"Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises" by Warren D Smith

Warren D Smith wrote:Here is a paper.

Warren D Smith wrote:If you have comments/questions about it, email to warren.wds AT gmail.com.

Warren D Smith wrote:One of my problems was: I was unable to use any climate-model program

Warren D Smith wrote:ABSTRACT: We examine the following as a sustainable world-energy Plan. Distribute floating wind turbines mainly within the "roaring forties" and "furious fifties" regions of the southern oceans. Anchor them by cables to the sea floor.

Warren D Smith wrote:Running along that floor is a hydrogen pipeline.

Warren D Smith wrote:The turbines generate electricity which is transmitted down to the sea floor by cable.

Warren D Smith wrote:There it electrolyses water to input H2
into the pipeline. The pipeline outputs are on (or near) land
somewhere.

Warren D Smith wrote:Turbine maintenance is mostly by robot.

Warren D Smith wrote:We find it appears entirely technically and economically feasible to satisfy approximately all (or at least a large fraction of) year-2020 human energy demands in this way,

Warren D Smith wrote: Indeed, we'll show this energy actually will be cheaper than current prices and also cheaper (sometimes greatly) than schemes based on water-currents, other-located wind turbines, or solar power – albeit the prices of the lattermost have been rapidly changing.

Warren D Smith wrote:However, this project, as well as any attempt to generate a large fraction of human energy from winds, will cause noticeable alterations in weather and climate.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Here is a paper.
If you have comments/questions about it, email to warren.wds AT gmail.com.

One of my problems was: I was unable to use any climate-model program
and unable to get any help from anybody in the computer climate modeling community. As I explained in paper, a 1-line
change to such a code would answer important questions.
So if anybody can help, I'd like to know.

Warren D Smith wrote:
==========

URL: http://vixra.org/abs/2110.0016
Title: Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises
Author: Warren D. Smith

Warren D Smith wrote:
ABSTRACT:
We examine the following as a sustainable world-energy Plan.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Distribute floating wind turbines mainly within the "roaring forties"
and "furious fifties" regions of the southern oceans. Anchor them by
cables to the sea floor.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Running along that floor is a hydrogen
pipeline.

Warren D Smith wrote:
The turbines generate electricity which is transmitted down
to the sea floor by cable.

Warren D Smith wrote:
There it electrolyses water to input H2
into the pipeline. The pipeline outputs are on (or near) land
somewhere.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Turbine maintenance is mostly by robot.

Warren D Smith wrote:
We find it appears
entirely technically and economically feasible to satisfy
approximately all (or at least a large fraction of) year-2020 human
energy demands in this way,

Warren D Smith wrote:
but show with a new analysis of
wind-energy limitations that much more is impossible. Indeed, we'll
show this energy actually will be cheaper than current prices and also
cheaper (sometimes greatly) than schemes based on water-currents,
other-located wind turbines, or solar power – albeit the prices of the
lattermost have been rapidly changing.

Warren D Smith wrote:
However, this project, as well
as any attempt to generate a large fraction of human energy from
winds, will cause noticeable alterations in weather and climate.

Warren D Smith wrote:
I provide initial guesses about what those alterations will be

Warren D Smith wrote:
and discussion of how to modify "global climate model" codes to investigate that.

Warren D Smith wrote:
(Basically this would be a 1-line code change, but
we demonstrate that many climate modeling codes are incredibly screwed
up and lied about.)

Warren D Smith wrote:
We conclude with some deprecation of the "hydrogen economy" and instead suggest the "aluminum economy."

Warren D Smith wrote:
To reply to "Into the night":
You are more or less correct about your fears re electrical cable strength.
A length=L wire suspended in Earth gravity g in vacuum, will break (at the top),
if L>(TensileStrength)/(g*Density).
Copper: Density=9.0gram/cc; TensileStrength>=221 MPa, L=2.5km.
Aluminum: Density=2.81gram/cc; TensileStrength=276 MPa, L=10.0km.
Steel (commercial piano wire, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_wire)
density=7.8gram/cc, TensileStrength=2620 to 2930 MPa; L>=34.3km.
LDPE (plastic): density=0.87 to 0.96 gram/cc, TensileYieldStrength=7 to 42 MPa;
L=0.74 to 4.9km.
So evidently a cable made of a COMBINATION of steel, aluminum, and plastic insulator
would work. The plan was to (a) anchor the floating turbines to sea floor with 1 or more cables
(presumably strong ones) and (b) connect it electrically to electrolyzers at sea floor H-pipeline, via presumably good conductors. Nothing stops us from doing both a and b at same time by using a cable constructed out of both something strong and something else that is a good conductor. Indeed, utility companies today tend to use a combination of steel for strength and aluminum or copper for conductivity for long suspended cables on land.

