 -0700
                Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 06:49 -0500
                  Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 16:13 -0700
                    Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 15:18 -0700
                    Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 11:48 -0500
                      Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 00:03 -0700
                        Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 08:22 -0500
        Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 12:49 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#574262 — can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it

So the title asks it all. And in this thread, I keep insisting that the science magazines, journals, reporters and news agencies keep maligning geothermal or ignoring geothermal, which makes me suspicious that the oil coal gas companies have "bought out some scientists".

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#574263

On 4/29/2016 5:27 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So the title asks it all. And in this thread, I keep insisting that
> the science magazines, journals, reporters and news agencies keep
> maligning geothermal or ignoring geothermal, which makes me
> suspicious that the oil coal gas companies have "bought out some
> scientists".
>
> AP
>

in what way ?
electrical generation effeciency
Design and install Cost
recurring maintatannce cost

geothermal has two problems

1. water/steam is dirty with minerals that plug stuff up, needs costly 
frequent maintanance

2. many geothermals have low temperature delta, or cannot get enough 
heat from areas below ground.

	what is needed is a very hot and small place so the equipment costs are 
low.
	what we have are large dispersed low temperature difference areas

SO - we need new invention, new technology to use these low delta, large 
area geothermals.

Texas gulf coast is full of these, and west coast too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574269

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the title asks it all. And in this thread, I keep insisting that the science magazines, journals, reporters and news agencies keep maligning geothermal or ignoring geothermal, which makes me suspicious that the oil coal gas companies have "bought out some scientists".
> 
> AP

Archie-Poo is a publicly despised Usenet crank and boring
argumentative troll.

Pull the troll's plug. Archie-Poo is an epiphany of chronic abusive
trolling stupidity. Archie-Poo is a snail-skulled little rabbit.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.

Archie-Poo is a swine. Archie-Poo is a vulgar little maggot.
Archie-Poo is a worthless bag of filth. As they say in Texas,
Archie-Poo couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed
on the heel. Archie-Poo is a canker, an ulcerous sore that won't go
away. I would rather watch Affirmative Action lawyers suck-start
Harleys with their bungholes than suffer the troll abominations of
Archie-Poo. 


Uncle Al - 2002


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574275

On 4/29/2016 7:50 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So the title asks it all. And in this thread, I keep insisting that
>> the science magazines, journals, reporters and news agencies keep
>> maligning geothermal or ignoring geothermal, which makes me
>> suspicious that the oil coal gas companies have "bought out some
>> scientists".
>>
>> AP

> Archie-Poo is a publicly despised Usenet crank and boring
> argumentative troll.
>
> Pull the troll's plug. Archie-Poo is an epiphany of chronic abusive
> trolling stupidity. Archie-Poo is a snail-skulled little rabbit.

> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
> rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
> of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
> acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
> so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
> different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
> Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
> own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
> and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
> Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
> emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can be
> this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial fragment
> from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of stupid so
> uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics
> that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric n-dimensional
> backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo is Planck
> stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand
> unified theory of stupid.

> Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.
>
> Archie-Poo is a swine. Archie-Poo is a vulgar little maggot.
> Archie-Poo is a worthless bag of filth. As they say in Texas,
> Archie-Poo couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions
> printed on the heel. Archie-Poo is a canker, an ulcerous sore that
> won't go away. I would rather watch Affirmative Action lawyers
> suck-start Harleys with their bungholes than suffer the troll
> abominations of Archie-Poo.
>
>
> Uncle Al - 2002
>
>


I always admired UA for his outstanding use of verbage, his website was
cool, his wit is missed in the ROS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574285

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:39:45 -0500, Sergio wrote:


>> Uncle Al - 2002
>>
>>
> 
> 
> I always admired UA for his outstanding use of verbage, his website was
> cool, his wit is missed in the ROS

Is he alive?

