Yes I use one of the ergonomic keyboards - I can hardly type on the regular ones now - get a shooting pain up my arm...
My son, bless his heart, has built a temporary machine for me!! Got it just this am!!
To be honest - after the initial withdrawal - about one day - I've been quite good about it. My house is super clean, the basement far more organised than it has been in well over a decade, and I got alot of reading done which was quite relaxing.
It was nice not knowing how horrid the world was for a while.
But, I'm back at least for the foreseeable future (now if I can actually write something interesting....)
I've got an idea for something you could write about. There is a silly experiment that supposedly proves global warming is real. The link is http://www.prisonplanet.com/bbc-botches-grade-school-co2-science-experiment-on-live-tv-%E2%80%93-with-indepedent-lab-results-to-prove-it.html
I think that this experiment shows the specific heat capacity of CO to be lower than air. Air is about 1.00 J/(gK), CO2 is about 0.846 J/(gK). (So it takes 0.846 joules to increase a gram of CO by one degree in temperature.)
I think these morons made a big boo-boo. I don't don't have the time to write it up and I may be mistaken.
That would be cool if you could verify that I am right and did a blog on it.
The heat from the lamps would heat up the bottle containing CO2 to a higher temp than the air just because of its (CO2) reduced specific heat. I should look at it in more detail but I'm sooo busy right now trying to write a ch for a book an associate is writing to support my wares.
Okay, I think I see what you mean. Since it takes less energy to increase one mol of CO2 one degree, than it does one mol of air, a greater increase in temp. would be observed for the bottle containing air+CO2. I can live with that.
But, the experiment itself is rather useless. There is no calibration of the thermocouples, no 'control', no accounting of exactly how much CO2 is released by one selzter tablet, no apparant control on the amount of water and thus the volume of gas itself, no repeated trials, no error calculations... ugh the list goes on. It's a stupid experiment designed to fool stupid people who have NO understanding of scientific experiments whatsoever.
You are right. Its nonsense and stupid, but thats environmentalism as we know it. It inspired me to write a bit on experiments in this new book I was helping with. My software is used in experiments.
I think the smaller heat required to raise CO2 temp is all we see.
10 comments:
Ah...you use the funny keyboard too eh ?
I was thinking about how terrible this must be for you.(I'm not kidding either).
I know what its like.
Hey Doug!!
Yes I use one of the ergonomic keyboards - I can hardly type on the regular ones now - get a shooting pain up my arm...
My son, bless his heart, has built a temporary machine for me!! Got it just this am!!
To be honest - after the initial withdrawal - about one day - I've been quite good about it. My house is super clean, the basement far more organised than it has been in well over a decade, and I got alot of reading done which was quite relaxing.
It was nice not knowing how horrid the world was for a while.
But, I'm back at least for the foreseeable future (now if I can actually write something interesting....)
My place gets real clean after a crash too. That and when I am stuck on a programming bug is the only time 8-).
I've got an idea for something you could write about. There is a silly experiment that supposedly proves global warming is real. The link is http://www.prisonplanet.com/bbc-botches-grade-school-co2-science-experiment-on-live-tv-%E2%80%93-with-indepedent-lab-results-to-prove-it.html
I think that this experiment shows the specific heat capacity of CO to be lower than air. Air is about 1.00 J/(gK), CO2 is about 0.846 J/(gK). (So it takes 0.846 joules to increase a gram of CO by one degree in temperature.)
I think these morons made a big boo-boo. I don't don't have the time to write it up and I may be mistaken.
That would be cool if you could verify that I am right and did a blog on it.
The experiment itself is flawed, in all the ways pointed out by Kilty. The BBC's little event was fluff to say the least.
I'm not quite sure what your question is though? Sorry, but can you explain what you are trying to say again?
The heat from the lamps would heat up the bottle containing CO2 to a higher temp than the air just because of its (CO2) reduced specific heat. I should look at it in more detail but I'm sooo busy right now trying to write a ch for a book an associate is writing to support my wares.
Okay, I think I see what you mean. Since it takes less energy to increase one mol of CO2 one degree, than it does one mol of air, a greater increase in temp. would be observed for the bottle containing air+CO2. I can live with that.
But, the experiment itself is rather useless. There is no calibration of the thermocouples, no 'control', no accounting of exactly how much CO2 is released by one selzter tablet, no apparant control on the amount of water and thus the volume of gas itself, no repeated trials, no error calculations... ugh the list goes on. It's a stupid experiment designed to fool stupid people who have NO understanding of scientific experiments whatsoever.
It gets an F.
You are right. Its nonsense and stupid, but thats environmentalism as we know it. It inspired me to write a bit on experiments in this new book I was helping with. My software is used in experiments.
I think the smaller heat required to raise CO2 temp is all we see.
Its as silly as that latest terrorist attack was.
Yeah, that's certainly what it has turned into for sure.
The organisations are like fish heads - they rot from the head.
Post a Comment