there are already batteries that can charge in minutes, and even top up large percentages of their charge in under a minute. combine this with a similar battery pack or supercapacitor as a buffer at the servo and you could fill your electric 'tank' quicker than with a petrol car. Get with the times:/
maybe you could not make false assumptions, and learn the difference between a very rough example on slashdot and a physics exam question.
I realize you could jam something in the steering wheel and therefore steer the car while not outputting any further energy, and I also realize you measure the instantaneous kinetic energy of a car by 1/2 mv^2 which is in joules HOWEVER I was talking about ONGOING energy costs over time (ie power) to continue steering the car along a (non circular) track/road at decent speed, since we are talking about the ongoing energy costs to steer a hurricane around obstacles.
which is taking my rough example all too far.
you seem to think there needs to be some magic ratio of steering energy input to hurricane energy, but to give you an extreme opposite example, you could actually use NEGATIVE energy to steer it, ie set up a large enough wind farm and not only would you effect its path in some way or another, but you also ABSORB some of its energy. Im not saying this is feasable, IM just trying to make the point that since we are neither trying to create nor destroy the hurricane, we can let its OWN energy do the work by simply guiding it...
anyway, I think that neither of us really could say anymore than that without access to the classified true potential of haarp and the results of the computer simulation studies. I will concede you MAY be right, but I doubt it.
you've heard the whole "butterfly flaps its wings, cyclone forms in blah blah" thing before right? well I don't really buy that... but imagine you had a gigawatt butterfly....I buy that.
actually I have an even better analogy. How about trying to steer a motorbike by very slightly shifting your balance... (probably inaccurate example: )by creating a slightly warmer regions on one side, certain paths will become easier and more likely for the hurricane to travel, others will become less likely. The whole deal with chaotic systems (hurricane) is small changes in initial conditions make gigantic changes in later conditions. The difficult part is PREDICTING what those (dramatic) changes will be, not causing them. Assuming they have that down enough to have SOME idea what will happen (as the guys I saw interviewed claimed), there is no problem (for them, we have a problem of not knowing they can do it, so not being able to hold them accountable if they do)
oh, and in relation to your post (re read it and realized I missed the point) since they are only steering it, not destroying it, you are not messing with nature on average at all really, just moving the damage path. SO the only scary bit (and yes its scary) is who controls the tech, and where are they going to make the hurricane go...
they are not trying to DESTROY a hurricane, only steer it. eg the energy in a moving race car at full speed could be 10 megajoules, and yet, you can pull a 180 degree turn in perhaps 20 seconds using your own personal input of a 10s to hundreds of joules to the steering wheel, without having to absorb the 10 megajoules to stop the car, and re give it out to accelerate it the other direction.
I know a hurricane isn't on wheels, but put a slight change in the atmosphere nearby (google HAARP) and it will make a huge change in the path of the hurricane, the difficult part is making that change roughly predictable (which these guys think they can do, and I tend to agree)
WRONG. How much energy does it take to power a car? lets say 100 killowats. How much energy does it take to STEER a car.. (20 watts would seem about right with a decent rack pinion steering)
look up HAARP. Megawatts or more of energy, wherever the operators (US mill) want, whenever they want. NOT enough to create a hurricane, definitely enough to steer it
I remember reading up on HAARP just before katrina hit and hearing how it could be used to heat atmospheric regions for JUST this purpose:
eg, in one film I watched, one group of US researchers (likely this one) were interviewed and were talking about IF they could put decent but not extraordinary amounts of energy (heat) where they wanted, they could steer hurricanes, as they had been doing it in computer models, using data from previous real hurricanes, successfully. But (they said) they had no way to place this energy in real life...
Then the next bit of the film showed people at HAARP saying how they could use this tech to heat chosen parts of the atmosphere but when asked about weather manipulation they stated that the mega/gigawatts involved in haarp was nothing to the many orders of magnitude more energy involved in weather systems... which IS true.. but we are not talking about CREATING a hurricane, only steering it (crappy analogy: you cant personally put out 100 kilowatts to push a car up to speed, but the small amount of energy you put into your rack and pinion steering is capable of steering it just fine..)