And actually even pure aluminum would work (L>=15.5km) if we also take into account the 1.03 gram/cc buoyancy provided by sea water instead of assuming suspended in vacuum. (Polyethylene actually floats, so bouyancy can be rather significant.)
I remind you that the paper says "the depths are between 2 and 8 km
in the seas we shall be concerned with."

Warren D Smith wrote:
Another point raised by "Night" that seems worrying was "Ever hear of anchor drag? Won't work." Well, unlike ships that sometimes have experienced anchor drag, in the present application we intend for the anchor to be installed permanently and do not intend for it to be trivially removable any time the ship decides it wants to leave. Given that different goal, different anchor design is appropriate and the problem becomes much easier..

Warren D Smith wrote:
The hydrogen pipeline contains internal pressure which during operation will be about equal to sea pressure at the deepest depths considered.

Warren D Smith wrote:
So it certainly will not be crushed.

Warren D Smith wrote:
(A more realistic fear would be the opposite -- it would explode.).

Warren D Smith wrote:
Before operation it could be installed filled with water in which case again no crush forces whatsoever..

Warren D Smith wrote:
Undersea gas pipelines are used today at a depth of 3.2 km ( https://www.offshore-technology.com/features/featureinstalling-the-worlds-deepest-fpso-and-gas-pipeline-4275698/ ).
Have you seen the pumps used on these?
[quote]Warren D Smith wrote:
Finally, I am not interested in people who have never written, modified, compiled, or used a climate model in their lives, telling me from their armchairs not to use them.

Warren D Smith wrote:
I instead am interested in somebody who actually knows what they are doing, providing help using them, or even better running it themselves -- since the hardware I have access to is probably inadequate.

Warren D Smith wrote:
"Night": Adding insulation to the lines only makes them heavier despite any buoyancy.

--incorrect. Insulation if made of LDPE (I gave the numbers) will actually make the lines effectively lighter underwater.

Warren D Smith wrote:
"Night": Electric companies do not use steel. They use bare aluminum wire for overhead trunk lines suspended on tall towers, and bare aluminum on all feeders. There is no steel other than a supporting tower or pole... You apparently are clueless how the electrical system works.

--reply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-conductor_steel-reinforced_cable

Warren D Smith wrote:
"Night": Hydrogen at that depth is only 55psi.

--No: hydrogen can be any pressure. In our case it is generated by electrolysis of water and therefore has pressure at least equal to the water's simply in order to be able to come out
of the water at all.

Warren D Smith wrote:
So our hydrogen has pressure slightly exceeding
sea pressure at the deepest depth it is generated at.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Therefore the force on the pipeline walls
will be OUTWARD and the risk will not be of crushing, but rather explosion.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Also for the same reason the water in the pipeline will be expelled by the hydrogen (if we begin with pipe being water-filled). No pumping per se is needed because the pressure gradient is large enough to power the flow (as I'd discussed in the paper). Various other things commenters erroneously claimed paper had never considered, also were analysed in the paper.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Perhaps it will help your comprehension if you consider some actually-operating commercial pipelines. The Nordstream pipeline carries Russian natural gas under the Baltic sea to Europe.

Warren D Smith wrote:Finally, I am not interested in people who have never written, modified, compiled, or used a climate model in their lives,

Warren D Smith wrote: I instead am interested in somebody who actually knows what they are doing,

IBdaMann wrote:

Warren D Smith wrote:Finally, I am not interested in people who have never written, modified, compiled, or used a climate model in their lives,

You are a moron who does not even know the difference between a model and a computer program that implements the model. Why does someone such as yourself who knows nothing about software engineering or mathematical models pretend to somehow be authoritative in these areas?

