Andre Jute wrote:

Yo, Patrick, now you see what happens when you encourage these pommy
wreckers. -- Andre Jute

Well, goin on now for 4 years, and I don't know yet if poms
improve with age or just get worse.
The older we get, the better we was.....

I am still wondrin whether Ian is right about the RDH4 being wrong
about the iron µ variations but anyone with 1/2 a brain
can plot the impedance of an unloaded tranny primary at 50Hz,
and at different voltages with a variac.
Then you will find that the L has an arched shape of curve for low grade
E&I,
and more like a pentode plate curve for GOSS.
But µ does vary a lot, with F & V for a given tranny, ie, at least
Afe and Np are fixed for the observations.

µ surely rolls off as B rises above about 1.1Tesla for most trannies,
and then rolls off bad when the saturation generated distortion currents
rapidly become
large.
One can only magnetize iron in one direction to a maxima, then the
coil just makes smoke if V is high enough.
Establishing the µ during sat isn't easy because it is changing wildly
during each wave cycle;
the coil becomes an extremely non linear impedance
shunting the source power input.

µ varies during the wave cycle well away from sat, and so the coil with
iron
loads the source power with a slightly non linear load, so although the
Vin may be from a low Z source
and at low Dn, the Dn in the current wave will be significant.
Its far worse when the source Z is high, like pentodes driving an OPT,
and the iron is crap NOSS; GOSS has much less Dn.

So one has to use a low Bmax, ie, lots of turns to reduce the Dn.

Whether using 50% nickel in the core lams helps or not i don't know.
Ongaku are supposed to have 50% Ni in the E&I lams.
But toroidals have a max µ maybe 40,000, but I get 17,000
with the stuff I buy now in E&I.
When RDH4 was writ, µ of 5,000 was regarded as very good,
but now over 15,000 is routine, millions of tonnes are made.
And they just butt all the Es to the Is after tranny assembly
with concentric wound bobbins, and weld the Es to the Is.
Its all done by machines, and no need for the expense of the harder to
make toroidals.


But if one wants to make quiet cool running trannies that almost nobody
will sell
off the shelf to you even with recycled core material with a maximum µ of
only 3,500 with NOSS,
then you have to keep the Bmax down below 0.9T.

This means the tranny has to be larger to accomodate the low copper losses
you want.

Using GOSS won't alter this idea, it will just make the design run cold,
instead of warm, since saturation in fancy shmancy GOSS occurs
at almost the same F and V as the low grade ****.
Then saturation won't occur unless the mains goes up by 30% in voltage.

My 300 watt amps have cores of GOSS which well overrated,
and the magnetizing input current x mains voltage = 4VA,
not bad for trannies with 1.9Kw rating for their cores, and 600VA
rating for the windings.
The trannies are mechanically quiet, something essential when pulling
500 watts+ off the mains into a rectifier and heater supply.


But I have never found a mistake in RDH4 yet, although
who would ever build a tone control with inductors in the circuit?
But at least RDH4 tells you how to do that moderately well.
Then there are the sharp cut off LC filters for noisy
shellac record play that converts the sound of badly noisy
records from a hail storm on the roof to large rain drops.
Gord there is some crap in the book, but mainly
its solid knowledge that was checked out well before publishing.

Patrick Turner.









Ian Iveson wrote lots of obfuscating and abusive babble:
Patrick Turner wrote more obfuscating and abusive babble.

Nothing there worth replying to because, as ever, you fail to
respond to the key points and when your squirming gets abusive I
can't be bothered. Wish I could say you might understand some day
but it's too late. If your fire was ever lit it went out some time
ago.

For anyone else, including Bob, in need of an illuminating mental
picture of how a transformer works, the model of a load resistance
in parallel with a saturatable inductor explains nearly everything
they need to know.

Bob, load current doesn't saturate the core because it is in
parallel with the inductance.

Bob, you can see why saturation depends on frequency and voltage
across the inductance, because they determine the current through
the inductor, and it is this current, not that through the load,
which can cause saturation.

It is useful for all transformers, and highlights the importance of
primary inductance and impedance matching in audio transformers...it
allows you to easily calculate the lower bandwidth limit. Add the
leakage inductance in series with the resistance, and capacitance
across it, and you have a complete enough picture for most audio
purposes. Basically, it gives you a simple filter circuit.

Oh, and Bob, don't get confused with the idea that voltage causes a
magnetic field in transformers. They aren't that mysterious.
Everyone...you learned that current causes a magnetic field, right?
Don't worry, it's true.

cheers, Ian

"Ian Iveson " =

" Just another pommy dickhead" ( JAPD )


"But the right hand side of the curve is wrong by miles. µ is shown
to plummet towards zero as the gradient of the BH curve flattens
towards saturation.


** That is a simple drawing error, the real curve does not plummet.


This would be true if µ were dB/dH,


** No way.

The problem is a merely a *visual * one as the scales used on BH graphs (
RDH4 et alia) are too coarse.

To easily derive the value of µ from a BH graph, the scales must be such
that an air cored coil has a slope of 1 - ie is angled at 45 degrees.
However, the scales normally used compress the slope so much slope that the
angle for unity µ is very nearly horizontal.

The FACT is that "relative permeability" ( aka µ) never goes to zero, it
diminishes to unity at most.



Checking several sites and books, there is no agreement on whether µ
is B/H or dB/dH.


** It is in fact dB/dH.

The term µ is defined as the *relative permeability* ( relative to a vacuum)
of a medium under the prevailing conditions.

It varies with temperature, it varies with magnetic field strength.

So - the ONLY way to evaluate µ is to use small increments of B and H under
the prevailing conditions.



For example, Menno van der Veen says that µ reflects the mobility of
the magnetic domains. This observation seems to favour the dynamic
definition, because at saturation there is no mobility even though
the value of µ may still be high according to the static RDH
definition. He shows a graph of inductance versus secondary voltage,
in which the inductance plummets to near zero at saturation, which
is what I would expect. He also correctly points out that µ is the
only variable in the equation for inductance for a given inductor.
Hence where the inductance falls to near-zero, so must µ.


** WRONG - inductance plummets to near zero when µ plummets to **unity**.

Visual issues with the scales used on the graphs are fooling you yet again -
dickhead.



Further, µ0 is used for the permeability of free space, and also for
initial permeability, as in the table on page 208. The unit for µ
and µ0 is also generally omitted.


** The term µ has no unit - it is a simple ratio.



It does have a footnote that says
"strictly" the unit is gauss/oersted. It also states that µ0 = 1.


** WRONG !!!

µ0 (the permeability of fee space) = 4.pi.10exp-7 H/m


Actually its unit depends on what system of units you are using, as
does its value.


** Correct for " µ0 " but not for " µ ".


In a table using both gauss and lines per inch, the
unit of µ should be stated.


** BULLCRAP.

It is a simple ratio independent of the system of units.



The confusion is everywhere. It has infected various spice core
models that don't work properly.


** Spice transformer models are notoriously poor predictors of saturation
effects.

Better to run tests on samples - it is not too hard.

After you figure out how to read a bloody graph - that is.




......... Phil

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:34:24 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


Bob wrote:

As far as I know, (stop me if I'm wrong ), the primary inductance resists the
applied voltage,

I don't really like the use of the word 'resits' to be honest.

Would you prefer 'impedes'? LOL!

and a steady state emerges where the only current that flows is
due to the losses in the copper and the eddy current, and the leakage
inductance. Power loss results from the in-phase loss in the R of the circuit.

You've forgotten the losses of the magnetic material itself. It takes work to run it
up and down the B-H curve.

I didn't forget, I lumped them in with the R losses... Heat is always caused
by an R factor, is it not?


An increase of primary voltage entails an increase of current flow and an
increase of 'back EMF' which matches this increase. Power loss goes up due to
copper loss.

Extraction of current from the secondary creates another field, which opposes
the input field, so an increase of current in the primary is required to match
it. This is seen as a decrease in L in the primary. Also it shows that the
secondary load is 'reflected' to the primary coil. The increased current all
around creates more copper and iron losses.

Should only affect copper losses. The working flux is near unaffected by load in a
decent transformer.

The 'iron losses' are the same for a loaded or unloaded tranny? Or close?

Graham

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:57:05 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



Bob, load current doesn't saturate the core because it is in
parallel with the inductance.

I don't understand that...

Nobody could.



Bob, you can see why saturation depends on frequency and voltage
across the inductance, because they determine the current through
the inductor, and it is this current, not that through the load,
which can cause saturation.