-- 
    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
     have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
     your face."
                            - Bert

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574295

Mehram Maleki, the black Iranian Muslim Swine 
<clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> "ClutterFreak"
Bio-, Excel- "or <"MathFreak"@FakeAddress.com> is
chose to be the personal slave of Faceshitter Jew 
Glazier, "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
& laid himself under & literally shit-eats Glazier's turd:
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
after which Maleki wrote:    " iss aaal goo, biatch :-)".
>
Then Maleki smiled & claimed that criminal Graveyard 
Vandalism "is just so poetic that Mehram can't help it" 
to sign off with: 

>   "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
>    have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
>    your face."
>                              - Bert
>
... which is all what incontinent Mehram is capable 
of doing now, after eating Glazier's turds...about which, 
>
Mehram just wrote:
This is my "Medical Workout, The Secrets to Health 
As Well As A Good Figure" accoding to a 1930 book 
from Reimann....  which "caused Mehram stress that 
kicked in when he was working long hours. ...That was 
my last  day working, Maleki said...as it is exactly like
multiple sclerosis.... and the cure  for this condition 
might then be introducing AIDS  virus in the blood.
Maleki's thalassemia,has a certain gene responsible 
for the flaw in how it makes hemoglobin, said Maleki. 
>
hanson wrote:
Awww... Mehram, you are really a very, very sick
bastard, physically and mentally... "MS, AIDS and 
eating Glazier's shit, and finding that it " iss aaal good",
all the way to to your conviction that Criminal Graveyard 
Vandalism is "Poetry".. and now... he's having an uncontrollable
upwelling of hatred onto hanson as is seen when
>
Mehram posted: 
Hanson is in a class of his own. I give him a look, 
and I spit on him.  Yeah. Enough of that.
>
hanson wrote:
and now, ... 
Mehram ran out of spit... 
but still, Mehram is full of shit. 
(It Rhymes, Reimanningly)
Mehram, thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
 


"ClutterFreak" <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote in message 
news:tjkuuyhk6mxl$.1uwa1qr0vv3p6$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:39:45 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>
>
>>> Uncle Al - 2002
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I always admired UA for his outstanding use of verbage, his website was
>> cool, his wit is missed in the ROS
>
> Is he alive?
>
> -- 
>    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And
>     have a good laugh when it seeps down on
>     your face."
>                            - Bert
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574298

Jim Penino said
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean 
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface 
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric 
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid 
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole 
different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. 
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its 
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense 
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. 
Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise 
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can 
be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial 
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of 
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of 
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric 
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo 
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, 
a grand unified theory of stupid. 

Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid. 

Archie-Poo is a swine. Archie-Poo is a vulgar little maggot. 
Archie-Poo is a worthless bag of filth. As they say in Texas, 
Archie-Poo couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed 
on the heel. Archie-Poo is a canker, an ulcerous sore that won't go 
away. I would rather watch Affirmative Action lawyers suck-start 
Harleys with their bungholes than suffer the troll abominations of 
Archie-Poo. 

Uncle Al - 2002 
-------------------

That's worthy of entry into the HVAC Hall Of Insult Fame.

Archived

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574315

On 4/29/2016 11:14 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Jim Penino said
> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
> rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
> of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
> acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
> so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
> different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
> Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
> own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
> and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
> Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
> emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
> be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
> fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
> stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
> physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
> n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
> is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
> a grand unified theory of stupid.

> Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.
>
> Archie-Poo is a swine. Archie-Poo is a vulgar little maggot.
> Archie-Poo is a worthless bag of filth. As they say in Texas,
> Archie-Poo couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed
> on the heel. Archie-Poo is a canker, an ulcerous sore that won't go
> away. I would rather watch Affirmative Action lawyers suck-start
> Harleys with their bungholes than suffer the troll abominations of
> Archie-Poo.
>
> Uncle Al - 2002
> -------------------
>
> That's worthy of entry into the HVAC Hall Of Insult Fame.
>
> Archived
>

UA is instructing Trump on his acceptance speech right now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574325

