Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
OK
Say I plant a tree on the footpath. Neighbourhood dogs come along and piss on it, watering and fertilising it and leaving a scent that gets other neighbourhood dogs to do the same. There's your positive feedback
The tree grows a bit better than otherwise, but is still size limited by its species and capillarity. I think the hard limit is about 100m
And also the dogs don't piss so much that the ground turns boggy, which is what our pommy troll friend would probably extrapolate to.
How is that PF? Get some lessons in logic. "The output exceeds the input and becomes the NEW input which makes for greater output which is new input etc.
Gerbils.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
OK
Say I plant a tree on the footpath. Neighbourhood dogs come along and piss on it, watering and fertilising it and leaving a scent that gets other neighbourhood dogs to do the same. There's your positive feedback
The tree grows a bit better than otherwise, but is still size limited by its species and capillarity. I think the hard limit is about 100m
And also the dogs don't piss so much that the ground turns boggy, which is what our pommy troll friend would probably extrapolate to.
How is that PF? Get some lessons in logic. "The output exceeds the input and becomes the NEW input which makes for greater output which is new input etc.
Gerbils.Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Ian K said..
Give him a green thumb.
Not so fast.
Insulating roof doesn't make any sense.New homes should be designed in such way to utilize solar panels as a roofing structure in first place.
Putting ceramic tiles, insulating beneath, then drilling holes and installing solar panel damaging all below, that is how homes are done today.In few years from now , homes will have completely flat roof at specific angle to the sun, to capture the most of the light.Solar panel will be build in long strips, insulated already at the bottom and will serve as construction material.
No need for tiles or steel roofing.
New panels could provide all: structural strength, insulation, carry water, produce electricity.
Amazingly nobody invented yet such solar panel that meet all those tasks above.
We need possibly another Nobel Prize Winner, Tesla size inventor , Elon Musk entrepreneur to make such simple panels possible.
Solar panels last about 29 years. Here, the PAYBACK time is 110 years. Makes so much sense, eh?
The FACT is that unsexy insulation saves FAR more energy ("Reduce, reuse, recycle) than silly solar panels.
..........the eco village in Germany has windmills/solar and big batteries. The cost for a house with 4 people? $50,00/year AND then replace batteries every 12 years.
The high cost of power (i heard Germany halting all subsidies for alt. energy) has driven industry/work away. Well done.
and as said the other day, a coal worker makes 70 times MORE power than an alt. energy one. Just a WEE bit more, eh?
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..decrepit said..kilo54 said..
Who the hell are you to make your own definition? Electronic feedback NOT what we are talking about at all!
Just somebody that's been playing with feedback for the past 60years.
Yes I put it in electronic terms because that's my background. But feedback is feedback regardless, if the output affects the input you have feedback. I'm not big one remembering official definitions, and not interested in semantics, it's how stuff works that counts.
Just out of interest I checked what wikipedia has to say.
"Mathematically, positive feedback is defined as a positive loop gain around a closed loop of cause and effect.[1][3] That is, positive feedback is in phase with the input, in the sense that it adds to make the input larger.[4][5] Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations, chaotic behavior or other divergences from equilibrium.[3] System parameters will typically accelerate towards extreme values, which may damage or destroy the system, or may end with the system latched into a new stable state. Positive feedback may be controlled by signals in the system being filtered, damped, or limited, or it can be cancelled or reduced by adding negative feedback. "
Which basically says the same as I was saying only more succinctly.
For it to be runaway the gain has to exceed 1.
And adds in the chaos theory of strange attractors, that I mentioned earlier.
So Kilo, where did you get your definition from, out of your head presumably.
You need to reread your own words. "Exponential growth....." Got my definition from 3 years at Uni.
Wikipedia is JUNK! Write something bad about Mann and it is CHANGED within 10 minutes.
You are being doltish.. Quote me 2 examples of PF. (NOT electronic)
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all."
Lewis Carroll was so onto it!!!!
So what do we think about castor action?
positive castor is -ve feedback negative castor is +ve feedback.
If a vehicle has positive castor it resists turning and wants to go in a straight line. If it has negative castor it wants to turn and resists going in a straight line.
This effect is amplified by speed and the amount of castor.
So a small amount of negative castor at low speed just makes the steering lighter, as the wheel starts turning it wants to turn more, but not enough so to overcome all the friction/inertia in the system. increase speed or castor, and the turning force on the wheel is enough to overcome friction, and turns the wheel more, so more force is created, until it rapidly goes to full lock.
A similar case is an upright fin with the centre of effort forward of the centre of stiffness. You won't find many of these in the wild, but I've been told that years ago there was an example in production. The cure was to rebox it at 30deg.
