Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Nov 2009 21:45 On Nov 30, 2:52 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:05:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't > >happening any more. > > --- > > Here; read a little Santayana: > > "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago. I don't think that anybody could be expected to remember it. Jan was encouraging me to understand the Earth's natural cycles, which demands a little more involvement than merely remembering them, and is - in any event - somewhat ironic, since the current understanding of the causes of the ice ages leads directly to the conclusion that there aren't going to be any more "natural" climate cycles to understand, because anthropogenic effects have overwhelmed th natural driving forces. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 30 Nov 2009 22:37 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:11:47 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 30, 6:01�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:53:53 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(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 classic bipolar Baxandall Class-D oscillator doesn't have any >capacitance in the base-drive. The example that squegged (until I >stripped a third of the turns from the inductor) had one film >capacitor in the tank circuit and an electrolytic across the supply >rail - there was no RC bias network. Got a schematic? John
From: Don Klipstein on 30 Nov 2009 22:43 In article <7nja22F3irfpmU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Joerg wrote in part: >Looks like it's going back down: > >http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html It has since been updated a bit, and that downturn is starting to look like a dip rather than a downturn - expected since 2008 was cooled by a major La Nina. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/ - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: JosephKK on 1 Dec 2009 00:40 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:26:00 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:06:24 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- >>Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, John Fields >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> ><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>On Nov 28, 4:44 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>> >On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >>> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>> >> >It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have >>> >>> >> >prevented this. >>> >>> >>> >> >James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a >>> >>> >> >concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who >>> >>> >> >know what they are talking about. >>> >>> >>> >> --- >>> >>> >> Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus. >>> >>> >>> >Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part. >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for >>> >>> the fraud you are. >>> >>> >>There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb >>> >>to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the >>> >>better equipped. >>> >>> >--- >>> >As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues >>> >causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your >>> >lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to >>> >silence your critics. >>> >>> >A cowardly practice, at best, and exactly what one would expect of a >>> >"scientist" who pretends to be clad in shining armor. >>> >>> >This says it best, I think... >>> >>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7cuVh96AI&feature=related >>> >>> >I'm in for a penny and I can afford a pound or two, so let's talk a >>> >little about why you proposed that energy can be extracted from the >>> >magnetic field surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current >>> >by wrapping a solenoid around it. >>> >>> >Can it be done when the axis of the solenoid is congruent with the axis >>> >of the conductor? >>> >>> >The ball's in your court and, unlike you, the better equipped of us know >>> >how to speel and don't write "evidnece" >>> >JF >>> >>> Most fraudulent scientists are smart enough to slink quietly away when >>> their fraud is discovered. Slowman has no such IQ. >> >>Jim Thompson and John Fields both think that I'm a fraud. > >--- >Actually, Bill, we _know_ you're a fraud. > >And we're just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure, so the longer you keep >on posting to USENET and your posts are examined by more and more >critical eyes and minds, the more obvious the fact that you're a fraud >will become. >--- > >>This is - of course - a devastating blow to my self-esteem, since I've always had >>such a high opinion of their judgement, but somehow I guess I'll learn >>to live with this public humiliation. > >--- >You reap what you sow. >--- > >>But I guess I'll stick around until they get around to telling us >>which of my hypothetical frauds they have discovered. >> >>This may take a while. > >--- >Just off the top of my head, the most recent was the power line and >solenoid debacle where you didn't know that you can't extract energy >from an AC power line by wrapping a solenoid around it and then, after >being proven wrong, pretended that you knew it all along. > >Then there was the 24 oscillator fiasco where you only admitted you were >wrong by attributing my success in eliminating lockup to luck. > >And, need I mention the plethora of damnations you've posted against the >humble 555 being the device of choice for a cheap one-shot or astable in >_any_ circuit you've "designed?" > >Yeah, I guess I do. > >More to the point though, why are you on this group in the first place? > >It's not like you're any good at, or enjoy, circuit design. > >If you were we'd have seen a lot more circuit designs from you over the >years but, as it stands, all you're doing is using this group as a >springboard from which you can spew your vitriol and political garbage >over a population which, I'm pretty sure, would rather see you gone if >that's all you have to "offer". > >JF Even with the tiny pittance that i have managed to contribute i vote for bill slowman to go. I think that the total value of his posts here is negative.
From: JosephKK on 1 Dec 2009 00:50
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:09:09 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:59:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>On Nov 28, 4:19 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >On Nov 28, 4:44 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> >On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> >> >It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have >>> >> >> >prevented this. >>> >>> >> >> >James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a >>> >> >> >concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who >>> >> >> >know what they are talking about. >>> >>> >> >> --- >>> >> >> Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus. >>> >>> >> >Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part. >>> >>> >> --- >>> >> I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for >>> >> the fraud you are. >>> >>> >There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb >>> >to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the >>> >better equipped. >>> >>> --- >>> As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues >>> causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your >>> lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to >>> silence your critics. >> >>John Fields has learned the word 'amicable". It is sad that he shows >>no evidence of knowing what it means. > >--- >Really? > >I get along quite well with almost everybody here, while you, with your >neverending pomposity and penchant for using deception to foment discord >seem to have trouble getting along with _anybody_. >--- > >><snipped the usual rubbish> > >--- >Of course... > >Pretend what you can't counter is worthless. > > >JF And believe it or not i like and respect John Fields, Jim Thompson, Michael Terrell, Vladimir Vassilevsk, Jeorg, Jan P., Don K., James Arthur, Spehro, Martin Brown, Nico Cosel, Phil Hobbs, Frank Buss, Dimiter Popov, and many more. |