As far as I know, (stop me if I'm wrong ), the primary inductance resists the
applied voltage, and a steady state emerges where the only current that flows is
due to the losses in the copper and the eddy current, and the leakage
inductance. Power loss results from the in-phase loss in the R of the circuit.

An increase of primary voltage entails an increase of current flow and an
increase of 'back EMF' which matches this increase. Power loss goes up due to
copper loss.

But the core is also heated.

I know that - I missed writing it for some reason...

Power is lost in both the core and the copper, and good designs favour
either copper or core losses to suit the requirement.
I suggest a long read of the text books.




Extraction of current from the secondary creates another field, which opposes
the input field, so an increase of current in the primary is required to match
it. This is seen as a decrease in L in the primary. Also it shows that the
secondary load is 'reflected' to the primary coil. The increased current all
around creates more copper and iron losses.

Because the core is iron, it can saturate when the flux goes beyond a certain
level. The saturation means that the created field in the primary CAN'T
INCREASE! Therefore, any increase in current can't create an out of phase
condition, so at that point the L is virtually gone, and no increase of voltage
can reflect to the secondary winding. This is a part-cycle phenomenon, and
shows up as clipped waveforms.

Very few power trannies are run at field strength intensities where the
there is serious current wave form distortions, or saturation because of the
heavy heat/noise causing currents involved.



Gotta go do some lab work now!

Do try to read a little more.

I'm reading all I can get on trannies, but at my age it takes more time to sink
in!

But examining the saturation phenomena with a variac and tranny
and CRO to see how the phase angle difference between input voltage and the
winding current is essential to understand the losses, saturation and maths.

Patrick Turner.

flipper wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:40:22 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

snip

But I have never found a mistake in RDH4 yet, although
who would ever build a tone control with inductors in the circuit?
But at least RDH4 tells you how to do that moderately well.
Then there are the sharp cut off LC filters for noisy
shellac record play that converts the sound of badly noisy
records from a hail storm on the roof to large rain drops.

ROTFLOL.

I love your colorful description.

Gord there is some crap in the book, but mainly
its solid knowledge that was checked out well before publishing.

I would imagine it has that 'crap' because that's the 'crap' they had
to deal with

Well the 1950's wasn't a time where real hi-fi was common in most homes.
Most ppl put up with lonely nights huddled around an AM radio.
Hi-fi was for rich folks with real money, and time to spare.
Good radios came with drink cabinets with mirrored surfaces to allow you
towards drunkeness
over the terrible cricket score being broadcast from England over the
short wave.
The mirrors helped the booze to look more impressive if you only had one
bottle.
Then the Collaro record player would strip a kHz of bandwidth off each
record after each time you played it.
Very little gear anyone bought had any of the ideal techniques for the
time
spelled out in RDH4; gear was usually dumbed right down to a minimalist
situation, with transfromers operating very close to saturation including
the
OPTs in the audio amps.

TV came to Oz in 1956, and people fell over themselves to get a picture
in the home.
So there were 10 years with most TVs using a single 6BM8 as the audio amp

with 4" speaker with the same poor sound as a mantle radio, but who
cared,
watching cricket took your mind off the sound.
And the sound was on an FM carrier, so at least had a bit more than AM
radio's 2.5kHz.
The rich had huge deluxe TV sets, with PP amps and some better speakers
with real teble and bass.

FM came in 1972, and few people dabled in building their own sets because
it
was 4 times more complex than an AM set.




I've got a mint condition Empire windup record player, floor model
with finish on all 4 sides so it can be placed dead center of the
room, where it should be, so people can gather all 'round and listen
to the music miracle. I'm also a WWII memorabilia fan and one of my
favorite shellacers is an original "Coming in on a Wing and a Prayer"
recording with "Johnny Got a 0 Today" on the reverse but it had a 3.5
inch by 1 inch chunk broke off the thing. Whoever broke it saved the
piece, I guess hope springeth eternal, so I glued it back on and she
plays fine aided, no doubt, by the 2 ton tone arm and 10 penny nail
needle that'll plow through just about anything (the crack would
probably rip the needle right off a mag cart). And you hardly notice
the pop, what with the rest of it sounding like a hail storm on the
roof anyway

Try that with a CD

It may not be 'hi-fi' but the thing works when modern technology goes
dark.

Well unless we all get bird flu and die, technology is here to stay.

I just spent another evening with two mates, one of whom
has a Michel Gyro TT, Lyra Helicon 6 cart, very decent tube amps,
Vienna Acoustic Motzarts plus a sub, and really the sound he gets from
a vinyl disk is extremely accurate and also musical and involving;
its real hi-fi.
He cleans his records well, so there is rarely any noise.

So no need for tone controls or hi-filters, and I don't need to provide
him with inductors
where I may have to worry about the distortion thay may introduce.

But the Baxandall tone control network using only R&C around
a shunt FB path is the best simplest tone control one can have
if one desperately needs one..


Patrick Turner.






Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner"


FM came in 1972,


** Regular FM broadcasts did not commence in Sydney until 1974.

"On 15th December 1974 2MBS-FM went to air. "

http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/PUB_RAD_OZ_LANGDON.html



......... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Patrick Turner"

FM came in 1972,

** Regular FM broadcasts did not commence in Sydney until 1974.

"On 15th December 1974 2MBS-FM went to air. "

http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/PUB_RAD_OZ_LANGDON.html

........ Phil

This time you are correct.
I think I bought my first FM radio, a portable in 1976, which I later
gave away.

But the point I was making was that Oz didn't get FM until rather
a long time after europe and the US established FM.
We were a technologically backward nation because the business interests
here
did not want to be upset by the introduction of new fangled media
which may have "ruined them".

Patrick Turner.

flipper wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:06:59 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:





Well the 1950's wasn't a time where real hi-fi was common in most homes.

Of course not. That was my point.

Most ppl put up with lonely nights huddled around an AM radio.

You mean as opposed to 'lonely nights' huddled around a TV set? hehe

Well TV came later; ppl didn't have TV here until 1956.

So they settled for getting drunk sullenly,
and feuding with the missus, and beating up their kids.


Lordy, you can make an enjoyable evening sound like a trip to the 7'th
level of hell..

Did I, Christ, there were no good ol' days.
It were just a struggle to stay unmaimed by the factory work.
The nights were boring......
You went to bed early, and rose at 6 am....

In my case it was family nights of fun.

Yeah, we had the Goonshow to listen into sometimes....

FM came in 1972, and few people dabled in building their own sets because
it
was 4 times more complex than an AM set.

It is always the case that the average is less than the maximums,
which is why they're called average and maximums, but building
everything to 'the best' wouldn't be of much good to the 'average' Joe
if he can't afford them, now would it?

But the cheapest TV took some real building, even for anyone.
Average Joe couldn't really cope unless he'd been trained electronically.

A radio can be sort of muddled through without much deep knowledge.
But not a TV set.
I built my first 3 valve supehet when i was 13 for my father
who wanted a radio in his vet's surgery.

TV was way too hi-falootin.



That's why I don't have a Ferrari but thank goodness I can get
something a little 'less' (although I did get this one for having 'the
best' motor)

I have a Ford Laser. What a crummy car!, but it was given to me,
so what a marvellous car!



Well unless we all get bird flu and die, technology is here to stay.

Actually, all it takes is a CAT 4 hurricane to put one back in the
dark ages and my local power company likes to provide little power
outage reminders from time to time just so we don't forget. A
'community service' sort of thing..

Yo is down in New Oleons?



Besides, it was just an amusing, but true, story as I happen to like
antiques. Maybe for the perspective they give about life in another
time.

Did the mould after the floods take out the record palyer and all the
furniture?

Katrina was justa terrible event, eh.

I have never seen more than 50mph winds here ever.
It rains condescendingly between severe droughts.
Quite boring weather really.



I just spent another evening with two mates, one of whom
has a Michel Gyro TT, Lyra Helicon 6 cart, very decent tube amps,
Vienna Acoustic Motzarts plus a sub, and really the sound he gets from
a vinyl disk is extremely accurate and also musical and involving;
its real hi-fi.
He cleans his records well, so there is rarely any noise.

I can't say whether I'm as meticulous as he is, probably not, but I
too learned good vinyl care about 40 years ago and mine, the ones that
began as mine anyway, are in excellent condition.

So no need for tone controls or hi-filters, and I don't need to provide
him with inductors
where I may have to worry about the distortion thay may introduce.

But the Baxandall tone control network using only R&C around
a shunt FB path is the best simplest tone control one can have
if one desperately needs one..

I know what you mean. My standard 'tone control' setting is flat.

I rarely use mine.