Any way what happened in underpowerd conditions, was the angle of attack at the tip increased slightly and you went upwind better, but the faster you went the force on the tip increased the twist, which increased the force on the tip, which increased the angle of attack, which increased the force on the tip etc, much like the negative castor effect.
When the angle of entry became too great the tip stalled, sending you back downwind or spinning out. Obviously not too many of these were made. And probably why you won't see any fins at 90 deg these days, unless the tip is swept back a tad.
Just thought of another one.
Back in the day, my old FC surfwagon had a deteriorating engine mount. Such that when motor toque lent the engine over it increased pressure on the throttle linkage, initially when taking off the accelerator pedal got a bit lighter. But later on, just before I replaced it, the accelerator pedal would go flat to the floor all by itself. The pressure on the linkage increased the torque, which increased the pressure etc. As soon as the engine was over it's torque curve, the accelerator came back off the floor.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said.>>>Got my definition from 3 years at Uni.
Wikipedia is JUNK! Write something bad about Mann and it is CHANGED within 10 minutes.
You are being doltish.. Quote me 2 examples of PF. (NOT electronic)
I guess I should have expected that sort of answer from you.
So when my experience of feedback agrees exactly with wikipedia, I'm supposed to go with you "3 years at uni", when your credibility in pushing your own credentials are already dubious??????????????
If you can't agree that, "when the effect alters the cause, feedback is occurring". I can only conclude your 3 years at uni weren't that effective, or you're acting for the fossil fuel lobby.
And I guess by asking for another 2 examples of PF you mean according to your definition. Well as far as I'm concerned your definition is crap.
And please explain why you want to exclude electronics? As I've said feedback is feedback the general principles remain the same.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..>>You need to reread your own words. "Exponential growth....."
So find me the post where I said that, I'm fairly sure it was someone else, but can't be bothered looking. I may have said positive feedback may lead to exponential growth, because it can. But it doesn't have to.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..decrepit said..Foghorn said..
www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/
Can any scientists on here come to any conclusions on drought ?
Looks highly variable to me.
I'm no scientist, but it looks cyclic to me, probably those terrible twins, el nino and la nina
Surely the govt can interpret this and encourage them to build more dams.It would be an economic stimulus package after all.
Here, in BC, the Greens oppose the building of Site C on Peace River. Notwithstanding it is clean, renewable, non polluting. 150 year life.
Cleverly it uses the same water for a THIRD time. (2 dams upstream, A and B. Only one big lake.) The Greens say the power not needed yet
Hydro is 98% of our power, built mostly in the 50s. Is cheap, AND we play the market, exporting power when expensive, importing when cheap.
100s of millions a year..........
And, this year fitting 3 more turbines on Revelstoke dam - very smartly when built years ago, built EXTRA bays which are now having their turbines fitted.
Now, that is FORETHOUGHT! .
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Lewis Carroll was so onto it!!!!
So what do we think about castor action?
positive castor is -ve feedback negative castor is +ve feedback.
If a vehicle has positive castor it resists turning and wants to go in a straight line. If it has negative castor it wants to turn and resists going in a straight line.
This effect is amplified by speed and the amount of castor.
So a small amount of negative castor at low speed just makes the steering lighter, as the wheel starts turning it wants to turn more, but not enough so to overcome all the friction/inertia in the system. increase speed or castor, and the turning force on the wheel is enough to overcome friction, and turns the wheel more, so more force is created, until it rapidly goes to full lock.
A similar case is an upright fin with the centre of effort forward of the centre of stiffness. You won't find many of these in the wild, but I've been told that years ago there was an example in production. The cure was to rebox it at 30deg.
Any way what happened in underpowerd conditions, was the angle of attack at the tip increased slightly and you went upwind better, but the faster you went the force on the tip increased the twist, which increased the force on the tip, which increased the angle of attack, which increased the force on the tip etc, much like the negative castor effect.
When the angle of entry became too great the tip stalled, sending you back downwind or spinning out. Obviously not too many of these were made. And probably why you won't see any fins at 90 deg these days, unless the tip is swept back a tad.
Just thought of another one.
Back in the day, my old FC surfwagon had a deteriorating engine mount. Such that when motor toque lent the engine over it increased pressure on the throttle linkage, initially when taking off the accelerator pedal got a bit lighter. But later on, just before I replaced it, the accelerator pedal would go flat to the floor all by itself. The pressure on the linkage increased the torque, which increased the pressure etc. As soon as the engine was over it's torque curve, the accelerator came back off the floor.
Lewis Carroll was a paedo........"I say, do you mind if I take photos of your 7 year old daughter, nude. OK? Thanks."