On 04/30/2016 12:14 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Jim Penino said
> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
> rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
> of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
> acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
> so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
> different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
> Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
> own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
> and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
> Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
> emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
> be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
> fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
> stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
> physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
> n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
> is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
> a grand unified theory of stupid.
>
> Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.
>
> Archie-Poo is a swine. Archie-Poo is a vulgar little maggot.
> Archie-Poo is a worthless bag of filth. As they say in Texas,
> Archie-Poo couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed
> on the heel. Archie-Poo is a canker, an ulcerous sore that won't go
> away. I would rather watch Affirmative Action lawyers suck-start
> Harleys with their bungholes than suffer the troll abominations of
> Archie-Poo.
>
> Uncle Al - 2002
> -------------------
>
> That's worthy of entry into the HVAC Hall Of Insult Fame.
>
> Archived

You once again show yourself to be the dishonest, unethical plagiarist, 
without any honor whatsoever. I'm sure you'll save that so you can post 
it pretending you thought it up all by your "wordsmith" self. You are 
such a loser.

Truth is that first bit was written by Mark L. Fergerson and it was 
about Starmaker and not Archie-poo. You should try harder to recognize 
genius when you see it.

I can't vouch for Uncle Al as the author of number two. Does sort of 
have his style though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574446

benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote:
> On 04/30/2016 12:14 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> Jim Penino said
>> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
>> rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
>> of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
>> acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
>> so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
>> different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
>> Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
>> own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
>> and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
>> Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
>> emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
>> be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
>> fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
>> stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
>> physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
>> n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
>> is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
>> a grand unified theory of stupid.
>>
>> Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.
>>
>> Archie-Poo is a swine. Archie-Poo is a vulgar little maggot.
>> Archie-Poo is a worthless bag of filth. As they say in Texas,
>> Archie-Poo couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed
>> on the heel. Archie-Poo is a canker, an ulcerous sore that won't go
>> away. I would rather watch Affirmative Action lawyers suck-start
>> Harleys with their bungholes than suffer the troll abominations of
>> Archie-Poo.
>>
>> Uncle Al - 2002
>> -------------------
>>
>> That's worthy of entry into the HVAC Hall Of Insult Fame.
>>
>> Archived
> 
> You once again show yourself to be the dishonest, unethical plagiarist, 
> without any honor whatsoever. I'm sure you'll save that so you can post 
> it pretending you thought it up all by your "wordsmith" self. You are 
> such a loser.
> 
> Truth is that first bit was written by Mark L. Fergerson and it was 
> about Starmaker and not Archie-poo. You should try harder to recognize 
> genius when you see it.
> 
> I can't vouch for Uncle Al as the author of number two. Does sort of 
> have his style though.
 
If you had been paying attention you would know it is one of the nicer
things Uncle Al had to say about Archie-Poo. 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574327

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So the title asks it all. And in this thread, I keep insisting that the science magazines, journals, reporters and news agencies keep maligning geothermal or ignoring geothermal, which makes me suspicious that the oil coal gas companies have "bought out some scientists".
> 
> AP

Here in Hawaii Island, we get 30% of our electricity from geothermal. It has hydrogen sulfide poison gas in it. H2S is then injected back into the ground. If we do not care about poison, we can increase geothermal near Kilauea by 10 time, and export energy. It works. It smells like rotten eggs. 1 part per thousand can kill in a minute.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574329

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:31:34 AM UTC-5, omni...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > So the title asks it all. And in this thread, I keep insisting that the science magazines, journals, reporters and news agencies keep maligning geothermal or ignoring geothermal, which makes me suspicious that the oil coal gas companies have "bought out some scientists".
> > 
> > AP
> 
> Here in Hawaii Island, we get 30% of our electricity from geothermal. It has hydrogen sulfide poison gas in it. H2S is then injected back into the ground. If we do not care about poison, we can increase geothermal near Kilauea by 10 time, and export energy. It works. It smells like rotten eggs. 1 part per thousand can kill in a minute.

I wonder if the H2S can support a chemical industry of sulfur related compounds. Was unaware of H2S in the Iceland geothermal. Do you know what Iceland does with sulfur compounds?

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574328

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:27:53 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So the title asks it all. And in this thread, I keep insisting that the science magazines, journals, reporters and news agencies keep maligning geothermal or ignoring geothermal, which makes me suspicious that the oil coal gas companies have "bought out some scientists".
> 
> AP

Anyone know how to get a picture taken on iphone over to Gmail?