The next thing I read a few months later (after katrina) was a disturbing analysis of a short radar view of katrina, supposedly obtained from a commercial weather website subscription service, which showed absolutely no doubt in my mind artificial hotspots forming near katrina (they looked kind of like fingers) and apparently steering the hurricane which was about to miss its "target" right into new orleans... Of course, this radar footage could be faked, but the rest of the story still stands: one group of researchers DID have the theoretical ability to steer hurricanes IF they had a device to conveniently place energy, Another group had JUST such a device, and given the, I would call it, deliberate negligence and willful pain and destruction allowed to occur in new orleans in the "clean up" operation (plus less reputable but certainly possible claims of deliberate levy destruction, negligence in levy maintanance etc) it seems quite likely to me that someone high up had a motive to let new orleans rot, therefore they also had the motive to destroy it, and apparently, the means
I will now try to find the "fingers of god" "hand of god" I think it was called radar sequence to (slightly) back this up (the HAARP film was called "angels dont play this haarp" or something like that, find it on google video) although I know the original website I saw it on disappeared very quickly after I saw it
its not about managing your diet, its about making you AWARE of the shit they deliberately put in your food water drugs etc and not FUNDING and subsidizing it if its killing people, and not banning or discouraging it if its healthy but not profitable. you want to eat shit, no one should stop ya, but at least you'll know your eating it.
(examples: trans fats, aspartame, cigarettes in the past)
I would watch her carefully over the next couple of years, I would give it about a 30% chance that this was EXACTLY the desired outcome: RIAA deal with her was go to court with her crappy case just to get a precedent set, safe in the knowledge she would get her house back later on in an under the table deal. I predict she will have some "lucky" windfall of money sometime soon. (perhaps winning a competition on a CD she buys hehe oh the irony and publicity potential)
"The abstinence-only version of the BB gun would be not using the gun at all"
just to make that even more relevant, "the abstinence only version of the BB gun would be to put a whole bunch of teenage boys in a room full of BB guns, bullets and Targets, and tell them not to touch them and if you have the urge to shoot stuff, just make a gun shape with your fingers and say "Bang" instead, all the while without telling them that the guns are actually dangerous if fired incorrectly, but showing many people having wild fun using bb guns on the TV and in the media...."
you know what? F^&$ YOU! What he said WAS funny, and to anyone with even half a brain (granted that apparently seems to rule out lots of people) was plainly meant as a joke.
For the cops to even come and visit over this etc is beyond ridiculous, and should have those who CALLED them fired, not him. Apparently most of the world has been brainwashed into thinking everyone is a terrorist though, and from now on everyone must walk on eggshells all their lives... idiots.
So we have hundreds/thousands of witnesses, gunshots, killing, and it takes 2 hours for the cops to get there? If that is true, I call shenanigans. This is just another setup to scare people into giving up their guns, like the port arthur massacre in tasmania (mentally diabled guy with an IQ of 60 got an inverted killed to wounded ratio of 1.6 (more killed than wounded), after only firing a gun a couple of dozen times before (and an airrifle at that) and shooting from the hip (which he hadnt done before). I call bullshit.
Note that in the port arthur case it only took 2 weeks for gun control laws to BE IN EFFECT. that (supposedly) included drafting, refining debateing and enacting them. HAHAHA wot?
I give this 1 whole year before it gets twisted and abused to cover ANY anti government movies (eg "the money masters", "peace propaganda and the promised land", "loose change", australian equivalents (dont worry, we've had our share of false flaggers too)
Great, So next time I try to hand out DVDs proving the involvement of certain people within the US administration and elsewhere (not alqueda) in 9/11, or questioning how a mentally disabled guy with an IQ of 60, who had only ever shot a gun a couple of dozen times (and an air rifle at that), managed to get an inverted kill to wounded ratio of 1.6 killed for every wounded, in the port arthur massacre (he actually wounded or killed 31 people with his first 29 bullets!!!! in under 2 minutes!), Im going to be arrested as a "Terrorist" for calling our governments evil and saying they need to go/be removed/replaced? (I can see where this is going),
this is not meant as a troll, just an honest (perhaps offensive) opinion.
What it all comes down to is: Most (50%+) of people are stupid.
Expecting some one with below average (and average isn't something to be proud of either) intelligence to overcome this evolutionary handicap and the often lifelong indoctrination from their family/parents, to understand and believe a conflicting concept which, while it seems simple to me, obviously isn't to them, is perhaps expecting too much. Especially given the joke that is passed as education ("edumacation") in many places in America/many other countries.
This is likely the CAUSE of 9/11 not the solution: how did pilots including one too crap to be rented a Cessna pull extremely skilled maneuvers beyond what the software of the jets should have allowed? simple tha software had been disabled and the planes taken over by remote control. That explains what the other jets where doing at each of the crash sites, the mystery jets no one has (officially) explained. Controlling them.