On castor ANGLE - is an example of INSTABILITY not PF. Jesus,
The electronic thing is FEEDBACK, NOT PF. F-ck!
Tail dragger a/c are unstable on take-off - as soon as the swerve starts it quickly gets worse and worse. Quite shocking when first learning.
I would twitch the rudder pedals left right, left, then Full Power and let your body do the thinking. No time, "Going left, so push right pedal."
Know little about sailing, but have you thought of sticking "vortex generators" to your sails? VGs make the air more ENERGETIC, so you can have a higher angle of attack. (sail closer to the wind?)
Did you see Comanche crossed the Atlantic in 5 days, averaging 21.5kts!!! It maxed out at 24.5kts!!!! Tilting keel; waited for storm front and went in front of it.
Surfing in our day was on boogie boards or air mattresses. Bloody foam 5ft thick, then next massive wave crashing down. Had to wear gym shoes 'cos of stonefish - very nasty. Swam nearly every day.
Used cooking oil as sun tan oil - terrible! Pieces of skin the size of a dinner plate coming off later.
Hey, make friends, not war.
"By our actions you will know us." "If in doubt, do nothing!" "Violence the first resort of the incompetent."
I thought that kilo54 must have been a username coming from an old sail number, but it seems I am wrong. Since you "know nothing about sailing", which implies that you aren't a kitesurfer or windsurfer and probably not a hangglider or paraglider, just why have you chosen a windsports website for your geriatric rants?
I've heard windsurfing likened to the final seconds of landing an aeroplane, check out the list of forums. Turbulators? Maybe for deep off the wind, don't think they'd work upwind.
As usual you find everything has been thought about before when you google. C class cats use slotted solid wings for the same reason.
forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/99128-bor-wings-laminar-flow-and-turbulators/
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..>>>On castor ANGLE - is an example of INSTABILITY not PF. Jesus,
The electronic thing is FEEDBACK, NOT PF. F-ck!
So you raise an interesting point about castor instability, (as in shopping trolleys, is this what you were thinking of?)
I've wondered what caused it, seems it's not common knowledge. I googled and found this engineering forum with a thread about about it.
www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=128481
So that should be positive castor not negative and be stable, (you do know the difference between positive and negative castor I hope).
But negative castor is a different ball game, this has an ever greater turning force with increasing angle of turn.
I know about this my home made skate board had positive castor on the front trucks but negative on the rear, it would turn like crazy at low speeds, but be completely unmanageable at high speeds.
And of course an oscillator, oscillates purely because of positive feedback, but if the gain is less than one it doesn't, that's still positive feedback even if it's not runaway.
You've made no comment about my other earlier example, the faster than wind downwind buggy. Now that is a bit of a strange one, a lot of people have trouble getting their heads around it.
Another place to look for examples of positive feedback is perpetual motion machines, I think a lot of their ideas employ this principle.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..>>The electronic thing is FEEDBACK, NOT PF. F-ck!
So I have a feeling we're just arguing about semantics here.
As far as I'm concerned, if effect is feeding back to cause, it's feedback. But it can't just be feedback, it's going to do something, either add or subtract from the input, so any feedback is either positive or negative, it can't be neuter.
So I completely fail to understand your comment above, it doesn't make any sense.
To get away from this crazy semantic loop.
When there's less ice coverage, there's less sunshine reflected back into space.
Do you agree with that?
Less sun reflected means more sunlight absorbed.
Do you agree with that?
More sunlight absorbed, means things get hotter.
Do you agree with that?
When things get hotter, more ice melts.
Do you agree with that?
Disregard any previous ice climate records, I'm not interested in what happened in the past at the moment, just answer these 4 questions yes or no.
If no give concise reasons.
Then we may start getting somewhere
You like Ian get way too technical decrepit.
A bit like a soccer coach who just waffles on about endless tactics. One of your posts above is double Dutch to me anyway.
Stick to what WE can demonstrate rather than belief in their data.
Their data is the very opposite of science no matter how many of their peer reviews it has.
What WE can demonstrate is the sea level is the similar to identical to what it's been for the last 50 years so there's naff all to worry about. Of course the religious believers of their data believe many of the coastal and low lying areas are going to be under water soon. Laughable.
Folks are going to breed a lot less believing in this global warming BS.
A perfect depopulation tool. Also another reason to further centralise government.
Taxing / destroying big industry in the West is the third reason for pushing this obvious lie.
Order out of chaos.
In most systems there are combinations of positive and negative feedback loops. If you have a small positive feedback loop, with a stronger negative feedback loop also present, then the positive feedback won't lead to runaway.