I'll write it again, nobody has ever modeled the global climate because the global climate has never been formally defined, owing mostly to the fact that "global climate" is a contradiction in and of itself. As such, there isn't anyone who has ever written, modified compiled or used a climate model in his or her life. This means that you have never written, modified, compiled or used a climate model in your life.

Are you familiar with the term "STFU"?

Learn what a model is. Learn what a computer program is. Thereafter, when you refer to models, don't speak in terms of computer programs. One does not compile a model. One constructs a model and one compiles code. If one modifies a model then one must modify the program that implements the model; however, one may modify a computer program without modifying the underlying model being implemented.

Look, I realize that software engineering and mathematics are very technical subjects and you shouldn't be afraid to come to me with your questions, and you really should consider running your posts by me before you post them so you can avoid writing really stupid things.

Warren D Smith wrote: I instead am interested in somebody who actually knows what they are doing,

You must be a millennial. The word "somebody" is singular whereas the word "they" is a plural. You can write either "I am interested in somebody who actually knows what he is doing" or "I am interested in people who know what they are doing" but you cannot mix singulars and plurals and expect to maintain parallel structure.

Anyway, your grammar is as poor as your aptitude in math and software engineering.

I recommend you start by formulating a coherent thesis statement and then working from there.

Into the Night wrote:I am unaware what programming language he is constructing his program in to 'model climate'.

Into the Night wrote:I am assuming at this point the code is probably in C/C++,

Into the Night wrote:Of course, you are quite correct. Since 'climate' is a subjective word, no one has been able to define 'climate' in any sort of value form, making 'climate models' an exercise in futile semantics and nothing more than random number generators of type randU.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Replying again to "Night":
Conceming the electrical cables to the seafloor, here is one possible toy design.
Make the cable consist of 2 aluminum conductors each with diameter=1, both enclosed in a common polyethylene insulator with outer diameter=4.45, and assume density(aluminum)=2.81, density(polyethylene)=0.83, density(seawater)=1.03.
(This design resembles long distance underwater power cables that are being used commercially today.). Anyhow, I have cleverly chosen these numbers so that this cable has NEUTRAL buoyancy, i.e. effectively zero weight (will neither sink nor rise).
This example should hopefully make it clear that cables unable to support their weight, simply is
not an insuperable problem.

Warren D Smith wrote:
WDS: So our hydrogen has pressure slightly exceeding
sea pressure at the deepest depth it is generated at.
"Night": No, dude. You have to compress the hydrogen to do that. That means another pump.

--reply: Sorry Night, incorrect. The electrolyser IS the compressor+pump. It generates H2 at a high pressure. Specifically it always generates it at least at a slightly higher pressure than the water. That pressure does the pumping. It in fact requires a bit more electrical energy to electrolyse water at a higher pressure, for exactly this reason (as is well known).

Warren D Smith wrote:
And notice in the description of the Nordstream pipeline I gave, they run it at a higher internal gas pressure than any seawater pressure at any point in the Baltic (even the deepest part of the Baltic). Been using NordStrem for 10 years now. Thus, as I've been saying, the risk they face is not crushing, but rather pipeline burst.

Warren D Smith wrote:
In the case of Norstream, they attain this internal pressure with the aid of pumps.
In my case, I attain it by simply generating the H2 in the first place at high pressure.
My method is better since I avoid the need for pumps.

Warren D Smith wrote:
"NIght":
1. The sea floor is considerably deeper than the Baltic sea.
2. You still have not dealt with anchor drag. Anchor drag. Anchor drag. Anchor drag.
3. You still have not dealt with tensile strength of wire.
4. You still have not dealt with losing power due to heating.
5. You still have not dealt with 25000psi.
6. You still have not dealt with the requirements of clearing the pipe.
7. You still have not dealt with the inevitable leaks in such a pipe.
8. You still have not justified computer 'climate models'.
9. Just how many of these machines are you proposing across, say the Atlantic ocean? How much power do you see an individual machine producing at the turbine?
10. What kind of navigational hazard are you talking about here?

--replies.
1. Oddly enough, I knew that already. You are not raising some objection here that I was unaware of and had not already dealt with.

Warren D Smith wrote:
2. As I pointed out on page 1 of my paper, the "Hywind Scotland Array" of floating wind turbines anchored to the sea floor by cable, has already been operating for 4 years 18 miles NW of Peterhead Scotland after a test in 220m deep water off Norway. This operational period included during a hurricane. Its turbines have hub height 101m. Evidently it did not drag its anchors.