It also explains why there was no hijacking code sent by any of the planes pilots(a quick 2 second job).
Now for the wave of denials from "skeptics" who dont have any idea of what they are talking about (after reading and believing lies off of main stream news, that is more often than not completely contradicted elsewhere in the mainstream news).
why? because you say it is? I gave you evidence, you gave me comedy.
There have been no steel framed highrise collapses before from anything but earthquakes and CD EVEN THOUGH many have had FAR WORSE fires in them, burning for more than twenty times as long, and the collision damage was designed for. Since there was no earthquakes, the initial assumption SHOULD have been CD, since this is the simplest explanation which fits the evidence. It is not the politically correct explanation, but that is unimportant scientifically. It is not the simplest to accept but that is a psychological issue. It is the simplest because it introduces the fewest new (scientific) unknowns into the equation: we know CD works, it has been demonstrated many times before. We have NO idea how a "pancake collapse due to fire" or any of the half dozen other ludicrous theories given to us would work because THEY HAVE NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Its occams razor, it just doesnt work how skeptics think it works (its not the simplest to explain theory that is probably true, nor the simplest to accept. Its the simplest scientifically speaking, meaning repeatable, precedented, physically understood. Only if this theory can be proven/shown to be likely to be WRONG (for which an attempt should be made, and yet I have found no such proof) should you assume a less scientifically simple theory (like pancakes), and then you should try to repeat it to prove it's even possible (no the simulation didnt show that, they couldnt actually get it to collapse with realistic or extreme input values).
remember that there are 3 events on the one day to explain here, for which there is no prior precedent except earthquakes (not present) and CD (witnessed by many, admitted by owner). Trying to sell a single event as some unprecedented event when there is a perfectly workable precedented explanation is silly, but 3 on the same day is bizarre, yet everyone buys it because 1) they are not engineers so many dont realise not only has this never occurred before, those buildings were designed to withstand the strikes, designed to withstand the fires, over-engineered greatly 2) they are told "ooooh scary jet fuel, very hot" by the media even though it is only kerosene, there was 1 litre of it or less for every tonne of concrete and steel per floor (ie it was gone very quickly without making much noticeable difference, even according to "official" sources), and it DOES NOT burn hot enough to heat the steel to weakening (let alone melting as witnessed by many) in the time frame and oxygen deprived situation present, nor could it have affected the 47 massive core columns noticeably (think giant 100 story heatsink being heated by a splash of kero). 3) they trust what they are told.
By the way, im talking about what happened that day, not who caused it. thats an entire other issue, and is very unlikely to be as simple as "bush did it", and is likely to get even more eye rolling from you if I try to explain it without you even believing the first part (that it happened).
Slashdot Mirror
actualy more like a couple of hundred wind turbines - they are getting to 10 MW each nowadays
there are already batteries that can charge in minutes, and even top up large percentages of their charge in under a minute. combine this with a similar battery pack or supercapacitor as a buffer at the servo and you could fill your electric 'tank' quicker than with a petrol car. Get with the times :/
given how little resistance your ass seems to have to a pounding, I would say that 100 volts up it would cause quite a lot of current to flow...
maybe you could not make false assumptions, and learn the difference between a very rough example on slashdot and a physics exam question. I realize you could jam something in the steering wheel and therefore steer the car while not outputting any further energy, and I also realize you measure the instantaneous kinetic energy of a car by 1/2 mv^2 which is in joules HOWEVER I was talking about ONGOING energy costs over time (ie power) to continue steering the car along a (non circular) track/road at decent speed, since we are talking about the ongoing energy costs to steer a hurricane around obstacles. which is taking my rough example all too far.
you seem to think there needs to be some magic ratio of steering energy input to hurricane energy, but to give you an extreme opposite example, you could actually use NEGATIVE energy to steer it, ie set up a large enough wind farm and not only would you effect its path in some way or another, but you also ABSORB some of its energy. Im not saying this is feasable, IM just trying to make the point that since we are neither trying to create nor destroy the hurricane, we can let its OWN energy do the work by simply guiding it... anyway, I think that neither of us really could say anymore than that without access to the classified true potential of haarp and the results of the computer simulation studies. I will concede you MAY be right, but I doubt it.
you've heard the whole "butterfly flaps its wings, cyclone forms in blah blah" thing before right? well I don't really buy that... but imagine you had a gigawatt butterfly....I buy that.