An example of positive feedback that might be familiar to people on here is curing polyester or epoxy resin.. As the mixture cures, it gets hotter. The hotter it gets, the faster it cures. This is positive feedback.
Another feedback loop here is the negative feedback from the heat escaping the mixture. If the mixture is a lot hotter than the environment, it will lose heat quickly due to the temperature difference. It will also lose heat more quickly if it is spread out, compared to sitting in a big blob.
The two feedback loops here work at the same time when you're setting up to glue something.
Anyone who has done this with polyester will be familiar with the following:
* You make a mixture, and start spreading it out on the board. You apply it everywhere you need it to go, then come back to the pot. The mixture in the pot is hot and has set hard, while the mixture on the board is cooler and still wet.
So what happened here?
The answer is that the positive feedback in both systems (the board and the pot) were the same, but the negative feedback (heat escaping to the atmosphere) was stronger on the board, compared to the pot.
Electronics has millions of examples of both positive and negative feedback, but if you haven't done electronics design then the examples won't make sense.
Also the global climate system has millions of positive and negative feedback loops, but again if you haven't spent years studying them then they won't make sense to you. You don't need to understand them either. All you need to know is that the people who have really studied them, are telling us that we need to make some drastic changes, and stop ****ting in the bed we sleep in. That makes sense to me.
So does BC mean British Columbia??
Because I've just come across this article.
" Canada Earlier this year, the analysis branch of ratings agency Moody's released a report about the economic implications of climate change.It predicted higher temperature increases would mean more global damage, but also that they would impact nations differently.Canada is set to perform the best of the world's large economies, with little projected change to GDP in 2048, even in a scenario modelled on high temperature increases.This outcome was linked to the changing climate creating more arable land and longer seasons in the region.Joe Oliver, former minister of finance in the Conservative government, wrote an opinion article in response asking why Canada should fight climate change."Our focus needs to be on adaptation, reduction and protection, as well as on building resilience and increasing survivability. The projected hit to Australia's GDP, according to Moody's, is proportionally similar to that to be experienced in China."
So if Kilo is from Canada, that could explain his attitude?
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
I thought that kilo54 must have been a username coming from an old sail number, but it seems I am wrong. Since you "know nothing about sailing", which implies that you aren't a kitesurfer or windsurfer and probably not a hangglider or paraglider, just why have you chosen a windsports website for your geriatric rants?
Curiosity killed the cat? What does it matter? You are a rude person, but "noblesse oblige" - 210 of us were abused at a residential Catholic school in Africa.
Mostly starvation and whipping, but some got sex too.........one priest would wake us at 2am and ask us, 9 years old, how often we had had sex with women. I had no real idea of screwing etc, so a bit baffled, but he finally found out I had played doctor/nurse at 4 years old. He went incandescent and whipped me with heavy duty electric cable.
For years I thought I was the only one, but apparently he did the same to all/most.
..........have you ever drunk sweetened condensed milk? Delicious.
We were so hungry, I got a servant to buy me 4 large cans. I drank 3 and half before feeling sick.........
Others on this site were my school chums...........one went back a few years ago, and found 40 boys locked in a dorm - if a fire, many would have died.
We complained. We are now BANNED from going there, so they can, 50 years later, continue to abuse young children.
I read about your Ellis case with great anger.
Our lot, Rosminians tried the same, "Oh, no! Not employed by the Church! We have no assets anyway." As usu, the lawyers made more money than the first trial victims. Second trial, more victims - secret result.
Kilo Papa Uniform my old squadron. Kilo for short.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
So does BC mean British Columbia??
Because I've just come across this article.
" Canada Earlier this year, the analysis branch of ratings agency Moody's released a report about the economic implications of climate change.It predicted higher temperature increases would mean more global damage, but also that they would impact nations differently.Canada is set to perform the best of the world's large economies, with little projected change to GDP in 2048, even in a scenario modelled on high temperature increases.This outcome was linked to the changing climate creating more arable land and longer seasons in the region.Joe Oliver, former minister of finance in the Conservative government, wrote an opinion article in response asking why Canada should fight climate change."Our focus needs to be on adaptation, reduction and protection, as well as on building resilience and increasing survivability. The projected hit to Australia's GDP, according to Moody's, is proportionally similar to that to be experienced in China."
So if Kilo is from Canada, that could explain his attitude?
Australia, Canada, Congo, Brazil and others consume MORE CO2 than they produce. (About 4 times!)
We and Oz have 100 times more land per person than UK.
We have small populations and little heavy industry. Canada has 3 oceans, most of the World's fresh water; 1000s of miles of trees/swamps; 4 time zones. Water at 0C holds 4 time the CO2 of 27C water.