Warren D Smith wrote:
3. Dealt with.
[quote]Warren D Smith wrote:
4, 9, and 10. The problem revealed by this is that "Night" apparently did not read the paper.

Warren D Smith wrote:
5. 25000 psi would be the pressure at a depth of 17 km.
But no point in the oceans is even 11 km deep.

Warren D Smith wrote:
6. Dealt with.

Warren D Smith wrote:
7. My paper involves many parallel pipes, so if one fails the others can remain in use while they try to fix it. That also is probably same reason why Nordstream is 2 pipes, not 1 wider pipe. As far as I know, Nordstream never leaked during the 10 years operation so far (if anybody has counterexamples, please inform me). But I guess I agree it would be better to plan for how to solve such problems ahead of time. Ideas? I guess the crudest possible idea would just be to replace some entire pipeline segment for segments that go bad. (Design to allow that, say
every 10 miles there is a gizmo to allow switching out that 10-mile segment, and shut offs so that the most that can leak out is 10 miles worth of gas.)

Warren D Smith wrote:
At the rate NordStream is failing (i.e. zero fails in 10 years) even that crudest possible answer is entirely adequate and will not hurt my paper's budget.

Warren D Smith wrote:
8. Well, let's just say that the paper discusses that all quite a bit.
The critic/commenters have not yet reached even 5% of the level of that discussion, while meanwhile 2 climate modelers just won Nobel for the consensus high success of their 50+ year old models, so the onus certainly is not on me.

IBdaMann wrote:

[animated GIF omitted for Harvey's sake]

Into the Night wrote:I am unaware what programming language he is constructing his program in to 'model climate'.

Regardless, if it is a programming language then it is "code" that is either compiled or interpreted, and is not the model itself. The model is constructed first as an ontology of some sort which is then implemented in a computer program. The order of operations cannot be reversed, i.e. you cannot first start writing the program to implement the model that is yet to be constructed.

Only someone totally incompetent in writing software would confuse the model to be implemented by the code with the code that implements the model.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I am assuming at this point the code is probably in C/C++,

Sure, it's possible that he is imagining a computer program written in C or C++ but he is not talking about any sort of "global climate" model because no such thing exists. He is babbling nonsense. He should consult with an actual software engineer before he starts yapping about software and he should consult with a mathematician before he starts yapping about models ... and he should have his mother check his grammar before he posts.

IBdaMann wrote:
By the way ... you date yourself with your notion that the program is written in C/C++ ... instead of FORTRAN (which would have made you older) or Python (which would make you younger) or Perl or Java (which would put you in the middle there somewhere).

IBdaMann wrote:
In short, he is only posting here in an attempt to fool as many people as he can into believing he is a thmart perth'n who should be held in awe. The people who post on this board aren't supposed to realize that he doesn't have a clue about what he's supposedly discussing because that would spoil the charade.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Of course, you are quite correct. Since 'climate' is a subjective word, no one has been able to define 'climate' in any sort of value form, making 'climate models' an exercise in futile semantics and nothing more than random number generators of type randU.

You might have picked up on his apparent need to virtue signal. Now we all know that he is resolved to rolling up his sleeves and taking "Climate" very seriously.

What I noticed is that he is just another "too stupid to learn" climate-lemming. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for him to say something honest or insightful.

IBdaMann wrote:

[animated GIF omitted for Harvey's sake]

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'll admit to not actually reading all 27 pages, and only skimming through. Mostly looking for a Bill of Materials, construction estimates, which aren't included. Most of what I read was opinion, with other similar papers cited. The price is probably too great, and would scare people away from reading further.

Warren D Smith wrote:
HarveyH55:I'll admit to not actually reading all 27 pages, and only skimming through. Mostly looking for a Bill of Materials, construction estimates, which aren't included. Most of what I read was opinion, with other similar papers cited. The price is probably too great, and would scare people away

--reply: construction and cost estimates and materials estimates all were included in the paper.
And it was indeed found the cost of energy produced this way would be smaller than the prices we currently pay.

Obviously, if you don't want to read it, that is fine. But I object to people telling me "the paper does not contain XX" and "the paper never considered XX' when it in fact does/did.

