Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

The Truth About Solar Storms

American Patent Guy Re:The failure mode is transformer core saturation (90 comments)

Well, I guess I learn something new every day. Siemens sells them to power companies: they look like they'd mount on a semi with a flatbed. The installations look like banks of those mounted on a metal framework. It looks like they've installed them into lines at about 20 sites in the world. I have little doubt that would work to stop the DC current from a solar event.

Don't ask me how much an installation costs. (The website didn't have a retail price. :-) )

5 days ago
top

The Truth About Solar Storms

American Patent Guy Re:The failure mode is transformer core saturation (90 comments)

Thank you. And now I think we agree that under your worst scenario:

1. A few transformers (but probably only one) will be fried if the effects of a solar flare aren't noticed. (Which is unlikely because the sun is being constantly monitored for flare activity.) 2. The safety features in the rest of the grid will automatically shut transmission down if/when an affected transformer fails. (A cascading failure is fine if all you care about is protecting the grid infrastructure.) 3. The voltages induced by the flare (being much lower than the ordinary AC voltages across the transmission lines) won't arc across the open safety switches and/or breakers that have tripped. 4. The entire grid will remain substantially as it was before, but perhaps down for a few hours for most people who are dependent upon the few blown transformers. 5. Civilization will not be coming to an end as suggested elsewhere in this thread.

We can argue about how much DC current will be flowing in the event that a transformer fails. But my point is that once it fails, there are safety features in the grid as it is that will protect it.

about a week ago
top

The Truth About Solar Storms

American Patent Guy Re:Another ignorant fearmongering article (90 comments)

In order to do that, the solar flux would have to reverse at the frequencies of the induced AC you theorize. It don't do that, man.

about a week ago
top

The Truth About Solar Storms

American Patent Guy Re:The failure mode is transformer core saturation (90 comments)

I'm not an expert in this field, but I understand that the induced DC from a solar storm isn't as instantaneous as a lightning strike. It takes minutes to develop, which leaves time to disconnect the lines and affected transformers if they are properly monitored. As I understand, the induced DC is something on the order of hundreds of volts, which is much less than the tens of thousands of volts transmitted across ordinary high voltage transmission lines; disconnecting them should not result in arcing problems across the switches. It will result in thousands or millions of people going without power during the storm, but it doesn't have to destroy the electric power infrastructure if it is properly monitored and protected.

Feel free to correct my viewpoint as you may desire.

about a week ago
top

The Truth About Solar Storms

American Patent Guy Re:Another ignorant fearmongering article (90 comments)

If you've got voltages being induced on your primary wiring much higher than the peak-to-peak of the regular supply, I think you've got much bigger things to worry about.

Telegraph wiring of the 1850s was typically connected to a battery; I imagine that the voltages induced in those long wires was overloading those batteries to the point there were fires. The batteries would have been small: big enough to work the mechanism on the other end for the receiver. Today's loading would be the equivalent of thousands of such batteries; with ordinary resistive loads such as light bulbs and the kitchen stove, multiplied by the number of households having something on, the induced voltage seen at your house should be pretty close to zip.

about a week ago
top

The Truth About Solar Storms

American Patent Guy Re:Another ignorant fearmongering article (90 comments)

You mean like at the U.S. / Mexico border? Wow - that could be entertaining to watch. I'll bring the soda if you'll bring the popcorn.

Seriously, though. Chain link fence is steel connected through a coating of zinc and its oxide. I think the resistance in that kind of fence would keep it from having any substantial currents being induced inside. If it were mounted on steel posts, or even wet wood ones, the fence would be grounded out. I'd be more concerned with the cable-TV wires: they're often not grounded very well and are mounted well off the earth. I can see it potentially knocking out the preamp in your TV or your personal network router.

about a week ago
top

The Truth About Solar Storms

American Patent Guy Another ignorant fearmongering article (90 comments)

"And long, electricity-carrying wires spark, start fires and even operate and send signals when there’s no electricity! This even includes, believe it or not, when they aren’t plugged in."

In 1859, the "long, electricity-carrying wires" were telegraph wires, and there was nothing plugged into anyone's wall as suggested by the image in the article. Yes, there were large DC voltages induced in these miles-long wires: that's because they were MILES LONG. The wiring in your house and personal electronics might have a couple of millivolts induced within: something akin to the power induced when you rub your shoes on the carpet and zap them. (There's thousands of volts there: oooooh, I'm scared! NOT!)