Of any country, we would benefit most from GW. Why is our population mostly within 100 miles of US border? It is 20 miles from me.
The Yanks had 26 plans to invade us in 1975; more now!
Our gas now $1.70/l. - carbon tax, transit tax, excise tax, GST, HST on and on. 54c/l of taxes. Pay transit tax on power bills.
GW has become a religion. CO2 is only a minor player. Attempts to go to alt.energy are IMPOSSIBLE.
Yes, Oz great for solar, but at night? Hm?
Have to make the batteries and they only last about 12 years. (See Nissan Leaf that after 7 years needed $33,000 for new battery.)
Have to keep the cells clean or output degraded, and what happens when a big red hops over the fence and smashes them all up? Ha, ha.
Their output falls with time. Coal has half the pollution it used to have. Coal power workers make 70 times more power than alt. energy guys.
Alt energy 30 TIMES more expensive than gas fired. Gas is clean and half CO2 of coal. Oz has lots ig natural gas.
Time to stop this nonsense.
Select to expand quoteNotWal said..kilo54 said..petermac33 said..
The public showing they've had their fill of these zealots. Then again they may well be paid shills.
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/17/watch-climate-protesters-climbing-london-underground-trains-physically-removed-angry-public/
I agree with you. But it is more that the media makes money from disasters/terror/FEAR. These sons of bitches are making us WASTE trillions JUST so they can make cash. **** them! Time for some SCHOOLING for them!
Off topic, here, a long piece. The alarmists have a wishy washy vision but do not bother running the numbers. This article DOES! The Loonies are driving the bus - they are lazy, poorly educated, not very bright, regurgitating the pap the media feeds them.
Want California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona completely COVERED in solar cells?
WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050
Contributed by Robert Lyman ? May 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Robert Lyman is an energy economist with 27 years' experience and was also a public servant and diplomat.
A number of environmental groups in Canada and other countries have recently endorsed the "100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS)" vision articulated in reports written by Mark Jacobson, Mark Delucci and others. This vision seeks to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) in the world by 2050. Jacobson, Delucci et. al. have published "all-sector energy roadmaps" in which they purport to show how each of 139 countries could attain the WWS goal. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the 100% goal is feasible. While a range of renewable energy technologies (e.g. geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, and wave energy) could play a role in the global transformation, the world foreseen in the WWS vision would be dominated by wind and solar energy.
Of 53,535 gigawatts (GW) of new electrical energy generation sources to be built, onshore and offshore wind turbines would supply 19,000 GW (35.4%), solar photovoltaic (PV) plants would supply 17,100 GW (32%) and Concentrated Solar Power plants (CSP) would supply 14,700 GW (27.5%). This would cost $100 trillion, or $3,571 for every household on the planet.
Western Europe has extensive experience with investments in renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. By the end of 2014, the generating capacity of renewable energy plants there was about 216 GW, 22% of Europe's capacity, but because of the intermittent nature of renewable energy production, the actual output was only 3.8% of Europe's requirements. The capital costs of renewable energy plants are almost 30 times as high as those of the natural gas plants that could have been built instead; when operating costs are also taken into account, onshore wind plants are 4.6 times as expensive as gas plants and large-scale PV plants are 14.1 times as expensive as gas plants. Wind and solar energy is not "dispatchable" (i.e. capable of varying production quickly to meet changing demand), which results in serious problems - the need to backup renewables with conventional generation plants to avoid shortfalls in supply, and the frequent need to dump surplus generation on the export market at a loss.
The current energy system in the United States, Canada and globally is heavily dependent on fossil fuels - they generally supply over 80% of existing energy needs in developed countries and over 87% in the world as a whole. Currently, wind and solar energy sources constitute only one-third of one per cent of global energy supply. The financial costs of building the 100% renewable energy world are enormous, but the land area needed to accommodate such diffuse sources of energy supply is just as daunting.
Accommodating the 46,480 solar PV plants envisioned for the U.S. in the WWS vision would take up 650,720 square miles, almost 20% of the lower 48 states. This is close in size to the combined areas of Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada. A 1000-megawatt (MV) wind farm would use up to 360 square miles of land to produce the same amount of energy as a 1000-MV nuclear plant. To meet 8% of the U.K.'s energy needs, one would have to build 44,000 offshore wind turbines; these would have an area of 13,000 square miles, which would fill the entire 3000 km coastline of the U.K. with a strip 4 km wide.