The commenters so far have criticized it aggressively. That is fine with me.
But more thought and analysis from them would, ultimately, be more effective.
For example, no critic so far has ever offered a single formula for anything -- suggesting
it has all been direct from the gut, bypassing, or at least not heavily involving, the brain.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Here is a paper.
If you have comments/questions about it, email to warren.wds AT gmail.com.

One of my problems was: I was unable to use any climate-model program
and unable to get any help from anybody in the computer climate modeling community. As I explained in paper, a 1-line
change to such a code would answer important questions.
So if anybody can help, I'd like to know.

==========

URL: http://vixra.org/abs/2110.0016
Title: Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises
Author: Warren D. Smith

ABSTRACT:
We examine the following as a sustainable world-energy Plan.
Distribute floating wind turbines mainly within the "roaring forties"
and "furious fifties" regions of the southern oceans. Anchor them by
cables to the sea floor. Running along that floor is a hydrogen
pipeline. The turbines generate electricity which is transmitted down
to the sea floor by cable. There it electrolyses water to input H2
into the pipeline. The pipeline outputs are on (or near) land
somewhere. Turbine maintenance is mostly by robot. We find it appears
entirely technically and economically feasible to satisfy
approximately all (or at least a large fraction of) year-2020 human
energy demands in this way, but show with a new analysis of
wind-energy limitations that much more is impossible. Indeed, we'll
show this energy actually will be cheaper than current prices and also
cheaper (sometimes greatly) than schemes based on water-currents,
other-located wind turbines, or solar power – albeit the prices of the
lattermost have been rapidly changing. However, this project, as well
as any attempt to generate a large fraction of human energy from
winds, will cause noticeable alterations in weather and climate. I
provide initial guesses about what those alterations will be and
discussion of how to modify "global climate model" codes to
investigate that. (Basically this would be a 1-line code change, but
we demonstrate that many climate modeling codes are incredibly screwed
up and lied about.) We conclude with some deprecation of the "hydrogen
economy" and instead suggest the "aluminum economy."

========= (end)

Warren D Smith wrote:
Here is a paper.
If you have comments/questions about it, email to warren.wds AT gmail.com.

One of my problems was: I was unable to use any climate-model program
and unable to get any help from anybody in the computer climate modeling community. As I explained in paper, a 1-line
change to such a code would answer important questions.
So if anybody can help, I'd like to know.

==========

URL: http://vixra.org/abs/2110.0016
Title: Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises
Author: Warren D. Smith

ABSTRACT:
We examine the following as a sustainable world-energy Plan.
Distribute floating wind turbines mainly within the "roaring forties"
and "furious fifties" regions of the southern oceans. Anchor them by
cables to the sea floor. Running along that floor is a hydrogen
pipeline. The turbines generate electricity which is transmitted down
to the sea floor by cable. There it electrolyses water to input H2
into the pipeline. The pipeline outputs are on (or near) land
somewhere. Turbine maintenance is mostly by robot. We find it appears
entirely technically and economically feasible to satisfy
approximately all (or at least a large fraction of) year-2020 human
energy demands in this way, but show with a new analysis of
wind-energy limitations that much more is impossible. Indeed, we'll
show this energy actually will be cheaper than current prices and also
cheaper (sometimes greatly) than schemes based on water-currents,
other-located wind turbines, or solar power – albeit the prices of the
lattermost have been rapidly changing. However, this project, as well
as any attempt to generate a large fraction of human energy from
winds, will cause noticeable alterations in weather and climate. I
provide initial guesses about what those alterations will be and
discussion of how to modify "global climate model" codes to
investigate that. (Basically this would be a 1-line code change, but
we demonstrate that many climate modeling codes are incredibly screwed
up and lied about.) We conclude with some deprecation of the "hydrogen
economy" and instead suggest the "aluminum economy."

========= (end)

Warren D Smith wrote:
Looks like "Into Night" or "The Parrot Killer" or whatever he is currently calling himself, has now simply resorted to saying "wrong" about 10 times in a row rather than actually finding any error
nor even being able to complete sentences in most cases. This has in most cases made it infeasible to respond to him/her/it. However, in a few cases I can:

>>Warren D Smith wrote:
>>5. 25000 psi would be the pressure at a depth of 17 km.
>>But no point in the oceans is even 11 km deep.
"Night": Nope. Math error. Try again. Apparently you are unaware how to calculate hydrostatic pressures.