If these solar events could induce significant voltages in meter-sized objects, then you'd have a lot to worry about. The human body is very conductive on the inside. But, I don't hear historical reports of people keeling over dead during this Carrington Event, so I'm not particularly worried about my electronics.

If you're really concerned about what's coming into your house from such a solar event, then all you need to do is walk over to the circuit breaker and turn it "OFF". You won't have power for a few hours, but that should keep you safe from any DC voltages above 150 volts.

Honestly people: your chances of being harmed by a lightning strike are much greater than this silliness.

about a week ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

American Patent Guy Re:n/t (278 comments)

Yes, I clicked on the wrong link. And, yes, one can produce almost any element with a particle accelerator, and certain elements with a nuclear reactor.

However, as I don't see many people building reactors in their back yards, I don't think your point has any significance. Alchemy is junk science. Not all of the research being done in the global warming community is junk science, but the majority of what is presented for political purposes definitely is. The "involved parties" you refer to are politically motivated and (surprise, surprise) they reach a conclusion in line with those motivations. (Otherwise, they wouldn't release their report.)

Isn't it funny how common sense overrides Chicken Little?

about two weeks ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

American Patent Guy Re:n/t (278 comments)

A room full of alchemists will agree that lead can be turned into gold. That doesn't make it true.

about two weeks ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

American Patent Guy Re:n/t (278 comments)

Oh, you're right. When I said "everyone" I included those with a religious view who claim that this is all God's will (or whatever). I should have included the phrase "in the debate" after the word "everyone" for your benefit.

Oh, and I admire your suggestion that we ignore the evidence of natural climate change as a "distraction" from your preferred conclusion. (I note however your implied admission that it is there.) Curiously, you call my inclusion of such natural changes "denial"...

As for your "massive amounts of evidence": we have reliable evidence back about 30-40 years (accurate temperature readings on a global scale). I could record the air temperature 10,000 times this afternoon, notice that it is rising, and use that to exclaim a trend of warming that will extend into the evening after the Sun has gone down. That is the same kind of "massive" evidence that you would use.

If you're going to argue with me, you should at least present something acceptable in substitution.

about two weeks ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

American Patent Guy Re:n/t (278 comments)

Now, now - you need to do better than that. All you've done is declare to me that the evidence is in there somewhere for me to find.

Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the southern hemisphere in 1991. Why don't I see a corresponding dip in the temperature data (in either of the Hadcrut4 data or the IPCC report)?

If pollution causes cooling, then the warming trend between 1910 and 1943 would have been a cooling trend. Again, there's no correlation between your theory and either the Hadcrut4 data or the IPCC report.

As any advocate would know, when you have a favorable outcome you want to show, you present the evidence most favorable to that outcome. The IPCC is a political body, apparently wanting to show the existence of global warming coincidental to the population growth in the last 100 years. The reason the presentation of the IPCC is so simple is because the "scientific papers" included have been selectively included. You and I both know that there are valid papers from opposing views that are not explained in that report.

We need more than a facial "scientific" demonstration to come to a rational conclusion.

about two weeks ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

American Patent Guy Re:n/t (278 comments)

Well, I don't have the experience with these particular datasets, and I haven't had (and won't have) the time to run through all of this. But looking at what seems the most comprehensive one used on the woodfortrees.org website, I see some problems:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf (this apparently attempts to use historical data from stations around the globe to yield a global average temperature on not less than an annual time frame)

This data shows essentially a flat average global temperature (with a variation of something like 0.2 degrees C RMS) from 1850 to 1910. There is then a sharp annual rise from about 1910 to 1943, and the temperature flattens out until about 1978. The earlier rise essentially continues between 1978 and 2003, and then the temperature flattens out again until the present.

There is obviously some component of this long-term temperature increase in the dataset that is not due to artificial climate change. If the rise in temperature were due solely to the CO2 deposited in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels, the temperature would not have periods where the increase flattened out; man did not stop burning fossil fuels in 1948 or 2003, rather the CO2 deposition would have increased at more steady rates.

I've argued elsewhere that some of this could be attributed to problems in the sampling/recording of temperature data. But, ignoring that, there isn't a good correlation between the amount of CO2 deposited in the atmosphere at this particular dataset. (Which again may be the most comprehensive one.)