To replace the 440 MW of U.S. generation expected to be retired over the next 25 years, it would take 29.3 billion solar PV panels and 4.4 million battery modules. The area covered by these panels would be equal to that of the state of New Jersey. To produce this many panels, it would take 929 years, assuming they could be built at the pace of one per second. The WWS roadmap for the U.S. calls for 3,637 CSP plants to be built. It would be extremely difficult to find that many sites suitable for a CSP plant. Packed together, they would fill an area of 8,439 square miles, about the area of Metropolitan New York. They would require the manufacture of 63,647,500 mirrors; if they could be manufactured one every ten seconds, it would take 21 years to build that many mirrors.
The proponents of WWS grossly under-estimate the costs of integrating renewable energy sources into the electricity system. The additional costs of backup generation, storage, load balancing and transmission would be enormous. The WWS scenario calls for 39,263 5-MW wind installations in Canada at a cost of $273 billion for the onshore wind generation alone. Building a national backbone of 735 kV transmission lines would cost at least CDN $104 billion and take 20 years to complete.
The WWS includes a call to shut down all coal, oil and natural gas production. It implies the closing of all emissions intensive industries, such as mining, petrochemicals, refining, cement, and auto and parts manufacturing. The political and regional backlash against such policies in a country like Canada would threaten Confederation. In short, the WWS vision is based on an unrealistic assessment of the market readiness of a wide range of key technologies. Attaining the vision is not feasible today in technological, economic or political terms.
QED.decrepit said..kilo54 said..>>By DEFINITION, "PF is when output exceeds input, so making the next cycle bigger and bigger."
Hmm I need to think about that.
So what is it when Jimi is only getting reverb? It;s exactly the same effect but not enough gain to be sustaining, all he has to do is move the guitar a cm or so closer to the speaker, and it becomes self sustaining. How can the constantly singing guitar be caused by a different effect than the reverb guitar??????
So I think your definition is misleading.
I like this better.
PF is when the output is increasing the input.
If the gain isn't high enough it doesn't necessarily go into oscillation.
Soo had a few more thought,s "when output exceeds input", is a definition of amplification, not positive feedback.
if the output of an amplifier with a gain greater than 1 is fed back in phase to the input then you get oscillation.
But if you only feed back a small percentage of the output, or if the amplifier gain is less than 1 then you probably don't get oscillation.
This is important to get right, as it's a major factor in the "tipping point" worry. At the moment climate change is still controllable, if we hit the runaway point it won't be.
What do you mean about the definition of Positive Feedback?
Who the hell are you to make your own definition? Electronic feedback NOT what we are talking about at all!
The output exceeds the input making a new larger input with an even LARGER output et seq. . Burning might appear to be PF but is NOT because a chemical reaction taking place.
It appears you may be a musician. Leave the science stuff to scientists.
Even Google (operated by grade 10 students it seems!), when asked for examples of PF comes up with, "Giving oxytocin to women in labour."
Talk about fartless, useless. (If you give rag soaked in oxytocin to a woman to sniff, supposedly they have a series of violent orgasms! Would like to check it out. Is available at Pharmacies.)
Want interesting stuff? Entropy - "The tendency to disorder".........The energy of the Universe is a constant; the Entropy of it is increasing.
And Feynman's double slit experiment - "The most beautiful Physics experiment"...........if a HUMAN looks at which slit used, the interference pattern disappears (4 times FASTER than light!!!), BUT if a dog looks, the pattern stays!!!
That'd be Robert Lyman of the Heartland Institute, a totally unbiased source, not.
Positive feedback is not synonymous with runaway feedback. Runaway feedback is a class of positive feedback. Reminds me of a quote from some bloke "Who are you to make up your own definition? Leave the science stuff to scientists" or at least look it up before mouthing off.
Oxytocin is not implicated in climate science as far as I know. Why do you raise the topics of entropy and "Feynman's double slit experiment"? (Young was the author of that by the way) That's an interesting take but its bollocks just the same. That too reminds me a quote from the same bloke "Leave the science stuff to scientists" or at least look it up before mouthing off.
You're not trying to impress us with your scientific chops now are you? It's painful to watch.
Try discussing the issues raised. Google after 4 years of work arrived at the conclusion that it was NOT possible to go to alt. energy.
You think differently. I do not respect you or your opinion.
Come on! 2 cases of PF; 2 bad things PRESENTLY from GW.
Heard of diazo methane? No. Is the last resort if wanting to methylate a molecule. Trouble is it is a gas above minus 15C, is deadly poisonous, AND violently explosive. It also dislikes ground glass, so regular glass ware not poss.......exposure makes you feel a bit off colour; you drop dead a week later.
Entropy, and the double slit experiment are very interesting; is why i raised them..........An Australian first discovered "coupling". Spin coupling that works 4 times faster than speed of light. Birds thought to use it to be able to "see" magnetic fields and so navigate.