Patrick Turner.

flipper wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:46:16 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



flipper wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:06:59 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:





Well the 1950's wasn't a time where real hi-fi was common in most homes.

Of course not. That was my point.

Most ppl put up with lonely nights huddled around an AM radio.

You mean as opposed to 'lonely nights' huddled around a TV set? hehe

Well TV came later; ppl didn't have TV here until 1956.

Yes, so you had said. You seemed to have a dismal view of radios so I
was just musing on 'lonely nights' as compared to what?

I have forgotten a lot of what I did during evenings in 1956.
But I did have an elaborate Meccano set, and then there was fukking school home
work.
Later I got interested in building/altering radios, made a radio telephone that
worked illegally
on short wave with a mate also inclined that way....
I wasn't a TV addict like my parents quickly became.
At 15 I discovered folk music, and learnt to play guitar, and a mate
and i used to perform in cafes. We though most TV was extreemly boring.
I still do, and don't have a working tele.


So they settled for getting drunk sullenly,
and feuding with the missus, and beating up their kids.

Sorry. Mine was one of those 'Father Knows Best' kind of families
that everyone said didn't exist.

That's the very show we got here in Oz which even my parents thought was boring
american BS.

sit coms, yuk.

But we all had family life, not too bad, not too many murders and
burials up the back yard.



Lordy, you can make an enjoyable evening sound like a trip to the 7'th
level of hell..

Did I, Christ, there were no good ol' days.
It were just a struggle to stay unmaimed by the factory work.
The nights were boring......
You went to bed early, and rose at 6 am....

bummer

In my case it was family nights of fun.

Yeah, we had the Goonshow to listen into sometimes....

Actually, lonely nights around the radio pre-dates me by a few years
as we got TV a bit before you did.


FM came in 1972, and few people dabled in building their own sets because
it
was 4 times more complex than an AM set.

It is always the case that the average is less than the maximums,
which is why they're called average and maximums, but building
everything to 'the best' wouldn't be of much good to the 'average' Joe
if he can't afford them, now would it?

But the cheapest TV took some real building, even for anyone.
Average Joe couldn't really cope unless he'd been trained electronically.

A radio can be sort of muddled through without much deep knowledge.
But not a TV set.
I built my first 3 valve supehet when i was 13 for my father
who wanted a radio in his vet's surgery.

TV was way too hi-falootin.

So true.


But it really isn't.

Each part of the television is an applcation of a simple idea.
Its like FM radio sets. Before you build one, they seem daunting,
after you get one working you wonder why it seemed so hard.

I have yet to fathom what really goes on in a CD player.
I can't fix them if they go wrong, and have little idea beyond the very basics of

digital about how they work.
But a bloke of 74 in the Melbourne Audio Club designed and built his own.



That's why I don't have a Ferrari but thank goodness I can get
something a little 'less' (although I did get this one for having 'the
best' motor)

I have a Ford Laser. What a crummy car!, but it was given to me,
so what a marvellous car!

Hehe. Exactly

Well unless we all get bird flu and die, technology is here to stay.

Actually, all it takes is a CAT 4 hurricane to put one back in the
dark ages and my local power company likes to provide little power
outage reminders from time to time just so we don't forget. A
'community service' sort of thing..

Yo is down in New Oleons?

No. Remember, at one time or another they predicted that damn thing
would land just about everywhere north of Brownsville and then it dern
near missed the whole bloody state.

Well storms there are only going to get worse in coming years since the average
sea
temperature is slowly rising with the greenhouse effect.

New Orleons is sinking, since the ground it sits on is slowly compacting, since
it is silt
from the past floods, so they'll have to raise the levees more and more.
Holland copes being below water level, so will that part of the US I guess.


I'm in the Houston area and had no power problem till it was over and
then for a week after got hit with 8 hour a day outages the power
company humorously called "1 hour rolling blackouts." They just forgot
to mention they were rolled one right after the other.

They were linking our power grid over to La since our generators were
still up.

Did they round up all the tube amp users and shoot em?



Besides, it was just an amusing, but true, story as I happen to like
antiques. Maybe for the perspective they give about life in another
time.

Did the mould after the floods take out the record palyer and all the
furniture?

No flood either. Got some wind that dropped a few branches but nothing
like you saw in N.O.

Katrina was justa terrible event, eh.

Pretty bad all right and I'm grateful I didn't have to deal much with
it. Except for the gas prices like everyone else.

I have never seen more than 50mph winds here ever.
It rains condescendingly between severe droughts.
Quite boring weather really.

My cousin lives in Hawaii and his comment was "living in paradise is
kind of boring." I wouldn't know as I've lived in or around this swamp
all my life, although I've visited plenty of places including your
lovely land of Oz.

Swamp rat, eh.


I know what you mean. My standard 'tone control' setting is flat.

I rarely use mine.

I only use mine when running something already screwed up through it.

The guy with the system i described has a switch with 3 cut levels for the treble

between 2kHz and 20kHz, 1.5dB each, and this takes the edginess off many digital
recordings.
One trouble with tone controls is that when you turn down the treble on a harsh
recording,
there is much more cut at 10khz than at say 3 kHz, and its often better to have a
shelved
level that can be cut.

Patrick Turner.

Sent this to Daft Phil privately by mistake...sorry, Daft Phil.

Phil Allison wrote

"Ian Iveson " =

" Just another pommy dickhead" ( JAPD )


"But the right hand side of the curve is wrong by miles. µ is
shown
to plummet towards zero as the gradient of the BH curve flattens
towards saturation.


** That is a simple drawing error, the real curve does not
plummet.

A curve *is* a drawing, silly. So you agree there is an error. There
may be hope for you yet.

This would be true if µ were dB/dH,
** No way.

Yes, it would be as it is for the plummetting part. But then other
key features would be misplaced. As I said, it is a mix-up based on
two definitions of µ.

The problem is a merely a *visual * one as the scales used on BH
graphs ( RDH4 et alia) are too coarse.

Nothing to do with scale. Perhaps there is no hope after all.

To easily derive the value of µ from a BH graph, the scales must
be such that an air cored coil has a slope of 1 - ie is angled
at 45 degrees. However, the scales normally used compress the
slope so much slope that the angle for unity µ is very nearly
horizontal.

The FACT is that "relative permeability" ( aka µ) never goes to
zero, it diminishes to unity at most.

For relative permeability yes, assuming there is no permeability
lower than that of free space. I have a doubt about that, but here
on earth, I have no objection.

Checking several sites and books, there is no agreement on
whether µ
is B/H or dB/dH.

** It is in fact dB/dH.

Well, that may make the better sense, but language is a usage thing.
RDH certainly disagrees with you, but I prefer dB/dH.

The term µ is defined as the *relative permeability* ( relative to
a vacuum) of a medium under the prevailing conditions.

There again, you have no control over the language, fortunately.
Perhaps I shall ask the queen to intervene.

Actually it is used in two ways. One as relative permeability, as
you suggest. However, a common usage is µ = µ0.µr

That is quite a sensible way of doing it, where µ is then an
absolute value, with the same units as µ0


It varies with temperature, it varies with magnetic field
strength.

You don't say...

So - the ONLY way to evaluate µ is to use small increments of B
and H under the prevailing conditions.

That is a silly tautology. First you define it a dynamic property,
then you say the only way to measure it is dynamically. Not very
clever.

For example, Menno van der Veen says that µ reflects the mobility
of
the magnetic domains. This observation seems to favour the
dynamic
definition, because at saturation there is no mobility even
though
the value of µ may still be high according to the static RDH
definition. He shows a graph of inductance versus secondary
voltage,
in which the inductance plummets to near zero at saturation,
which
is what I would expect. He also correctly points out that µ is
the
only variable in the equation for inductance for a given
inductor.
Hence where the inductance falls to near-zero, so must µ.


** WRONG - inductance plummets to near zero when µ plummets to
**unity**.

Unity *is* near zero, stupid, if you look at the scale of µ for
iron.

Visual issues with the scales used on the graphs are fooling you
yet again - dickhead.

If you have looked and not seen the anomoly, then you are stupid or
malicious in your argument. Both, probably.


Further, µ0 is used for the permeability of free space, and also
for
initial permeability, as in the table on page 208. The unit for µ
and µ0 is also generally omitted.


** The term µ has no unit - it is a simple ratio.

Only in the sense you have identified. As absolute permeability,
however, µ has the same units as µ0



It does have a footnote that says
"strictly" the unit is gauss/oersted. It also states that µ0 = 1.


** WRONG !!!

No, just inconsistent. The unit must be compatible with whatever
system of units you are using, clot.