--reply. Not only do I know, and you do not, how to calculate hydrostatic pressures, but actually we can avoid the need to CALCULATE since the pressure and depth at the deepest point in the ocean (Marianas Trench) has actually been directly MEASURED when, e.g, people actually went there: 16000 psi.

Re "clearing the pipe" a possible simple scheme is as follows:
Consider some horizontal segment of the pipe. Initially water-filled. Generate H2 gas while open valves on holes on pipe bottom. Gas fills upper part of pipe, water leaves bottom thru holes. Then close valves. There also are other schemes. Not a problem.

"Night": The Nobel prize is not a proof.
--reply. Well, as I said, there is no need for ME to prove climate models. Others already did, then
awarded Nobel. Normally, when considering battles between some internet troll afraid even to reveal their name on the one hand -- who repeatedly cannot even get simple arithmetic right -- versus Nobel prize winners and the entire scientific community, I do not consider it my responsiblity to "prove" the Nobel prize stuff versus the troll. I consider it the troll's responsibility to ever produce any evidence toward a disproof. But so far: zero.
You may not like that truth, but I am sorry to say, that is the situation. You need to,
but perhaps cannot, recognize that.







I suggest that "Night" also shut up about "partial pressures." Just take the attitude you do not understand pressures. Since you do not.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Also: "Into The Night" says Hywind Scotland's floating wind turbine collection is
"not only dragging its anchors, the chain it's using is undergoing severe corrosion."

Can anybody provide any evidence for or against either of those claims? "Night" provided none, but presumably if either claim is correct, then evidence exists to back it up. I will say this, though: if it dragged, then in the 4 years it has been there, it did not move far. Also the first floating wind turbine started running in 2009, so, there has been a fair amount of experience with these things not dragging, or at least clearly never being dragged far even after 12 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor
discusses seafloor anchors both temporary and in section 4 permanent.
The latter have been successfully used for at least 200 years. There are a wide range supplied commercially with various holding forces claimed by their manufacturers on different types of sea floors, etc. For example this "stevpris MK5" general purpose permanent-mooring-anchor product introduced in 1993
http://vryhof.com/products/anchors/stevpris-mk5/
claims to provide at least 50 times its own weight in holding force on any seafloor type
and that there are still 2200 still in use 29 years later. "Its own weight" is available up to 50 tonnes. Their graphical brochure
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/3274142/STEVSHARK/Vryhof_Anhor_History.pdf
discusses a wide range of products -- if you know your seafloor type you can pick one designed for that type. This writeup discusses the use of their products with floating wind turbines:
http://vryhof.com/cases/video-installing-north-seas-first-semi-submersible-floating-wind-turbine/

So all in all, looks like a problem that has already been solved.

Into the Night wrote:Heh. FORTRAN, while still used on rare occasions, has mostly been replaced by C/C++. Most anyone writing in a compiler language these days is using C/C++ (with some assembly for turnkey, driver, or highly optimized code use).

Into the Night wrote:I have used FORTRAN, Pascal, ALGOL, RPG, PL/1, and even COBOL (I rarely admit using COBOL) in my travels.

Into the Night wrote:Today, Java is the modern COBOL. It is just as bulky, and just as a mess to code in. It has also become a proprietary language.

Into the Night wrote:The oldest language in common use today is Lisp.

Into the Night wrote:My advice (it's free!) is to limit the use of GIFs as signets, and concentrate on creating better memes. I wouldn't use one as a signet, especially a large one.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Dear "James blank": do you actually have any evidence the other posters came from mental institutions?