As far as the IPCC report that you refer to (looking briefly at the summary), I don't see described there any contraindications of their conclusions. What appears there is a collection of graphs and other interpretations of evidence that have the appearance of having been cherry-picked to support desired conclusions. It's natural that the authors of the report would prefer to reach conclusions that will support continued funding of their "science". (It wouldn't be the first time that sort of thing has happened.) Indeed, their conclusions are practically absolute; absolute statements generally come from politicians, not scientists.

The IPCC report is very well prepared: whoever did it was expert in the art of presentation. I'll need something more than conclusory statements to be convinced, especially as the evidence that I'm aware of does not support what is claimed in that report and elsewhere by the global warming community.

about two weeks ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

American Patent Guy Re:How to tell if AGW is a real thing... (278 comments)

No, you don't understand him correctly (or you're trying to throw mud on his assertions because you don't like them.) He's saying that what you hear from some sources (such as the mainstream media) is already proven to be not credible. There will always be people who believe what they are told, in spite of the evidence to show that what they are told comes from unreliable sources.

So let's follow your "logical reasoning": there's a lot of worrying about whether global warming is real (it might be or might not be, but who cares?) So, let's find the sources that promote what we want everyone to believe, and bombard the gullible public to the point they have no ability to believe anything else. We won't bother to give reliable proof that what we say is proof, and when/if it's discovered that what we've said is bullshit, then we'll be on to some other scheme to promote our interests. (Your interest might only be in feeling good that your friends believe the same way.) Anyone expressing disagreement will be shouted down with more bullshit, unfair treatment and unfounded prejudice. Hail to Der Fuhrer!

This person's methods of determining validity are not unquestionable, but they are by far better than yours, Coward.

about two weeks ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

American Patent Guy Re:n/t (278 comments)

So you turn to a guy who is writing code and asking for money to give you "good accessible" datasets? Really?

You wouldn't be that guy, would you?

about two weeks ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

American Patent Guy Re:n/t (278 comments)

Settled as to the scientists who voted, maybe. As to the ones who didn't have the time to vote, your "science" remains unsettled.

There is no magical coven of scientists who can reveal the ultimate answer to climate change.

about two weeks ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

American Patent Guy Re:n/t (278 comments)

Your thinking is perfectly correct, except:

1- You add steps to your debate that aren't in debate. Everyone accepts that there is climate change, and everyone accepts that it is due to natural causes (e.g. ice ages).

2- In order for a person to be in denial, he must first be presented with the truth. No one has yet proven that the human-caused climate change is significant: no one knows what it really is because it is very difficult to prove. Reliable science has shown a less than 1 degree rise in average global temperature over the past about 40 years; no one has shown that that rise is caused by human activity. (Although there is plenty of unreliable science to show that our grandchildren will be cooked alive). Recognizing that fear-mongering proves nothing, one is not in denial until there is adequate proof available.

3- No one has yet shown that any "suggested change" will do anything significant. Apart from us all slitting our wrists and letting the planet return to pre-civilization, the best that anyone has shown is a delay in global warming by a few years at best.

I'm sorry: I choose not to be a part of your mass psychosis.

about two weeks ago
top

The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record

American Patent Guy Re:For The Love of Glob! (552 comments)

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps I can claim an intellectual pursuit of testing the acumen of those who post to Slashdot. Or maybe I do it because I get tired of watching the same old cage-bottom-print-equivalent on cable TV. I think there's an aspect of it that I enjoy in working out the logical flaws and exposing the lack of quality in media sources. Perhaps I have a psychological need to dominate conversations that I get fulfilled.

Or, maybe I enjoy taking my .22 of practicality out and plinking the figurative gophers here that keep popping their heads up ... there's a reason why those silly games at the amusement park are so popular (do you remember "Whack-a-mole"?)

about two weeks ago
top

The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record

American Patent Guy Re:For The Love of Glob! (552 comments)

I expect you to accept that there are some problems that cannot be solved. Global warming (to whatever extent it exists) is probably one of those problems.

Please don't expect me to become excited/outraged/whatever about this issue. I'm here to judge the case on the merits: give me just the facts, please. (I'm speaking to you in the press who continue to overstate the case for manmade global warming for the obvious purpose of attracting an audience for your advertisers. I'm speaking to you, slate.com and to you *cough* Slashdot *cough*.)

about two weeks ago

Submissions

American Patent Guy hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

American Patent Guy has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>