µ0 (the permeability of fee space) = 4.pi.10exp-7 H/m

You get stupider. It is part of the definition of things and, in its
original units, its value is 1.

Actually its unit depends on what system of units you are using,
as
does its value.


** Correct for " µ0 " ...

Now you say the opposite...bound to be right sometimes, eh?

but not for " µ ".

Depends on which µ.

In a table using both gauss and lines per inch, the
unit of µ should be stated.

** BULLCRAP.

It is a simple ratio independent of the system of units.

So you keep saying.

The confusion is everywhere. It has infected various spice core
models that don't work properly.


** Spice transformer models are notoriously poor predictors of
saturation effects.

Fool. Depends on the model. They can be very inefficient, but
otherwise as good as you make them. The details of saturation are in
any event rarely important, because we just want to avoid it. That
is why you will find most spice transformers are simplified for a
particular purpose.

Better to run tests on samples - it is not too hard.

But boring and stupid. And too hard for you last time you commented
on John's transformer test.

After you figure out how to read a bloody graph - that is.

Follow my quite detailed account. It may help you with graphs in
future, dolt.

cheers, Ian

"Ian Iveson" = arrogant pommy ****


This would be true if µ were dB/dH,

** No way.

Yes, it would be as it is for the plummetting part.


** No way - a plummeting curve has a negative slope.

µ cannot become negative.



The problem is a merely a *visual * one as the scales used on BH graphs
( RDH4 et alia) are too coarse.

Nothing to do with scale.


** It is very much to do with scales.

The horizontal part looks like it has a slope of 0 and makes µ look like it
has gone to zero.

The horizontal part really has a slope of 1.

If the scales were drawn to make an air coil show a slope of 1 it would be
obvious.



Checking several sites and books, there is no agreement on whether µ is
B/H or dB/dH.

** It is in fact dB/dH.

Well, that may make the better sense, but language is a usage thing.
RDH certainly disagrees with you, but I prefer dB/dH.


** Autistic drivel.



The term µ is defined as the *relative permeability* ( relative to a
vacuum) of a medium under the prevailing conditions.

There again, you have no control over the language, fortunately.
Perhaps I shall ask the queen to intervene.


** **** off - autistic prick.


Actually it is used in two ways. One as relative permeability, as
you suggest.


** In engineering µ is always "relative permeability".



It varies with temperature, it varies with magnetic field strength.

You don't say...

So - the ONLY way to evaluate µ is to use small increments of B and H
under the prevailing conditions.

That is a silly tautology.


** Go **** your dog.


First you define it a dynamic property,


** Nature makes it one - not me, you ass.


then you say the only way to measure it is dynamically.


** No problem with that for normal brains.

Your autistic one is having fits.


Hence where the inductance falls to near-zero, so must µ.


** WRONG - inductance plummets to near zero when µ plummets to
**unity**.

Unity *is* near zero,


** Not in any maths that exists.


Visual issues with the scales used on the graphs are fooling you yet
again - dickhead.

If you have looked and not seen the anomoly, then you are stupid or
malicious in your argument. Both, probably.


** **** off - you pig ignorant ass.



Further, µ0 is used for the permeability of free space, and also for
initial permeability, as in the table on page 208. The unit for µ
and µ0 is also generally omitted.


** The term µ has no unit - it is a simple ratio.

Only in the sense you have identified.


** The correct one for engineering and the one used here.



It does have a footnote that says
"strictly" the unit is gauss/oersted. It also states that µ0 = 1.


** WRONG !!!

No, just inconsistent. The unit must be compatible with whatever
system of units you are using, clot.


** **** off - you pig ignorant ass.


µ0 (the permeability of fee space) = 4.pi.10exp-7 H/m

You get stupider. It is part of the definition of things and, in its
original units, its value is 1.


* Then µ0 = 1 is false as no units are quoted.




In a table using both gauss and lines per inch, the
unit of µ should be stated.

** BULLCRAP.

It is a simple ratio independent of the system of units.

So you keep saying.


** As it is true.



** Spice transformer models are notoriously poor predictors of
saturation effects.

Fool.

** **** off - you pig ignorant ass.


Depends on the model.

** **** off - you pig ignorant pommy ass.



They can be very inefficient, but
otherwise as good as you make them.

** **** off - you pig ignorant pommy ass.


The details of saturation are in
any event rarely important,

** **** off - you pig ignorant pommy ass.


because we just want to avoid it.


** **** off - you pig ignorant pommy ass.


That
is why you will find most spice transformers are simplified for a
particular purpose.


** Spice transformer models are notoriously poor predictors of
saturation effects.



Better to run tests on samples - it is not too hard.

But boring and stupid.


** **** off - you pig ignorant ass.


After you figure out how to read a bloody graph - that is.

Follow my quite detailed account.


** **** off - you pig ignorant ass.


It may help you with graphs in
future, dolt.


** **** off - you pig ignorant ass.

cheers, Ian


** **** off - you pig ignorant pommy ass.




........... Phil

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:28:20 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

Bob wrote

Bob, load current doesn't saturate the core because it is in
parallel with the inductance.

I don't understand that...

LOL! :-)

It is the standard model used in circuit analysis. It is invariably
used in simulation. It is so useful because its electrical
properties are simple and, for most purposes it behaves in the same
way as a transformer to a good approximation.

Current in the secondary produces a field which cancels that of the
primary current due to the load. Since the net magnetic effect is
zero (to a reasonable approximation blah...), the inductor doesn't
see it. Hence it can be considered to be in parallel with the
reflected load resistance.

You acknowledge this yourself when you refer to "reflected load", so
for understanding you need only to consider your own account:

"...it shows that the secondary load is 'reflected' to the primary
coil."

When you consider it reflected, where do you consider it is
reflected to? To the primary, of course, where it appears in
parallel with the primary inductance. So it must be your model too.
Perhaps you couldn't see the wood for the trees.

The model works pretty well but is not perfect of course,
particularly at high frequencies.

Now, this particular debate kicked off when I suggested that a
poster take saturation into account when specifying a toroidal power
transformer. Phil jumped on me, assuming I had made the common
mistake of thinking that secondary current can lead to saturation.
That mistake is so common (and hence easy prey for a mantis like
Phil) because people tend to associate current with magnetic field,
and hence with saturation.

In order to dispel this misunderstanding, it is commonly explained
that it is primary voltage, not current, that saturates. Assuming a
particular frequency, that is a derivative truth. My concern is
that, although it may appear to contribute to understanding, it runs
counter to a true grasp of the situation, because it is current, not
voltage, that produces a field. Everyone knows that, so saying it is
voltage won't help.

Just to illustrate that point further. When the transformer is used
with the secondary open-circuit, the secondary has at normal
frequencies virtually no effect, despite the fact that it has a
voltage across it. Only when current flows does it impinge on the
magnetic circuit.

By separating the load current from the current through the
saturatable inductor, the model resolves the apparent anomaly.

Some comments on the details of your current understanding. Keep in
mind I am an amateur...no longer a professional engineer, just a
teacher.

As far as I know, (stop me if I'm wrong ), the primary inductance
resists the
applied voltage, and a steady state emerges where the only current
that flows is
due to the losses in the copper and the eddy current, and the
leakage
inductance. Power loss results from the in-phase loss in the R
of the circuit.

Seems OK so far. Careful with the leakage inductance...a perfect
inductor dissipates no power although its effect on the circuit may
effect losses in the effective resistance (in-phase V/I)

An increase of primary voltage entails an increase of current flow
and an
increase of 'back EMF' which matches this increase. Power loss
goes up due to
copper loss.

True of the inductor part of the equivalent circuit. Add the effect
of load current (to which there is no consequent "back EMF") and its
attendant primary and secondary copper losses, and we're nearly
there.

Extraction of current from the secondary creates another field,
which opposes
the input field, so an increase of current in the primary is
required to match
it.

Excellent...and when they match, the magnetic effects cancel (more
or less)...

This is seen as a decrease in L in the primary.

Hold on, not so fast.

Assuming a resistive load, it is better to see this as a decrease in
the resistance across the inductance, rather than a decrease in the
inductance. Yes you can see it as a decrease in inductance if you
like...since that could account for an increase in current, but it's
a bit like seeing the sun as going round the earth...it makes the
universe much more complicated.

Also it shows that the
secondary load is 'reflected' to the primary coil. The increased
current all
around creates more copper and iron losses.

See above, good. Watch the iron losses part though. The connection
between "current all around" (?) and iron losses is very vague by
your account. Also by mine, I must admit. That's because, with a bit
of twisting, our models will end up the same anyway, I guess.