Also, it'd kind of be nice if anybody reading/commenting on my paper here, actually had a real name. Not "parrot killer," but an actual name and possibly even professional/educational qualifications. I mean, this place bills itself as foremost climate www-forum in world, but the only posters I have encountered are trolls with fake names. I was hoping for something just a teeny bit better. Am I using it wrong?

duncan61 wrote:Can I suggest you do not focus on ITN and IBDM and possibly explain why you wish to generate power by wind then convert it to hydrogen at sea.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Looks like "Into Night" or "The Parrot Killer" or whatever he is currently calling himself, has now simply resorted to saying "wrong" about 10 times in a row rather than actually finding any error

Warren D Smith wrote:
nor even being able to complete sentences in most cases. This has in most cases made it infeasible to respond to him/her/it. However, in a few cases I can:

Warren D Smith wrote:
>>Warren D Smith wrote:
>>5. 25000 psi would be the pressure at a depth of 17 km.
>>But no point in the oceans is even 11 km deep.
"Night": Nope. Math error. Try again. Apparently you are unaware how to calculate hydrostatic pressures.

--reply. Not only do I know, and you do not, how to calculate hydrostatic pressures, but actually we can avoid the need to CALCULATE since the pressure and depth at the deepest point in the ocean (Marianas Trench) has actually been directly MEASURED when, e.g, people actually went there: 16000 psi.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Re "clearing the pipe" a possible simple scheme is as follows:
Consider some horizontal segment of the pipe. Initially water-filled. Generate H2 gas while open valves on holes on pipe bottom. Gas fills upper part of pipe, water leaves bottom thru holes. Then close valves. There also are other schemes. Not a problem.

Warren D Smith wrote:
"Night": The Nobel prize is not a proof.
--reply. Well, as I said, there is no need for ME to prove climate models.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Others already did, then awarded Nobel.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Normally, when considering battles between some internet troll afraid even to reveal their name on the one hand --

Warren D Smith wrote:
who repeatedly cannot even get simple arithmetic right --

Warren D Smith wrote:
versus Nobel prize winners

Warren D Smith wrote:
and the entire scientific community,

Warren D Smith wrote:
I do not consider it my responsiblity to "prove" the Nobel prize stuff versus the troll.

Warren D Smith wrote:
I consider it the troll's responsibility to ever produce any evidence toward a disproof.

Warren D Smith wrote:
But so far: zero.

Warren D Smith wrote:
You may not like that truth, but I am sorry to say, that is the situation. You need to,
but perhaps cannot, recognize that.

Warren D Smith wrote:
I suggest that "Night" also shut up about "partial pressures." Just take the attitude you do not understand pressures. Since you do not.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Also: "Into The Night" says Hywind Scotland's floating wind turbine collection is
"not only dragging its anchors, the chain it's using is undergoing severe corrosion."

Can anybody provide any evidence for or against either of those claims?

Warren D Smith wrote:
"Night" provided none, but presumably if either claim is correct, then evidence exists to back it up.

Warren D Smith wrote:
I will say this, though: if it dragged, then in the 4 years it has been there, it did not move far.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Also the first floating wind turbine started running in 2009, so, there has been a fair amount of experience with these things not dragging, or at least clearly never being dragged far even after 12 years.

Warren D Smith wrote:
...deleted Holy Link and Quote...

Warren D Smith wrote:
There are a wide range supplied commercially with various holding forces claimed by their manufacturers on different types of sea floors, etc. For example this "stevpris MK5" general purpose permanent-mooring-anchor product introduced in 1993
http://vryhof.com/products/anchors/stevpris-mk5/
claims to provide at least 50 times its own weight in holding force on any seafloor type
and that there are still 2200 still in use 29 years later. "Its own weight" is available up to 50 tonnes. Their graphical brochure
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/3274142/STEVSHARK/Vryhof_Anhor_History.pdf
discusses a wide range of products -- if you know your seafloor type you can pick one designed for that type. This writeup discusses the use of their products with floating wind turbines:
http://vryhof.com/cases/video-installing-north-seas-first-semi-submersible-floating-wind-turbine/
So all in all, looks like a problem that has already been solved.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Dear "James blank": do you actually have any evidence the other posters came from mental institutions?

Also, it'd kind of be nice if anybody reading/commenting on my paper here, actually had a real name. Not "parrot killer," but an actual name and possibly even professional/educational qualifications. I mean, this place bills itself as foremost climate www-forum in world, but the only posters I have encountered are trolls with fake names. I was hoping for something just a teeny bit better. Am I using it wrong?

Into the Night wrote:

Warren D Smith wrote:
Dear "James blank": do you actually have any evidence the other posters came from mental institutions?