"Hey, who won the game? I like beer and farting." More your style,?
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..Mr Milk said..
I thought that kilo54 must have been a username coming from an old sail number, but it seems I am wrong. Since you "know nothing about sailing", which implies that you aren't a kitesurfer or windsurfer and probably not a hangglider or paraglider, just why have you chosen a windsports website for your geriatric rants?
Curiosity killed the cat? What does it matter? You are a rude person, but "noblesse oblige" - 210 of us were abused at a residential Catholic school in Africa.
Mostly starvation and whipping, but some got sex too.........one priest would wake us at 2am and ask us, 9 years old, how often we had had sex with women. I had no real idea of screwing etc, so a bit baffled, but he finally found out I had played doctor/nurse at 4 years old. He went incandescent and whipped me with heavy duty electric cable.
For years I thought I was the only one, but apparently he did the same to all/most.
..........have you ever drunk sweetened condensed milk? Delicious.
We were so hungry, I got a servant to buy me 4 large cans. I drank 3 and half before feeling sick.........
Others on this site were my school chums...........one went back a few years ago, and found 40 boys locked in a dorm - if a fire, many would have died.
We complained. We are now BANNED from going there, so they can, 50 years later, continue to abuse young children.
I read about your Ellis case with great anger.
Our lot, Rosminians tried the same, "Oh, no! Not employed by the Church! We have no assets anyway." As usu, the lawyers made more money than the first trial victims. Second trial, more victims - secret result.
Kilo Papa Uniform my old squadron. Kilo for short.
That explains it. PM33 has his flat earth schtick to keep us entertained, but you're going for something far edgier.
I think Decrepit made a mistake when he thought that you were using BC in the geographical sense for your address when it was clearly meant to be temporal, as in Before Christ. So Greek? Or are we talking paleolithic?
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..
Try discussing the issues raised.
Right back at you sonny boy.
You asked for an example of non electronic positive feedback, I showed you one, and you immediately change the subject. A bit like our other resident conspiracy theorist (although the other one is more fun to deal with).
You've lost the argument. Go away.
still, I think I will go with the scientist at CSIRO and BoM for facts than the rantings of climate deniers.
The deniers are creating a smoke screen using "sophistry and exaggeration to deceive" (quote. Thomas B Macaulay). I really don't know what their goal is, if any, other than another conspiracy.
Select to expand quotenebbian said..
Also the global climate system has millions of positive and negative feedback loops, but again if you haven't spent years studying them then they won't make sense to you. You don't need to understand them either. All you need to know is that the people who have really studied them, are telling us that we need to make some drastic changes, and stop ****ting in the bed we sleep in. That makes sense to me.
^^^ it really is that simple.
Listen to experts.
But it seems that deniers are so desperate to appear smart they try to convince us that they can prove climate scientists wrong - usually displaying the most childish grasp of the science 
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..nebbian said..
Also the global climate system has millions of positive and negative feedback loops, but again if you haven't spent years studying them then they won't make sense to you. You don't need to understand them either. All you need to know is that the people who have really studied them, are telling us that we need to make some drastic changes, and stop ****ting in the bed we sleep in. That makes sense to me.
^^^ it really is that simple.
Listen to experts.
But it seems that deniers are so desperate to appear smart they try to convince us that they can prove climate scientists wrong - usually displaying the most childish grasp of the science
Yes, why wouldn't you declare yourself a climate agnostic rather than a climate atheist. Why not say I don't really know but I'm willing to back the experts in this area. That's what Climate believers do. Personally the science is way beyond my monkey brain so I trust the experts in the field. Why would you go all in on climate denial when the experts say otherwise.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..kilo54 said..>>The electronic thing is FEEDBACK, NOT PF. F-ck!
So I have a feeling we're just arguing about semantics here.
As far as I'm concerned, if effect is feeding back to cause, it's feedback. But it can't just be feedback, it's going to do something, either add or subtract from the input, so any feedback is either positive or negative, it can't be neuter.
So I completely fail to understand your comment above, it doesn't make any sense.
To get away from this crazy semantic loop.
When there's less ice coverage, there's less sunshine reflected back into space.
Do you agree with that?
Less sun reflected means more sunlight absorbed.
Do you agree with that?
More sunlight absorbed, means things get hotter.
Do you agree with that?
When things get hotter, more ice melts.
Do you agree with that?
Disregard any previous ice climate records, I'm not interested in what happened in the past at the moment, just answer these 4 questions yes or no.
If no give concise reasons.
Then we may start getting somewhere
Is there less ice coverage? Where? Presumably, you are talking about the Arctic - so LITTLE ice last year, only 3 ships went thru the NW passage and most of the communities could NOT get their annual ship supply. Eh?