Because the core is iron, it can saturate when the flux goes
beyond a certain
level. The saturation means that the created field in the primary
CAN'T
INCREASE! Therefore, any increase in current can't create an out
of phase
condition, so at that point the L is virtually gone, and no
increase of voltage
can reflect to the secondary winding. This is a part-cycle
phenomenon, and
shows up as clipped waveforms.

Yes, but for the hyperbole. What you need to watch out for is the
difference between the µ of the iron, and the inductance. This is
where RDH gets a key diagram wrong. I posted about this some time
ago...see below under "RDH is confused about µ" but in particular
note:

"But the right hand side of the curve is wrong by miles. µ is shown
to plummet towards zero as the gradient of the BH curve flattens
towards saturation. This would be true if µ were dB/dH, but if it is
B/H then it should drop more gradually with an asymptote along the B
axis."

So inductance falls much more gradually than perhaps you imagine.

But otherwise your comments seem fair enough to me.

cheers, Ian

***RDH is confused about µ***

The graph on page 230 (fig 5.15) doesn't fit the definition of µ
given on the same page. The authors emphasise that its value is B/H,
not dB/dH. The peak value should therefore occur at the knee of the
BH curve, from where its tangent passes through the origin. RDH has
got the peak in the right place, above the knee rather than above
the steepest part of the BH curve, which is where it would be were µ
to be dB/dH.

But the right hand side of the curve is wrong by miles. µ is shown
to plummet towards zero as the gradient of the BH curve flattens
towards saturation. This would be true if µ were dB/dH, but if it is
B/H then it should drop more gradually with an asymptote along the B
axis.

The shape of the curve shown on page 216 (fig 5.13D) fits their
definition better, but that is for AC, which is another can of
worms.

Checking several sites and books, there is no agreement on whether µ
is B/H or dB/dH.

For example, Menno van der Veen says that µ reflects the mobility of
the magnetic domains. This observation seems to favour the dynamic
definition, because at saturation there is no mobility even though
the value of µ may still be high according to the static RDH
definition. He shows a graph of inductance versus secondary voltage,
in which the inductance plummets to near zero at saturation, which
is what I would expect. He also correctly points out that µ is the
only variable in the equation for inductance for a given inductor.
Hence where the inductance falls to near-zero, so must µ.

Further, µ0 is used for the permeability of free space, and also for
initial permeability, as in the table on page 208. The unit for µ
and µ0 is also generally omitted. It does have a footnote that says
"strictly" the unit is gauss/oersted. It also states that µ0 = 1.
Actually its unit depends on what system of units you are using, as
does its value. In a table using both gauss and lines per inch, the
unit of µ should be stated.

The confusion is everywhere. It has infected various spice core
models that don't work properly. Much data is barely intelligible
because units and definitions are not clear.

Incidentally, Van der Veen, of Plitron fame, gets the formula for
inductance wrong in his book, transposing core area and magnetic
path length. I assume this is a misprint, otherwise Plitron
transformers would be very long and thin.

cheers, Ian




I was going to upload some of the BH curves that we plotted
on various grades and shapes of laminations until I saw that
Phil was still spewing his infantile idiocy.

"Jerry"

I was going to upload some of the BH curves that we plotted
on various grades and shapes of laminations until I saw that
Phil was still spewing his infantile idiocy.


** Are you really " bozo 33 " at your ISP ?

That must put you on top of many thousands of others.

BTW

Is there a prize for being the top " bozo " ??

Ever won it ?



........ Phil

I wasn't a TV addict like my parents quickly became.
At 15 I discovered folk music, and learnt to play guitar, and a mate
and i used to perform in cafes. We though most TV was extreemly boring.
I still do, and don't have a working tele.

Saying "TV is boring" is like characterizing the sound of "audio
amplifiers." There isn't 'just one' suitable to a single description.

But no matter.

Well of course not. Who in their right mind would ague about TV programmes?
Well, some do of course. 'Murder At TV Set' was a thriller written
by Archiballed Eyepocral, the well known crime writer, based on true stories.


So they settled for getting drunk sullenly,
and feuding with the missus, and beating up their kids.

Sorry. Mine was one of those 'Father Knows Best' kind of families
that everyone said didn't exist.

That's the very show we got here in Oz which even my parents thought was boring
american BS.

That's the one, eh? And here I though Mic Dundee said it was "I Love
Lucy."

Yeah, Lucy was easy on the eye, so we put up with her.

I recall Sabrina was asked to help out one evening to advertise
new non stick frypan muck that the ladies would find useful thie
gadget strewn kitchens.

Nobody in Oz ever bought any of that frypan goop as a result.

But they sure enjoyed the eyefulls.....




sit coms, yuk.

But we all had family life, not too bad, not too many murders and
burials up the back yard.

That's good.

We just dented each other a bit.

Doors to my sisters' rooms were stout, and needed to be,
since they were slammed regularly.



TV was way too hi-falootin.

So true.


But it really isn't.

Each part of the television is an applcation of a simple idea.
Its like FM radio sets. Before you build one, they seem daunting,
after you get one working you wonder why it seemed so hard.

That's exactly what I say: that everything is a collection of simple
concepts.

It's true but understates the case if one is going to build something
because every 'simple' thing you don't have experience with
exponentially complicates the task because even understanding the
'simple concept' doesn't mean you can make it work, at least on the
first shot unless you're one of the lucky types. There's usually some
'engineering' involved you don't know about and, ironically, the more
you do know the more you realize you don't know.

I mean, I understand all the 'simple concepts' to a rocket but a home
brew Saturn V is not something I'd take on as a weekend project.

My parents were so relieved when I showed no interest in hone brew
rocketry.

We blew a hole in the back yard with home made gunpowder;
lord knows whata happened if it had gone off while mixing it up.



And as another example, the 'simple concept' to lasers was known in
the 1910s but it still took them 50 years, or so, to make a working
one.

Not even Einstein could help them, he said everything should be simple, just not
too simple.

he was around at the time. Maybe nobody asked him,
"Hey Einy, got a clue about this here %^** laser beam we are farnarkling with?"

Then we may have had better lasers, but no relatives.


Einy did discover relatives later, we all know that.


I have yet to fathom what really goes on in a CD player.
I can't fix them if they go wrong, and have little idea beyond the very basics of

digital about how they work.

It's just a collection of simple concepts

But a bloke of 74 in the Melbourne Audio Club designed and built his own.

What for?


Its like the mountain, it needs to be climbed because its there.
Hardly any decent mountains in Oz, just a few hills, so the guy
built a bloomin CD player from first principles.

He was highly principled.


Well storms there are only going to get worse in coming years since the average
sea
temperature is slowly rising with the greenhouse effect.

Don't even start on that nonsense till you can tell me what the
'normal' temperature 'should' be and why,

Take the latest media hype: the arctic has been warming for 20 years,
aka "The Dwindling Arctic Ice."

Yeah, but the changes that used to take hundreds of years appear to be occuring
in decades.
I may live to see ships sailing across the arctic, no ice to stop them.



Actually, it's been warming for about 30 years but a bump 20 years ago
doesn't look good for the hype and, beside, '20 years' is alarming
enough. What they don't tell you is it was cooling just as fast as
it's now warming for the preceding 30 years (which is why you had the
chicken littles in the 70s running about screaming GLOBAL COOLING! oh
my god, GLOBAL COOLING! We'll all freeze to death) and before that it
was warming for 30 years, or more, just like it is now. Or, rather,
it's doing the same thing now that it did 90 years ago.

D'yer think it'll rain termorra?



So if you look at the 100 year trend it's essentially FLAT, not that a
100 year trend, much less 20, means diddly squat to global cycles
that last thousands and millions of years.

Yeah, well, if every person in this little blue planet works hard saves up he and she
may all enjoy the life of uncle sam, and how is the world going
to cope with 6 billion using a tonne of coal and oil per year instead
of the 1 billion who use such amounts now?

There is only so much tonnage of air per person.

To me we are heading for an unsustainable future.

Maybe the boffins with thinka somethin.
They sure will need to.





But they couldn't propagandize and scare your gullible ass if they
gave you the 100 year trend so they cherry pick whatever data points
will give the 'properly paranoid' impression.

I see your position there, and that's fine.
But I reckon when i do die, it will be at a good time.
But unless major changes are made, in two generations, the world
won't be so kind to mankind.
And womenkind will moan about it.



