Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 23:02 On Nov 29, 7:58 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:44:05 -0600, John Fields > > > > > > <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:44:43 -0800, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>>> It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful > >>>> about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that > >>>> a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg. > > >>>That seems to reflect a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model. I'm working > >>>on it. > > >>But you used mosfets. > > >--- > >Priceless!!! > > >JF > > Sloman is clearly confused. I was of the impression that he was a > sour, mean-spirited old git, but it's likely that he is actually > delusional. As such, it's neither kind nor productive to argue with > him. > > I can't imagine him finding "a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model", > much less using that to explain why a simulated mosfet Royer > oscillator doesn't squegg. So something is very weird here. The weaknesses of the Gummel-Poon model are well known - thats why the VBIC model was developed. My current suspicion is that failure of the Gummel-Poon model to replicate the avalanch break-down of the reversed biased base-emitter junction may have something to do with it. It isn't a Royer oscillator, but a Baxandall Class-D oscillator - the Royer inverter produces a square wave, the Baxandall a tolerably good sine wave. And the real circuit that squegged used bipolar transistors. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 23:18 On Nov 25, 5:38 am, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Did you see where that British climatologist > challenged Al Gore to debate global warming? > > Al hasn't taken him up on it yet. Presumably you mean Viscount Christoher Monckton, despite the fact that he isn't a climatologist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley He does fancy himself as a climatologist, but he isn't all tha convincing in the role http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html He's actually an enthusiastic self-publicist, which probably explains why he made the challenge. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 30 Nov 2009 00:01 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:53:53 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 29, 5:44�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful >> >> about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that >> >> a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg. >> >> >That seems to reflect a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model. I'm working >> >on it. >> >> But you used mosfets. > >The circuit that squegged in real life used bipolar transistors. Exactly. The RC base bias network was a key part of the squegging loop. > >The LTSpice model with MOSFETs didn't squeq either, but I'll get >worried about that when I've got around to building an real example. >It's taking longer than it should. Hint: Fets don't have base current. John
From: Don Klipstein on 30 Nov 2009 01:50 In <4f60819e-9ee3-4ec2-8e4e-2068d5c3af35(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Bill Sloman wrote: >On Nov 29, 5:08�am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:00:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> <79cb352b-afb2-456a-bf0d-3c38393e5...(a)b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> Windmills are an unreliable energy source, no wind for some time and no >> >> energy AT ALL. >> >> >Any single windmill is unrliable in this sense. Build enough of them >> >over a sufficiently large geographical area and hook them up to grid, >> >and the statistics are a lot more attractive. >> >> >> You need an energy storage system, several experiments are being done, >> >> but an energy storage system that can bridge weeks for example, is not >> >> currently possible. in an economic way. >> >> >Weeks? >> >> Yes weeks. > >This isn't an answer. > >If a country was to rely on windmills alone for its energy, you might >need several days worth of storage to keep the country running. A >period of tatl calm extending over an enture country - even one as >small as the Netherlands - is remarkably improbable. I would give consideration to how Philadelphia, PA, USA and a notable small city close to the center of the USA "state" of PA fare in wintertime, at latitudes of merely 40-41 degrees north. I find it merely roughly once-per-decade-or-two bad for Philadelphia to encounter a January having 18-20 days of a cloudy stretch letting in a mere 8 hours or so of sunlight during such a stretch. This is at 40 degrees N latitude. The small city of "State College" PA USA at about 41 degrees north latitude is much cloudier still in winter, although mostly due to a regional "lake effect". Seattle WA USA is much worse still, with maybe a majority of winters having their cloudiest 30-day periods having something like merely 12-15 hours of sunlight in a 30-day period. That is at about 48 degrees N latitude. Worst winter in an average decade for "least sunny 30 day stretch" may have a mere 5-6 hours of "good sunlight". >It's also irrelevant to any discussion of the way we'd get our energy >if we were to stop burning fossil carbon, because we wouldn't rely on >windmills alone, but on a mix of windpower, solar power, >hydrolelectric power and probably the osmotic pressure generator that >are now showing up as prototypes, as well as the occasional nuclear >power station and probably a few residual fossil-carbon-fueled power >stations that sequestered their CO2 output into under-ground or >undersea storage Do I sense a bias against nuclear power? Should I mention (again) how I know how the obstacles to long term waste disposal are political and not technical? >Our current grid could survive without storage with up to 20% of our >power coming from windmills. It appears to me that such is an awfully grand scheme, considering NIMBY forces opposing windmills even when considering them more favorable than nuclear power plants. I would hope for NIMBY-type forces to be beaten down to extent of windmills being planted everywhere possible within 50 km outside Chicago IL USA ("Windy City") supplying merely 9% of Chicago-metro-area's electricity demand in worst case with storage good for merely 3 days! (I hope you know what American weather does in wacky ways, besides in its wacky ways somewhat typical for latitude being wacky enough to account for the eastern roughly 70% of the "48 state contiguous" accounting for about 45% of tornadoes and about 75-80% of tornado damage worldwide!) <I snip from here, including mention of where windmills do better or are likely expected to do better on some islands> - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Jan Panteltje on 30 Nov 2009 06:28
On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:40:50 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <94c41e51-38cf-4801-8cb2-a63c18819fee(a)r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>: >> I am so sorry, SO SORRY SOOOOOOOOOO I did not realize that this is your *= >religion*. > >Would you like to identify the particular element of text that brought >on this epiphany? AGW *is* your religion. >and it doesn't seem to contain an reference to moving us all into >unheated grass huts. Did you have some other greenies in mind, or was >that piece of information delivered to you by personal revelation? Did yo uknwo that greenpeace' (greenpiss?) just stated last week that they will more target 'religious fanatic greenpiecers?' You, and your grass shack? |