Anyone know how to make a MacBook Pro default font of 9 be of a default larger.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574343

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 2:34:55 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:27:53 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > So the title asks it all. And in this thread, I keep insisting
> > that the science magazines, journals, reporters and news agencies
> > keep maligning geothermal or ignoring geothermal, which makes me
> > suspicious that the oil coal gas companies have "bought out some
> > scientists".
> > AP
> 
> Anyone know how to get a picture taken on iphone over to Gmail?

Yes. Aim camera lense at your smiling target, press the take picture
button.  Or, hold the Power Button and the Home Button simultaneously
for a quick second. This will take a screenshot of whatever you're
seeing on iPhone. Also, when and if all else fails, ask any nearest
neighbouring kid for guidance. In the USA, kid's foster parents'
permission required before approaching kid. What what WHAT?!... But
Officer Lucifer... I was am just talking here?! Seriously, handcuffs?
Are you kidding me Me ME. Then they ask me why no one talks to USA kids!

Now... Go to your never ending set of photos -- selfies or otherwise,
tap or double tap, I forget which, one you want to share. Save your
nudies for after your funeral or Senatorial Gig. Whichever comes
first. Swipe bottom edge of iPhone up, then click share.  If all this
is confusing, don't be alarmed, it is very Very VERY confusing.  Or on
your MacBook Pro, go to the Settings App to see videos on your
available HowToFingerYourMAC gestures. My favourite one is ...youKnow.

Coding for iApp SW platforms has really gone to my head, MeTurban didn't help. 

> Anyone know how to make a MacBook Pro default font of 9 be of a default larger.

Fonts? That's Jeff-Relf's expertise! Shall we wait for Jeff to mention
a MAC in a positive light? Not going to happen. So so SO... moving on...

So... On your MAC, hold down the Option key and swipe two (not one, not
three, I said two Two TWO only 2!) of your fingers -- yes you must
take them out of your pants or skirt first, duh! -- on the Touchpad up
or down. I think this is/was Steve Blows Jobs way of keeping girls'
fingers from being otherwise productive (TM, SM, and BMW). Enjo(y).

> AP

Even if I am being smiling smirking smug, do just go to the Settings
App Accessibilty pages to see videos of how to finger your MacBook Pro.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: The Reasons Why I Never Share Me iPhone MAC.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574478 — photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:34:55 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:27:53 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > So the title asks it all. And in this thread, I keep insisting that the science magazines, journals, reporters and news agencies keep maligning geothermal or ignoring geothermal, which makes me suspicious that the oil coal gas companies have "bought out some scientists".
> > 
> > AP
> 
> Anyone know how to get a picture taken on iphone over to Gmail?
> 
> Anyone know how to make a MacBook Pro default font of 9 be of a default larger.
> 

I wanted a negative of the picture I previously had of 231Pu where the Universe is dark with white dots as stars and galaxies, rather than the Universe white with black dots as stars and galaxies. I recall Apple having MacPaint in which a negative is instantly formed. Here I had to take a iphone picture.

So why does Apple not allow a photo taken from the iphone to be directly sent to your email, whatever that email is, such as gmail. Why not make it easy? Apple? Why not make it more easy then this dance of frustration. Set aside the rivalry of Apple with Google and just allow a photo taken be sent to email account.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574675 — Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 5:18:02 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:34:55 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:27:53 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > So the title asks it all. And in this thread, I keep insisting that the science magazines, journals, reporters and news agencies keep maligning geothermal or ignoring geothermal, which makes me suspicious that the oil coal gas companies have "bought out some scientists".
> > > 
> > > AP
> > 
> > Anyone know how to get a picture taken on iphone over to Gmail?
> > 
> > Anyone know how to make a MacBook Pro default font of 9 be of a default larger.
> > 
> 
> I wanted a negative of the picture I previously had of 231Pu where the Universe is dark with white dots as stars and galaxies, rather than the Universe white with black dots as stars and galaxies. I recall Apple having MacPaint in which a negative is instantly formed. Here I had to take a iphone picture.
> 
> So why does Apple not allow a photo taken from the iphone to be directly sent to your email, whatever that email is, such as gmail. Why not make it easy? Apple? Why not make it more easy then this dance of frustration. Set aside the rivalry of Apple with Google and just allow a photo taken be sent to email account.
> 
> AP

