Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 08:05 In article <454F4B3B.42CCEA60(a)earthlink.net>, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >A good stove can be 90% efficient. >> >> That's not good enough if you're burning wood. > > > Its a lot higher efficiency than the huge fires they had for about >six months after the last hurricanes here to dispose of all those Water >Oaks that fell from the high winds. The wood was useless for >construction, and a lot of the trees were diseased, so the county dug a >multi-acre pit and kept dumping truckloads of green timber into the fire >pit, till it was all gone. It was about two miles from me, so i spent a >lot of time indoors, under the A/C so I could breathe. You poor thing. I'd have been so miserable. > > Some builders are removing the older native Water Oaks, and planting >Live Oaks that have a deeper root system, and survive high winds better >when they build new buildings. I assume that Water Oaks (I've never met one) can survive in swampish land? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 08:07 In article <8RI3h.6231$B31.1454(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >news:einjss$b1$2(a)blue.rahul.net... >> In article <einbk7$8qk_007(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> [.... wood burning stove ....] >>>>A good stove can be 90% efficient. >>> >>>That's not good enough if you're burning wood. >> >> I have an uncle who heats his house with wood only. Several of his >> neighbors also heat with wood. The trees are grown in a "managed wood >> lot" for fuel purpose. The wood costs less than other fuels even if you >> include the cost of felling and splitting. > >How is the odor? I suspect that's her main point. It isn't the odor. It is the fact that breathing the smoke causes a sore throat. I read study once that wood smoke is more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke--the irony of that one. In addition, people burn the wood that is laced with arsenic. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 08:08 In article <dGS3h.5355$7F3.3682(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >news:MPG.1fb9bd1d862e8abb989ab0(a)news.individual.net... >> >>> Dry wood burns very cleanly. >> >> It still stinks to hell. > >Not if you're using a good, modern wood stove, and good dry (particularly >hard) wood. > > >> I burn some in a fairly efficient stove, > >It's not just efficiency, it's also related to pollution control devices. > > >> but unless there is a wind blowing it's a mess. It stinks if it's >> still, > >Not if you're using a good, modern wood stove, and good dry (particularly >hard) wood. How do you make everybody do this? <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 08:13 In article <1gI3h.6211$B31.441(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:einccg$8qk_009(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <cXd3h.4612$7F3.309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>news:MPG.1fb72b7115bb9813989a96(a)news.individual.net... >>>> In article <RZ93h.4899$B31.3455(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>>>> >>>>> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>>> news:MPG.1fb6811853307b0989a87(a)news.individual.net... >>>>> > In article <zRz2h.4036$B31.709(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>>>> >> >>>>> >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>>> >> news:iualk291t97f8404q1sh653htevg49g4s6(a)4ax.com... >>>>> >> > On 2 Nov 2006 18:23:32 -0800, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> Gave >>>>> >> > us: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >>He is right. The new drug can't be the exact same chemical as the >>>>> >> >>old >>>>> >> >>one... >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Bullshit. Patents get RENEWED BEFORE they expire. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Where did you get *that* silly idea??? You might just want to go >>>>> >> back >>>>> >> to >>>>> >> insults--at least you understand those. >>>>> >> >>>>> > Actually, he's right (patents do need to be renewed) but this fact >>>>> > is irrelevant to the discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Once a patent reaches an age of 17 years (in the US; 20 in the rest of >>>>> the >>>>> world), it expires. Period. >>>> >>>> Nope. Perhaps you want to learn something. >>> >>>I've been working in the chemical industry for 15 years, and have written >>>several patents, a couple of which have subsequently abandoned because the >>>company chose not to pursue the technology. I know how they work, thank >>>you. >> >> You don't really know how they work. In my biz, one of our >> lawyers disagreed with himself about the copyright law. >> Getting a consistent interpretation of IP law over a three-month time >> period was impossible. I doubt lawyers have improved this since >> then. > > >Yes, I've encountered that too. The underlying explanation is that the >enforcement of a patent is ultimately in the hands of a jury, not the PTO. >When something is enforced by a government agency, like the EPA, their >behavior is at least somewhat predictable. When it's in the hands of a >jury, who understand neither the technical aspects of the patented >technology, nor the law surrounding patents, nearly all bets are off. The >lawyers have to try to predict how it will come out. That's hard enough to >do in the midst of a trial, where you actually have some facts of possible >infringement, but before there is even a situation that would go to trial, >that is obviously a nearly hopeless enterprise. In the situation I described, there was no other input. The interpretation changed every three days until I blew my top. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 08:28
In article <XlI3h.6213$B31.2084(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eindeb$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <454F23F4.F28CDB32(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) >> kicked >>>> >his troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. >>>> >>>> The UK and US were spending tons of money to keep him in his cage. >>> >>>Your assertion only. >> >> You are hopeless. It is a fact. > >Much like the "fact" that you asserted that Massachusetts has repeatedly had >blackouts since the 80s because of network overload? Bullshit--I lived in >Massachusetts for a significant period of time since 1980, during some >wicked-hot summers, and there was never once a blackout, or even rolling >brownouts, while I was there. Not even close. I see you didn't read what I wrote once again. Residental didn't do the powering down. That would be impossible to manage without a shutdown. Commercial and manufacturing did power down. It was a volunteer effort to avoid unplanned black and brownouts. All summer long there are public announcements to not run appliances during certain hours. There is a reduced delivery of power that still allows things to work but my fans run slower. Every once in a while we get announcements about power usage during the winter, usually around storms. IF everybody converted to electric heating, we'ld see a worse power problem than we see in the summer. Now, what part of that word IF will you not understand this time? <snip more embarrassement to yourself> /BAH |