Also, it'd kind of be nice if anybody reading/commenting on my paper here, actually had a real name. Not "parrot killer," but an actual name and possibly even professional/educational qualifications. I mean, this place bills itself as foremost climate www-forum in world, but the only posters I have encountered are trolls with fake names. I was hoping for something just a teeny bit better. Am I using it wrong?

Attempt to solicit personal information. This will get you banned on most forums, as it's against the law in some jurisdictions. Watch it.

If you want to trade personal information, use private messaging.

Credentials mean nothing on blind forums. You have already denied the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have already denied mathematics by way of multiple base rate errors. You are continually turning to buzzwords and void arguments, and attempting circular argument fallacies, which is the same as fundamentalism.

You also deny science, since you are already equating it to prizes, consensus, and attempting to speak for others. Science is not a community, a prize, any scientist or any group of scientists. It is not a government institution, university, research, study, license, degree, certification, or any other sanctification. Science isn't even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

I don't believe your claimed credentials. Denying math, engineering, and science as you are doing tells me you're simply a strong believer in the Church of Global Warming, a fundamentalist style religion.

Warren D Smith wrote:Also, it'd kind of be nice if anybody reading/commenting on my paper here, actually had a real name.

Warren D Smith wrote: Am I using it wrong?

IBdaMann wrote:

[Harvey-friendly non-animation]

Into the Night wrote:Heh. FORTRAN, while still used on rare occasions, has mostly been replaced by C/C++. Most anyone writing in a compiler language these days is using C/C++ (with some assembly for turnkey, driver, or highly optimized code use).

There is a lot of C++ out there because it is pretty dug-in, but the tide is moving towards a Java/Javascript/Python takeover, mostly due to the countlessly proliferating embedded applications and the development tools available for them such as NetBeans, MATLAB, Maven, JUnit, etc... Don't forget Java's virtual machine locking down Java as a platform-independent standard. Java can only grow in ubiquity. Python is this generation's C++; it's what all the millennial engineers are learning and what they use whenever they need to whip up an application.

IBdaMann wrote:
I don't see C++ going away anytime soon, but I do see it slowly being overtaken and replaced.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have used FORTRAN, Pascal, ALGOL, RPG, PL/1, and even COBOL (I rarely admit using COBOL) in my travels.

I learned a lot of math on FORTRAN, i.e. analysis of algorithms, numerical analysis, etc ... I learned programming, data structures and software design using Pascal. Much of the rest used 8088 assembly. Wow.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Today, Java is the modern COBOL. It is just as bulky, and just as a mess to code in. It has also become a proprietary language.

You are confusing Java with something else. Java is much better than C++, it is definitely not "bulky" and is a platform-independent open-source standard "OpenJDK." Try taking another look at it. Maybe you are thinking of Ada or something similar.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The oldest language in common use today is Lisp.

Funny story: LISP is based on symbolic expressions. The professor from whom I learned LISP wanted everyone to remember the rules so his term for a symbolic expression was "SEX." e.g. "SEX is arbitrarily determined and will be as long as you want", "All of LISP revolves around SEX", "Every parenthesis must have its mate for the SEX to be done correctly", etc...

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:My advice (it's free!) is to limit the use of GIFs as signets, and concentrate on creating better memes. I wouldn't use one as a signet, especially a large one.

The glaring problem with the animations is obviously the size, but I swear that they looked so much smaller when I made them.

IBdaMann wrote:
Static JPEGs are compressed and don't take up much memory.

IBdaMann wrote:
Animations, however, are many frames deep and that turns them from a puddle into Loch Ness. The main issue is that I made each animation for the purpose of learning something specific, or better worded, because I had a realization "I bet that would totally work!" So the learning was the priority.

IBdaMann wrote:
Once I made them, by God I was going to use them. After all, animations take a lot of work if they are made by hand. The internet is full of animations that are computer-generated but mine are all made by me ... so I'm going to get my effort's worth.

IBdaMann wrote:
Nonetheless, fear not. For a while now I have been mulling over design ideas for a really small yet totally awesome animation. I'm somewhat busy at the moment but I'll be getting to it soon. I had been putting it off but Harvey's reminder that he uses dial-up has prompted me to apply greater urgency.

IBdaMann wrote:
I know, I should make my new animation coincide with my 10,000th post. Fair enough. I'll get on it.

[Harvey-friendly non-animation]