In fact, if you plot the arctic temperature trend line from 1880 to
1938 and project it on to now we're actually COLDER than it's
'supposed to be', based on 'what it was doing before' and there is NO
cooling OR warming, on average, from 1938 to now. It just got colder
for a while and then warmed back up to BELOW 'normal' (based on the
1880 to 1938 trend).

Well, buy a bigger air con when it warms up.

Don't worry. Whatever you do, don't worry.
She'll be right.



But then, there's no reason to think the 1880 to 1938 trend is 'what
it should be' either.

New Orleons is sinking, since the ground it sits on is slowly compacting, since
it is silt
from the past floods, so they'll have to raise the levees more and more.
Holland copes being below water level, so will that part of the US I guess.

New Orleans has always had floods too.

Yeah, but because the Mississipi walled up and doesn't flood each year
like it used to, there isn't the 2 inches of mud deposited each year,
and the land isn't building up as it compacts down over time.
So what's there is just sinking.



I'm in the Houston area and had no power problem till it was over and
then for a week after got hit with 8 hour a day outages the power
company humorously called "1 hour rolling blackouts." They just forgot
to mention they were rolled one right after the other.

They were linking our power grid over to La since our generators were
still up.

Did they round up all the tube amp users and shoot em?

Might have if they weren't so busy trying to blame the President.

Gee, I never knew he liked tube amps too.



My cousin lives in Hawaii and his comment was "living in paradise is
kind of boring." I wouldn't know as I've lived in or around this swamp
all my life, although I've visited plenty of places including your
lovely land of Oz.

Swamp rat, eh.

Folks around here think so but then they haven't been to a real swamp
like, say, southern Louisiana.

We have a few swamps up north. Mosquitoes that have a 2ft wingspan.
they hunt in packs, and 6 can suck a tourist's blood dry in 2 minutes,
*and* infect him with several deadly parasites.

Just watch out for the crocs, 37feet long, if we had aligators,
they'd be real frightened.

Patrick Turner.

Daft Phil wrote:

This would be true if µ were dB/dH,

** No way.

Yes, it would be as it is for the plummeting part.


** No way - a plummeting curve has a negative slope.

µ cannot become negative.

Idiot.

dµ/dH can be negative.

as can dµ/dv or dµ/di

I guess you look so hard for what is false, you have no time for
truth.

cheers, Ian

"Ian Iveson"


This would be true if µ were dB/dH,

** No way.

Yes, it would be as it is for the plummeting part.


** No way - a plummeting curve has a negative slope.

µ cannot become negative.

Idiot.


** Get rooted up the arse - you pathetic pommy scumbag.


dµ/dH can be negative.


** Totally ****ING irrelevant !!!

The parameter in consideration is *** µ *** !!!!!!!!!


WHAT a stinking, BLOODY LIAR you are - Iveson !!!

This insane game over.

I win 100%.

**** OFF.



.......... Phil

flipper wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:34:31 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

snip

And as another example, the 'simple concept' to lasers was known in
the 1910s but it still took them 50 years, or so, to make a working
one.

Not even Einstein could help them, he said everything should be simple, just not
too simple.

he was around at the time. Maybe nobody asked him,
"Hey Einy, got a clue about this here %^** laser beam we are farnarkling with?"

Then we may have had better lasers, but no relatives.

Einy did discover relatives later, we all know that.

Wouldn't have done any good to ask Einstein as he was a theoretical
physicist, not an engineer, and the hold up was the engineering.

And the maths.
Einy was not good at math.



That was my point about 'simple concepts'. It's one thing to
'understand' them and quite another to build it.

Well we all know that.

Just have to see the smoke commin outa workshops.



I have yet to fathom what really goes on in a CD player.
I can't fix them if they go wrong, and have little idea beyond the very basics of

digital about how they work.

It's just a collection of simple concepts

But a bloke of 74 in the Melbourne Audio Club designed and built his own.

What for?


Its like the mountain, it needs to be climbed because its there.
Hardly any decent mountains in Oz, just a few hills, so the guy
built a bloomin CD player from first principles.

He was highly principled.

Just wondered if he was trying to build a better mousetrap or... what
you described.

He just wanted something to do.
No lofty ideals here, just a jigsaw puzzle mental problem.



Well storms there are only going to get worse in coming years since the average
sea
temperature is slowly rising with the greenhouse effect.

Don't even start on that nonsense till you can tell me what the
'normal' temperature 'should' be and why,

Take the latest media hype: the arctic has been warming for 20 years,
aka "The Dwindling Arctic Ice."

Yeah, but the changes that used to take hundreds of years appear to be occuring
in decades.
I may live to see ships sailing across the arctic, no ice to stop them.

I see you've been listening to the hype again, and I just explained to
you that it *isn't* occurring 'faster'. It's doing exactly the same
thing it did 60 years ago, and at the same rate.

I have not checked...



Actually, it's been warming for about 30 years but a bump 20 years ago
doesn't look good for the hype and, beside, '20 years' is alarming
enough. What they don't tell you is it was cooling just as fast as
it's now warming for the preceding 30 years (which is why you had the
chicken littles in the 70s running about screaming GLOBAL COOLING! oh
my god, GLOBAL COOLING! We'll all freeze to death) and before that it
was warming for 30 years, or more, just like it is now. Or, rather,
it's doing the same thing now that it did 90 years ago.

D'yer think it'll rain termorra?

Is that your way of ignoring the data just presented?

At the end of the day, its what the theory boils down to.
What goes up must come down.



So if you look at the 100 year trend it's essentially FLAT, not that a
100 year trend, much less 20, means diddly squat to global cycles
that last thousands and millions of years.

Yeah, well, if every person in this little blue planet works hard saves up he and she
may all enjoy the life of uncle sam, and how is the world going
to cope with 6 billion using a tonne of coal and oil per year instead
of the 1 billion who use such amounts now?

That's a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the
arctic temperature trend lines.

There is only so much tonnage of air per person.

The implication you're trying to infer is untrue. If the 'air per
person' really were a constant closed system then the entire planet
would have run out of breathable oxygen long before the first mammals
mucked around in the muddy goop.

But notice how there's still oxygen left to breath?

If my allotment of air is say 30 tonnes, and I add 2 tonnes of CO2
per annum, but 4 out of 5 others with the same allotment of air
in 3rd world countries don't do what I do, then what am i doing?
I'm screwing up the balance in my own and other ppl's air.





Researchers have tried to do experiments with 'excess' CO2 but you
know what happens? You get a roomful of bushy green plants sucking it
up. Take out the plants and you get bacteria rich soil sucking it up.
In fact, the only way they've been able to get an excessive CO2 build
up is to pump it into a empty sterile container, and that ain't earth.

The earth is becoming a sterile container due to mankinds
effects upon the container.

But look its all too complex to really reach a conclusion.
I am non technical and non expert with climate analysis.
So I don't expect to win an argument or admit i lost one.


To me we are heading for an unsustainable future.

And that's what the Egyptian said before someone thought of storing up
grain.

Iraq is a very good example of unstainable agriculture.
Look at its 10,000 year history.
Its quite starkly grim.





Maybe the boffins with thinka somethin.
They sure will need to.

The entire history of mankind has been to "thinka somethin." Otherwise
you'd be out foraging for nuts, berries, and grub roots instead of
building tube amps and winding OPTs.

But they couldn't propagandize and scare your gullible ass if they
gave you the 100 year trend so they cherry pick whatever data points
will give the 'properly paranoid' impression.

I see your position there, and that's fine.

Well, I have multiple positions there but the first and foremost one
is that I don't trust people who lie with data and no one beats the
'global warming' fanatics on that score.

You can virtually be assumed that whatever a global warming fanatic
tells you is a misrepresentation because their one and only objective
is to 'convince' you and they don't seem to give a dam how it's done.
And if telling you your dick will fall off would work then they'd
'predict' your dick will fall off.

But I reckon when i do die, it will be at a good time.
But unless major changes are made, in two generations, the world
won't be so kind to mankind.
And womenkind will moan about it.

And you base that prediction on what? That someone said your dick will
fall off?

Contrary to the popular belief, 'global warming' has not been proven,
much less that it's caused by human activity vs normal, yet you
already know how its going to destroy mankind.

Even Bush says climate change is here to stay.
Now the big companies want to know how to profit
from it.



Aren't you just the least bit suspicious at how the 'predicitons' are
always doom and gloom?

Not all.

Some one predicted we'd have cars and roads instead of horses
and buggies.

Then some said we'd have such a happy 20th century, but
millions died screaming in wars.