Sam Wormley certainly cannot prove that Geothermal is superior to Solar, because the literature rarely talks about geothermal and Sam can only post that which is in the literature, not having a physics mind for himself.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574752 — Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:07:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
> Sam Wormley certainly cannot prove that Geothermal is superior to Solar, because the literature rarely talks about geothermal and Sam can only post that which is in the literature, not having a physics mind for himself.
> 
> AP

Odd could not prove the superiority of Solar over Geothermal which was his position. My position was the reverse.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574908 — Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it

On 5/1/2016 11:17 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:07:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> (snipped)
>> Sam Wormley certainly cannot prove that Geothermal is superior to Solar, because the
>> literature rarely talks about geothermal and Sam can only post that which is in the
>> literature, not having a physics mind for himself.
>>
>> AP
>
> Odd could not prove the superiority of Solar over Geothermal which was his position.

The proof is in the deployment, which for solar is a lot broader than 
geothermal. If it were inferior by a factor of 5000 as you claimed, then 
geothermal would be in use 5000 times more than solar. Since this is 
obviously not the case, then you are missing something.

> My
> position was the reverse.
>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574989 — Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 1:13:06 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 11:17 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:07:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > (snipped)
> >> Sam Wormley certainly cannot prove that Geothermal is superior to Solar, because the
> >> literature rarely talks about geothermal and Sam can only post that which is in the
> >> literature, not having a physics mind for himself.
> >>
> >> AP
> >
> > Odd could not prove the superiority of Solar over Geothermal which was his position.
> 
> The proof is in the deployment, which for solar is a lot broader than 
> geothermal. If it were inferior by a factor of 5000 as you claimed, then 
> geothermal would be in use 5000 times more than solar. Since this is 
> obviously not the case, then you are missing something.
> 

What a joke, so you believe the commercial use of something makes it superior over something else which is not so widespread commercially.

If you were at least 1/10 of a science mind, your argument would have been that Solar requires a land mass area of 5,000 times larger to collect enough solar energy to match the land mass of the Power Station of The Geysers in California. But you are not, you are not a scientist with a science mind but rather an argumentative dufus in sci.physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#575123 — Re: photos on iphone frustration galore Re: can anyone in sci.physics prove that Geothermal via Stefan Boltzmann law is 5000 times superior to Solar? I doubt it

On 5/2/2016 5:11 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 1:13:06 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/1/2016 11:17 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:07:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> (snipped)
>>>> Sam Wormley certainly cannot prove that Geothermal is superior to Solar, because the
>>>> literature rarely talks about geothermal and Sam can only post that which is in the
>>>> literature, not having a physics mind for himself.
>>>>
>>>> AP
>>>
>>> Odd could not prove the superiority of Solar over Geothermal which was his position.
>>
>> The proof is in the deployment, which for solar is a lot broader than
>> geothermal. If it were inferior by a factor of 5000 as you claimed, then
>> geothermal would be in use 5000 times more than solar. Since this is
>> obviously not the case, then you are missing something.
>>
>
> What a joke, so you believe the commercial use of something makes it superior over
> something else which is not so widespread commercially.

I believe that if process A is 5000 times more efficient that process B, 
then companies are going to jump all over process A, because it is more 
cost-effective to do so. To be able to provide the same product for 5000 
times less cost is something that any commercial venture seeks to do.

>
> If you were at least 1/10 of a science mind, your argument would have been that Solar
> requires a land mass area of 5,000 times larger to collect enough solar energy to match
> the land mass of the Power Station of The Geysers in California.

Are you QUITE SURE of that? Has this been supported by facts? As you 
know, there are existing solar power facilities with KNOWN acreage and 
KNOWN power output. There are existing geothermal power facilities with 
KNOWN acreage and KNOWN power output. So let's see if your analysis with 
a radiation power law is actually supported with facts. What would you 
say if the FACTS do not support your logic?

> But you are not, you
> are not a scientist with a science mind but rather an argumentative dufus in sci.physics.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web