On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 4:43:23 AM UTC-6, maxke...@gmail.com wrote:
> Steam and Global Warming.
> -----
> https://youtu.be/lZQ98poRoBY
>
> There's not much point sending this to sci.physics
> Maybe you folk could do something with it?
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon

We need a mountain in the back yard, several miles high so the water
coming down to drive a turbine at relativistic speeds :-)

Uh, no, that would only be about 0.00003c. Bummer. How about if we put a
turbine in orbit around a black hole, at 1.5x the Schwarzschild radius, then
pipe water down to it. There ya go!

On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 07:23:39 UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 4:43:23 AM UTC-6, maxke...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Steam and Global Warming.
> > -----
> > https://youtu.be/lZQ98poRoBY
> >
> > There's not much point sending this to sci.physics
> > Maybe you folk could do something with it?
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Max Keon
> We need a mountain in the back yard, several miles high so the water
> coming down to drive a turbine at relativistic speeds :-)
>
> Uh, no, that would only be about 0.00003c. Bummer. How about if we put a
> turbine in orbit around a black hole, at 1.5x the Schwarzschild radius, then
> pipe water down to it. There ya go!

That's great. You've brought the experiment into the realm of relativity.
I'll see if I can make the global warming section more relativity compatible.
---

The input rate of funding to combat global warming is proportional
to the severity of the crisis. So I make the assumption that the
funding collection tin shake rate is proportional to the crisis
level as well.

I now set the parameters for a collection tin.

sf = ?? : hz shake frequency
sl = .1 : meter round trip shake length
st = 1 / sf : seconds shake cycle time
sv = sl / st : m/sec average cycle speed
x = 1 / SQR(1 - sv ^ 2 / c ^ 2)
sf * x : relativistic collection rate

$1 per shake is assumed to be captured in the global warming
collection tin. The true value can only be determined by
experiment.

Example 1:
10 hz shake frequency
10 dollars added per second at $1 per shake
..1 seconds shake cycle time
1.000000014901161 m/sec shake speed average
1 : x = 1/SQR(1-sv^2/c^2) relativistic dollars / dollar

10 :(sf*x) dollars per second captured in the global warming
collection tin.

Example 2
2999999950 hz shake frequency
2999999950 dollars added per second at $1 per shake
3.33333338888889e-10 seconds shake cycle time
299999999.4703483 m/sec shake speed average
16828.7 : x = 1/SQR(1-sv^2/c^2) relativistic dollars / dollar

50486084684111.46 (sf*x) dollars per second captured in the
global warming collection tin.

At times of high input, it would be impossible to keep track
of who is shoveling what where.

-----

Max Keon

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 11:01:05 PM UTC-6, maxke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 07:23:39 UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 4:43:23 AM UTC-6, maxke...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Steam and Global Warming.
> > > -----
> > > https://youtu.be/lZQ98poRoBY
> > >
> > > There's not much point sending this to sci.physics
> > > Maybe you folk could do something with it?
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Max Keon
> >
> > We need a mountain in the back yard, several miles high so the water
> > coming down to drive a turbine at relativistic speeds :-)
> >
> > Uh, no, that would only be about 0.00003c. Bummer. How about if we put a
> > turbine in orbit around a black hole, at 1.5x the Schwarzschild radius, then
> > pipe water down to it. There ya go!
>
> That's great. You've brought the experiment into the realm of relativity.
> I'll see if I can make the global warming section more relativity compatible.
> ---
>
> The input rate of funding to combat global warming is proportional
> to the severity of the crisis. So I make the assumption that the
> funding collection tin shake rate is proportional to the crisis
> level as well.
>
> I now set the parameters for a collection tin.
>
> sf = ?? : hz shake frequency
> sl = .1 : meter round trip shake length
> st = 1 / sf : seconds shake cycle time
> sv = sl / st : m/sec average cycle speed
> x = 1 / SQR(1 - sv ^ 2 / c ^ 2)
> sf * x : relativistic collection rate
>
> $1 per shake is assumed to be captured in the global warming
> collection tin. The true value can only be determined by
> experiment.
>
> Example 1:
> 10 hz shake frequency
> 10 dollars added per second at $1 per shake
> .1 seconds shake cycle time
> 1.000000014901161 m/sec shake speed average
> 1 : x = 1/SQR(1-sv^2/c^2) relativistic dollars / dollar
>
> 10 :(sf*x) dollars per second captured in the global warming
> collection tin.
>
> Example 2
> 2999999950 hz shake frequency
> 2999999950 dollars added per second at $1 per shake
> 3.33333338888889e-10 seconds shake cycle time
> 299999999.4703483 m/sec shake speed average
> 16828.7 : x = 1/SQR(1-sv^2/c^2) relativistic dollars / dollar
>
> 50486084684111.46 (sf*x) dollars per second captured in the
> global warming collection tin.
>
> At times of high input, it would be impossible to keep track
> of who is shoveling what where.
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon

The curious thing about glow-ball warming is that water vapor is
the biggest contributor. The models can't handle that because it
has such great variation over the earth and over time, so they
add an acceleration factor to CO2 levels. Decades ago, that factor
was 6x, IIRC, which resulted in the baloney "hockey-stick" predictions.
They use 2x now, but modtran says it should be about 1.5, so they're
still overestimating the effect.

Relativity enters the game because those whose paychecks depend
on the relative strength of GBW awareness, compared to all the other
problems we face, want it enhanced. It's only human nature.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> The curious thing about glow-ball warming is that water vapor is the
> biggest contributor. The models can't handle that because it has such
> great variation over the earth and over time, so they add an
> acceleration factor to CO2 levels. Decades ago, that factor was 6x,
> IIRC, which resulted in the baloney "hockey-stick" predictions. They use
> 2x now, but modtran says it should be about 1.5, so they're still
> overestimating the effect.

you are not sincere, Garry. You have to express yourself in details about
your mistakes and misunderstandings, around your now dismissed
unification theory without causality violation. What is it you
misunderstood??