In fact, if you plot the arctic temperature trend line from 1880 to
1938 and project it on to now we're actually COLDER than it's
'supposed to be', based on 'what it was doing before' and there is NO
cooling OR warming, on average, from 1938 to now. It just got colder
for a while and then warmed back up to BELOW 'normal' (based on the
1880 to 1938 trend).

Well, buy a bigger air con when it warms up.

Why? One of the 'predictions' is that 'global warming' will trigger an
ice age.

Then buy a heater so you won't freeze.



Yes, folks. they've got it covered. There is absolutely nothing they
haven't 'predicted', more storms, fewer storms, more rain, less rain,
more hurricanes and, yes, fewer hurricanes and, finally, an ice age.
So it doesn't matter *what* happens, it's 'global warming'.

In any other field of science you'd be laughed out of the room, if not
stripped of your credentials.

Don't worry. Whatever you do, don't worry.
She'll be right.

The earth has been warmer than even the most dire predictions and
colder as well. Yet it's still here.

But then, there's no reason to think the 1880 to 1938 trend is 'what
it should be' either.

New Orleons is sinking, since the ground it sits on is slowly compacting, since
it is silt
from the past floods, so they'll have to raise the levees more and more.
Holland copes being below water level, so will that part of the US I guess.

New Orleans has always had floods too.

Yeah, but because the Mississipi walled up and doesn't flood each year
like it used to, there isn't the 2 inches of mud deposited each year,
and the land isn't building up as it compacts down over time.
So what's there is just sinking.

So your solution is to let the Mississippi flood the place and drop 2
inches of mud over the city each year?

No.

Build higher levees.
Bush is considering spending billions to
adress the whole problem.



I'm in the Houston area and had no power problem till it was over and
then for a week after got hit with 8 hour a day outages the power
company humorously called "1 hour rolling blackouts." They just forgot
to mention they were rolled one right after the other.

They were linking our power grid over to La since our generators were
still up.

Did they round up all the tube amp users and shoot em?

Might have if they weren't so busy trying to blame the President.

Gee, I never knew he liked tube amps too.

Well, don't tell anyone or else they'll find a way to bitch about that
too.

My cousin lives in Hawaii and his comment was "living in paradise is
kind of boring." I wouldn't know as I've lived in or around this swamp
all my life, although I've visited plenty of places including your
lovely land of Oz.

Swamp rat, eh.

Folks around here think so but then they haven't been to a real swamp
like, say, southern Louisiana.

We have a few swamps up north. Mosquitoes that have a 2ft wingspan.
they hunt in packs, and 6 can suck a tourist's blood dry in 2 minutes,
*and* infect him with several deadly parasites.

Sound like harmless midgets compared to the Texas variety.

All those 1950's low budget 'giant bug' sci-fi thrillers were shot
around here, you know, because they could use the local species
instead of having to make props.

And you folks wonder why we have guns racks in the truck.

Just watch out for the crocs, 37feet long, if we had aligators,
they'd be real frightened.

Now there's a problem we don't have as the cockroaches killed them all
off. Well, except for the ones kept as house pets.

But the cockroaches curl up and die when they
smell Australian Garlic.

Patrick Turner.



Patrick Turner.

Wouldn't have done any good to ask Einstein as he was a theoretical
physicist, not an engineer, and the hold up was the engineering.

And the maths.
Einy was not good at math.

That's an urban myth.

Well Einy lived in urban areas.
He was a cool dude though.



That was my point about 'simple concepts'. It's one thing to
'understand' them and quite another to build it.

Well we all know that.

Just have to see the smoke commin outa workshops.

yep

But it explains why people who would be willing to build a radio won't
necessarily take on a TV set. Too many new unknowns, and the cost of
trying is higher.

And in 1955 just when you had the perfect mono hi-fi set along came stereo....
Lotsa ppl waited for transistors to mature a bit when they
changed from germanium to silicon, so they didn't bother to replace the tubes,
they parked the old mono set and bought a solid horror.
Some even built solid horrors, but by 1965, most
people who settled down were busy raisin a family.
The Pill was yet to make any impact.



snip


Well storms there are only going to get worse in coming years since the average
sea
temperature is slowly rising with the greenhouse effect.

Don't even start on that nonsense till you can tell me what the
'normal' temperature 'should' be and why,

Take the latest media hype: the arctic has been warming for 20 years,
aka "The Dwindling Arctic Ice."

Yeah, but the changes that used to take hundreds of years appear to be occuring
in decades.
I may live to see ships sailing across the arctic, no ice to stop them.

I see you've been listening to the hype again, and I just explained to
you that it *isn't* occurring 'faster'. It's doing exactly the same
thing it did 60 years ago, and at the same rate.

I have not checked...

Well, maybe you should if you're going to worry about the horrible
possibility of ships not being attacked by ice in the arctic gasp.

I don't care where the ships go.
But the polar bears might find conditions have changed.


At the end of the day, its what the theory boils down to.
What goes up must come down.

I have no idea what 'theory' you're speaking of.

Water goes up because the extra heat evaporates more water.
So it them comes down again, maybe bigger storms.



So if you look at the 100 year trend it's essentially FLAT, not that a
100 year trend, much less 20, means diddly squat to global cycles
that last thousands and millions of years.

Yeah, well, if every person in this little blue planet works hard saves up he and she
may all enjoy the life of uncle sam, and how is the world going
to cope with 6 billion using a tonne of coal and oil per year instead
of the 1 billion who use such amounts now?

That's a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the
arctic temperature trend lines.

There is only so much tonnage of air per person.

The implication you're trying to infer is untrue. If the 'air per
person' really were a constant closed system then the entire planet
would have run out of breathable oxygen long before the first mammals
mucked around in the muddy goop.

But notice how there's still oxygen left to breath?

If my allotment of air is say 30 tonnes, and I add 2 tonnes of CO2
per annum, but 4 out of 5 others with the same allotment of air
in 3rd world countries don't do what I do, then what am i doing?
I'm screwing up the balance in my own and other ppl's air.

You're still using the fallacious model of a stagnant atmosphere.

But even though 6billion share all the air, we can consider how much of it
is allotted to each one of us in tonnes.

Then work out who is making all the pollution and CO2, and you will find its the wealthy
20% of the world is polluting the other 80% of the population.

But when 40% of the population gets wealthy within 40 years,
then regardless of whether we stop sending up smoke, the overall smoke
factor will be much worse.
More tonnes per person od ****e will be generated.




But if you're worried about it, stop breathing. You're putting out
CO2.

Let me give you some numbers for your 'allotment' because the global
warming folks never will. The earth's atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and
oxygen. EVERY thing else is in the last 1%, CO2 being about 0.0360%.
And that includes all the "tonnes" you speak of.

So when you hear numbers like "25% increase in CO2" you're looking at
a 0.009% atmospheric change (strike me dead). Btw, that 25% is how
much it's increased over the last 300 years and last I heard mankind
wasn't driving internal combustion automobiles in 1705. or 1805 for
that matter, and damn few even in 1905.

From little things, big things grow.

Small increases in CO2 may seem like nothing now, but
wait 50 years and things could be very different.





Researchers have tried to do experiments with 'excess' CO2 but you
know what happens? You get a roomful of bushy green plants sucking it
up. Take out the plants and you get bacteria rich soil sucking it up.
In fact, the only way they've been able to get an excessive CO2 build
up is to pump it into a empty sterile container, and that ain't earth.

The earth is becoming a sterile container due to mankinds
effects upon the container.

Utter nonsense based on absolutely nothing.

Oh, so how much forest has been levelled in the last 100 years?

In 20 years, most of the amazon will be gone.
Its been there for thousands of years, and in a few centuries, poof,
gone.

I won't mention the terrible fires thay have in
southern asia, indonesia due to cleared forest that has been felled then set alight in the
dry season.
Smoke lingers in monstrous clouds for weeks.

Desertification in Africa and the drying up of its lakes is well underway;
its not a greening continent.

And what happened in Iraq with its farming land can happen in america
and australia.
We get over the problems early Iraqi cities had when they ran out of grain
with ships and truck all based on oil power.

What happens when the oil runs out?

The French are building what they hope will be the first fusion reactor.
So if power ever becomes dirt cheap then all the monkeys will
just buy 4 chainsaws instead of one, so the demise of the natural world will be
propelled by the abundance of the cheap energy as every little boy grows
up to a man and promises his demanding wife that he can provide the best life.

In 25 years I doubt 9 billion all trying to live like north americans
will be sustainable.

I don't care much because I won't be around, didn't have any offspring,
and couldn't change the materialistic consumeristic patterns of behaviour
if I tried.




But look its all too complex to really reach a conclusion.