actually I have an even better analogy. How about trying to steer a motorbike by very slightly shifting your balance... (probably inaccurate example: )by creating a slightly warmer regions on one side, certain paths will become easier and more likely for the hurricane to travel, others will become less likely. The whole deal with chaotic systems (hurricane) is small changes in initial conditions make gigantic changes in later conditions. The difficult part is PREDICTING what those (dramatic) changes will be, not causing them. Assuming they have that down enough to have SOME idea what will happen (as the guys I saw interviewed claimed), there is no problem (for them, we have a problem of not knowing they can do it, so not being able to hold them accountable if they do)
oh, and in relation to your post (re read it and realized I missed the point) since they are only steering it, not destroying it, you are not messing with nature on average at all really, just moving the damage path. SO the only scary bit (and yes its scary) is who controls the tech, and where are they going to make the hurricane go...
they are not trying to DESTROY a hurricane, only steer it. eg the energy in a moving race car at full speed could be 10 megajoules, and yet, you can pull a 180 degree turn in perhaps 20 seconds using your own personal input of a 10s to hundreds of joules to the steering wheel, without having to absorb the 10 megajoules to stop the car, and re give it out to accelerate it the other direction. I know a hurricane isn't on wheels, but put a slight change in the atmosphere nearby (google HAARP) and it will make a huge change in the path of the hurricane, the difficult part is making that change roughly predictable (which these guys think they can do, and I tend to agree)
WRONG. How much energy does it take to power a car? lets say 100 killowats. How much energy does it take to STEER a car.. (20 watts would seem about right with a decent rack pinion steering) look up HAARP. Megawatts or more of energy, wherever the operators (US mill) want, whenever they want. NOT enough to create a hurricane, definitely enough to steer it
I remember reading up on HAARP just before katrina hit and hearing how it could be used to heat atmospheric regions for JUST this purpose:
eg, in one film I watched, one group of US researchers (likely this one) were interviewed and were talking about IF they could put decent but not extraordinary amounts of energy (heat) where they wanted, they could steer hurricanes, as they had been doing it in computer models, using data from previous real hurricanes, successfully. But (they said) they had no way to place this energy in real life...
Then the next bit of the film showed people at HAARP saying how they could use this tech to heat chosen parts of the atmosphere but when asked about weather manipulation they stated that the mega/gigawatts involved in haarp was nothing to the many orders of magnitude more energy involved in weather systems... which IS true.. but we are not talking about CREATING a hurricane, only steering it (crappy analogy: you cant personally put out 100 kilowatts to push a car up to speed, but the small amount of energy you put into your rack and pinion steering is capable of steering it just fine..)
The next thing I read a few months later (after katrina) was a disturbing analysis of a short radar view of katrina, supposedly obtained from a commercial weather website subscription service, which showed absolutely no doubt in my mind artificial hotspots forming near katrina (they looked kind of like fingers) and apparently steering the hurricane which was about to miss its "target" right into new orleans... Of course, this radar footage could be faked, but the rest of the story still stands: one group of researchers DID have the theoretical ability to steer hurricanes IF they had a device to conveniently place energy, Another group had JUST such a device, and given the, I would call it, deliberate negligence and willful pain and destruction allowed to occur in new orleans in the "clean up" operation (plus less reputable but certainly possible claims of deliberate levy destruction, negligence in levy maintanance etc) it seems quite likely to me that someone high up had a motive to let new orleans rot, therefore they also had the motive to destroy it, and apparently, the means
I will now try to find the "fingers of god" "hand of god" I think it was called radar sequence to (slightly) back this up (the HAARP film was called "angels dont play this haarp" or something like that, find it on google video) although I know the original website I saw it on disappeared very quickly after I saw it
its not about managing your diet, its about making you AWARE of the shit they deliberately put in your food water drugs etc and not FUNDING and subsidizing it if its killing people, and not banning or discouraging it if its healthy but not profitable. you want to eat shit, no one should stop ya, but at least you'll know your eating it. (examples: trans fats, aspartame, cigarettes in the past)
I would watch her carefully over the next couple of years, I would give it about a 30% chance that this was EXACTLY the desired outcome: RIAA deal with her was go to court with her crappy case just to get a precedent set, safe in the knowledge she would get her house back later on in an under the table deal. I predict she will have some "lucky" windfall of money sometime soon. (perhaps winning a competition on a CD she buys hehe oh the irony and publicity potential)
good response, mod parent up (not grandparent)
just to make that even more relevant, "the abstinence only version of the BB gun would be to put a whole bunch of teenage boys in a room full of BB guns, bullets and Targets, and tell them not to touch them and if you have the urge to shoot stuff, just make a gun shape with your fingers and say "Bang" instead, all the while without telling them that the guns are actually dangerous if fired incorrectly, but showing many people having wild fun using bb guns on the TV and in the media...."