The ice cover changes with time. There are unusual places the sea never frozen - eg. SW Greenland where the Vikings lived, and a great big huge polyanyi further North.
The Chuchi sea has often been ice free historically (you can tell from the sediments). West of the Chuchi sea is usu ice free in Summer - 200 ships went thru last year.
AND, you are talking about 3 weeks of the year - the rest of the time solid ice........North pole ice, 10ft thick; S.Pole ice 11,000 to 15,000ft thick. Just a wee bit of a difference. Greenland 5,000ft.
You are missing the point that air has LESS aerosols today. Down 6.8% less cloud 1986 to 2009 - John D. Maclean, Queensland Uni (James Cook).
London air today, 15 counts; 1950 200; 600 in 1900. Vancouver, 5. Delhi today - 600!!!!
This has happened mainly in Europe, and it is from THERE that the clouds move to the N.Pole - less cloud, more warming, but not by much.
As said before, watch on YouTube, "No particles, no fog."
AND watch satellite vid of ships sailing in the Doldrums where the air is very clean. A string of clouds follows each ship, rather like the contrails from an a/c.
Further, INSOLATION (amount of sunlight reaching the earth.) way up these days. Was falling in the 60s, and if it had continued to fall at that rate, the fear was crops would fail.!!!!!
Interestingly, even N.China showing cleaner air these days. China making 12,000m tons of CO2/year and INCREASING by 15%/year.
ANY reduction by the West is SWAMPED massively by this increase. Thus the total and utter futility of decreasing our CO2 emissions.
............on a sinking Titanic, "Captain, I have fixed the 1/4 inch hole! Hooray!" Getit?
So, are we getting somewhere?.......the Russians had a madcap scheme, years ago, to sprinkle coal dust on the Arctic to make it melt and build a big dam there for Hydro.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said.. >>>So, are we getting somewhere?......
Of course not you've totally evaded the questions, (as expected).
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..
Is there less ice coverage? Where? Presumably, you are talking about the Arctic - so LITTLE ice last year, only 3 ships went thru the NW passage and most of the communities could NOT get their annual ship supply. Eh?
Rather than anecdotal accounts, let's use real data:
(source: nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)Select to expand quotekilo54 said..
Further, INSOLATION (amount of sunlight reaching the earth.) way up these days.
I assume you mean irradiance, not insolation, because the insolation of a sphere is always 1.
The amount of sunlight reaching earth is shown in this graph, with another line showing the temperature.
(source: skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)
All of this shows that you don't know what you're talking about, unlike the scientists who have been studying this field for decades.
Go home kilo54, you're drunk.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..GW has become a religion.
Does that mean it gets protection under the new religious freedom law?
Select to expand quotePoida said..
still, I think I will go with the scientist at CSIRO and BoM for facts than the rantings of climate deniers.
The deniers are creating a smoke screen using "sophistry and exaggeration to deceive" (quote. Thomas B Macaulay). I really don't know what their goal is, if any, other than another conspiracy.
I am not sure exactly what a "climate denier" is, but 100%, stick with the known facts and reliable sources. CSIRO and BoM are solid as far as I can see. Anyone who is funded by petroleum or is a career "climate scientist" are biased, as is anyone who benefits from renewable energy, in fact the last two are the worst IMO.
Far too much deception on the topic, although as far as I can see apart from the usual conspiracy nuts, most of the "sophistry and exaggeration to deceive" is coming from those with vested interests.
As far as I can tell the only thing we truly know is that we are pumping a heap of CO2 into the atmosphere and the global temperature is also steadily rising, although that seemed to start before we pumped all the CO2 into the air. People can link them, they can draw conclusions and come up with models and hypothesis, but the truth is that we don't actually know if the CO2 is doing anything because the system is so complex and the changes are within natural variance. There is also no hard evidence that the climate is changing apart from the steady temperature rise. Again because everything is still within typical expected variance.
It's all a guess about what is happening in a chaotic system we have no idea how to predict its behaviour. The current trend of global warming was happening before we started pumping out CO2.
The biggest alarm that is going off for me is that logical challenge on scientific data is being shut down. There is currently zero incentive for any scientist to challenge any data being presented on anthropological climate change. It's career suicide as all the grants and money are in areas that reward a positive view on AGW. That to me is truly alarming. The very basis of scientific method is scepticism and challenge, without it popular opinion overrides the truth.
I've done a lot of research into the scientific views being put forward and it's alarming what's accepted or people are being told as "fact". The level of bias that organisations have that should be neutral and presenting pure confirmed data only is staggering.