For the cops to even come and visit over this etc is beyond ridiculous, and should have those who CALLED them fired, not him. Apparently most of the world has been brainwashed into thinking everyone is a terrorist though, and from now on everyone must walk on eggshells all their lives... idiots.
Note that in the port arthur case it only took 2 weeks for gun control laws to BE IN EFFECT. that (supposedly) included drafting, refining debateing and enacting them. HAHAHA wot?
Great, So next time I try to hand out DVDs proving the involvement of certain people within the US administration and elsewhere (not alqueda) in 9/11, or questioning how a mentally disabled guy with an IQ of 60, who had only ever shot a gun a couple of dozen times (and an air rifle at that), managed to get an inverted kill to wounded ratio of 1.6 killed for every wounded, in the port arthur massacre (he actually wounded or killed 31 people with his first 29 bullets!!!! in under 2 minutes!), Im going to be arrested as a "Terrorist" for calling our governments evil and saying they need to go/be removed/replaced? (I can see where this is going),
you are correct
What it all comes down to is: Most (50%+) of people are stupid.
Expecting some one with below average (and average isn't something to be proud of either) intelligence to overcome this evolutionary handicap and the often lifelong indoctrination from their family/parents, to understand and believe a conflicting concept which, while it seems simple to me, obviously isn't to them, is perhaps expecting too much. Especially given the joke that is passed as education ("edumacation") in many places in America/many other countries.
Ah well.
well said (and to the coward who responded with yet more cowardly drivel: shut it, moron.)
No. he doesn't. (see sig)
understood (see sig)
It also explains why there was no hijacking code sent by any of the planes pilots(a quick 2 second job).
Now for the wave of denials from "skeptics" who dont have any idea of what they are talking about (after reading and believing lies off of main stream news, that is more often than not completely contradicted elsewhere in the mainstream news).
There have been no steel framed highrise collapses before from anything but earthquakes and CD EVEN THOUGH many have had FAR WORSE fires in them, burning for more than twenty times as long, and the collision damage was designed for. Since there was no earthquakes, the initial assumption SHOULD have been CD, since this is the simplest explanation which fits the evidence. It is not the politically correct explanation, but that is unimportant scientifically. It is not the simplest to accept but that is a psychological issue. It is the simplest because it introduces the fewest new (scientific) unknowns into the equation: we know CD works, it has been demonstrated many times before. We have NO idea how a "pancake collapse due to fire" or any of the half dozen other ludicrous theories given to us would work because THEY HAVE NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Its occams razor, it just doesnt work how skeptics think it works (its not the simplest to explain theory that is probably true, nor the simplest to accept. Its the simplest scientifically speaking, meaning repeatable, precedented, physically understood. Only if this theory can be proven/shown to be likely to be WRONG (for which an attempt should be made, and yet I have found no such proof) should you assume a less scientifically simple theory (like pancakes), and then you should try to repeat it to prove it's even possible (no the simulation didnt show that, they couldnt actually get it to collapse with realistic or extreme input values).
remember that there are 3 events on the one day to explain here, for which there is no prior precedent except earthquakes (not present) and CD (witnessed by many, admitted by owner). Trying to sell a single event as some unprecedented event when there is a perfectly workable precedented explanation is silly, but 3 on the same day is bizarre, yet everyone buys it because 1) they are not engineers so many dont realise not only has this never occurred before, those buildings were designed to withstand the strikes, designed to withstand the fires, over-engineered greatly 2) they are told "ooooh scary jet fuel, very hot" by the media even though it is only kerosene, there was 1 litre of it or less for every tonne of concrete and steel per floor (ie it was gone very quickly without making much noticeable difference, even according to "official" sources), and it DOES NOT burn hot enough to heat the steel to weakening (let alone melting as witnessed by many) in the time frame and oxygen deprived situation present, nor could it have affected the 47 massive core columns noticeably (think giant 100 story heatsink being heated by a splash of kero). 3) they trust what they are told.
By the way, im talking about what happened that day, not who caused it. thats an entire other issue, and is very unlikely to be as simple as "bush did it", and is likely to get even more eye rolling from you if I try to explain it without you even believing the first part (that it happened).