That's the most accurate thing you've said on the topic.

I am non technical and non expert with climate analysis.
So I don't expect to win an argument or admit i lost one.

So then explain how you can be so absolutely sure, to the point of
using ridicule as a weapon, about something you just said is too
complex to reach a conclusion about?

We can propose that mankind will change the world in this way or that.
There is no conclusion to be had though. Can we fortell what
life will be like in 10,000 years?
100,000?
Of course not.






To me we are heading for an unsustainable future.

And that's what the Egyptian said before someone thought of storing up
grain.

Iraq is a very good example of unstainable agriculture.
Look at its 10,000 year history.
Its quite starkly grim.

No offense intended but I doubt you have sufficient knowledge of
Iraq's 10,000 year history to rationally arrive at such a conclusion
and, even if you did, what makes you think that Iraq is the definitive
model for all of mankind?

Gee, Iraq bought enormous loads of wheat from Oz.
They must import their food.

Oz produces enough to feed itself, and export a lot.
But soil salinity is a much rising problem in the fragile Oz lands, and
in 100years there may be only 1/2 the arable land left here.
Only 100 years.
In 10,000 years, at the current rate of land pillage, I expect
serious troubles to keep up with demand for food.
But by then maybe we have genetically altered the human race to eat its own ****
and rubbish. There will be large mountains of rubbish in the year 12005
if nothing much is done about landfill.




Not to mention it is a trivial exercise to point to other places that
have astronomically higher crop yields per acre and produce many times
over that which is needed for their own local populations.

Then populations build up and equilibrium is exceeded and another green revolution
is required.
Maybe they'd learn how to grow rice in the desert.




Fortunately, mankind invented a little thing called trade that allows
folks who, for example, make tube amplifiers to eat even though they
do not produce enough food to feed themselves.

But it all boils down to arable land and the number of mouths to feed.
In 100 years, maybe there are 12 billions, and 1/2 the land that will grow anything.

Even Bush says climate change is here to stay.

And since when did you ever believe anything Bush said?


Not very often. But he said he'd go to war in Iraq, and he did.
( To grab the oil for America. He never says that's the reason but without
a drop of oil there he'd have let Saddam's country rot.)



The statement is, however, true albeit trivially obvious as the
climate on this planet has always changed and will continue to change
regardless of anything mankind does.

Now the big companies want to know how to profit
from it.

Dern shame we can't go back to slave labor and make them do it all for
'free', eh?

Well the big bosses of corporations want you to be
exploited, and brain dulled, so you will be compliant
little consumers, buying all that ticky tacky modern rubbish,
fed on BS and kept in the dark.
Its like we are mushrooms.



Aren't you just the least bit suspicious at how the 'predicitons' are
always doom and gloom?

Not all.

So much for your "cynic" credentials.

Some one predicted we'd have cars and roads instead of horses
and buggies.

Then some said we'd have such a happy 20th century, but
millions died screaming in wars.

And what the hell does any of that have to do with the global warming
propagandists? Answer: not a damn thing.

Well they predicted a nice peace full war free world after WW1, we had the war to end all
wars.

But we got far more state inspired terror during the following 60 years.

PPL like you are saying we will have a nice lot of weather in the future,
despite all the indicators saying we won't.

OK, the predictions are wrong on the weather maybe.
Maybe they are right though.

Anyway, we will have to muddle along like always.



CO2 is actually good for plant life, so is increased rainfall, and
global warming would turn many currently unaerable lands into gardens.

And many other places will revert to deserts with changed weather patterns.
We will face both good and bad.
Northern latitude regions that warm up a bit may not be much good for
increased cropping; not enough sunshine.



I'm not suggesting that means we should 'encourage' global warming but
you're not being told the truth about it. You're being given selective
misleading data and one sided distortions. In short, propaganda.

But you see the splinter in my eye while there is a log in yours.
Don't you see that dismissing the greenhouse effect as trivial and unimportant is
the propaganda of avoidists.

What if you are forced to eat your words?

Don't say I didn't warn you.




In fact, if you plot the arctic temperature trend line from 1880 to
1938 and project it on to now we're actually COLDER than it's
'supposed to be', based on 'what it was doing before' and there is NO
cooling OR warming, on average, from 1938 to now. It just got colder
for a while and then warmed back up to BELOW 'normal' (based on the
1880 to 1938 trend).

Well, buy a bigger air con when it warms up.

Why? One of the 'predictions' is that 'global warming' will trigger an
ice age.

Then buy a heater so you won't freeze.

Why? The others say it's getting warmer.

Buy both a huge heater and cooler, and no matter what happens, you'll
be OK.





See? The point is they can't even decide if 'global warming' is
warming or cooling.

Well as you can see, some say its definately warming up an an unprecedented rate.
Others say its all natural fluctuations, and in 50 years it may have cooled down,
but with so much energy and CO2 being liberated in the atmosphere
I doubt it will get cooler.



Which is why they've decided to call it "climate
change." 'Solves' the conundrum of not having a clue.

Its greenhouse effect.

But we can be forced to get used to it, regardless of what we call it.



But the fundamental problem remains that if your models can't figure
out which the hell way it's going then what makes you think the models
are worth a ****?

Very few models indicate cooling.




Now I realize you don't 'need' a computer model to design tube
amplifiers but just for the sake of argument lets say you wanted to
get one. So I show you a modeling program, you plug in a tube amp
schematic you've already built, and it pops up with "well, it might
put out 5 watts max, or 30 watts, or it might oscillate, but maybe
not. Plate current is low, but then it might be too high. Freq
response might be -+ 1db 20 to 20k, or maybe -+10db 50 to 10k, or...
are you sure this is an amplifier?:

You'd tell me to shove the stupid thing where the sun don't shine.

But simulation of amplifiers has been a tool used for a long time now.
Simulation of weather patterns in the world is a lot more complex and
nobody is saying its getting cooler, all the record hot years have been withing the last
10 years.



But with global warming models that do the same thing you run around
screaming how the world is coming to an end.

Well the world *is* coming to an end in much the same way as when we are born we
are on a timescale that takes us to death.
If we ride our Harleys carelessly, and make silly decisions about
food, drugs and alcohol, maybe we have a briefer life than had we made better decisions.

Many ppl feel that we are changing the world too much.
Its like when ppl started to go to the coastal towns to have a better simple life
with the simple unhurried locals and everything was cheap and there was no crime,
and the local fishing boats on the beach were all so picturesque.
But millions are on the damn move to the coastal places for a spot near a beach so we have
high rises,
shopping centres, high prices, traffic jams, and the quiet villages we loved so much are
gone forever and every local has turned into a spiv out to fleece you
and many crims have moved in to feed and the life is no better than the cities ppl fled from
and the sea has sewerage run off, fishing is ****ed and because of all the changes they had
to make to
the shore line the beach has been washed away.
The island of Rhodes is an example.


But the cockroaches curl up and die when they
smell Australian Garlic.

Send me some.

Nope, its a "controlled and dangerous substance" classified under
new anti terrorist laws.

Patrick Turner.

flipper skirmished with poor Patrick

....[flurry, below]

Go easy, Flips!

Have you forgotten the halcyon days of simple pleasures? Patrick is
of the generation that sang stuff like "we've gotta get ourselves
back to the garden". He may not have been into flower power, but
would have been keen on Schumacher. There is much he has in common
with many devotees of valve audio.

As for your argument, I see no more evidence on one side than the
other. Perhaps that is also your view, in which case I don't see how
you get to appear so sure that Patrick is wrong. Two factors, IMHO,
are responsible for the emergence of the debate you seem to despise.

First, people are aware that we have the power to change the
environment in which we live. This is a new awareness, partly
informed by global monitoring, and partly from such events as
Chernobyl and other disasters and nuclear stuff. A consciousness of
power automatically raises the issue of responsibility, and all the
moral and practical questions it entails.

Second, there is the continuing effort of science to get a grasp of
complicated things. The immediate need is for informed analysis for
the purpose of making decisions about how we use our power. The need
for practical advance in "earth management" skills is only just
emerging. There is a progression here, BTW, from social science:
once the universal spirit becomes self-aware, the focus of its
attention passes to the universe in which it finds itself. At first
we fleetingly see the big picture before losing ourselves in the
detail. Eventually we will emerge and grasp it all as one again.
Like Star Trek. But seriously, the scale of public involvement in
the environmental debate is even greater than the left/right social
science thing was. Of course it will be political...that's what
politics *is*.

So how would you expect this debate to progress? We have a world
full of people applying a new-found social awareness, an emergent
social being trying to sort its thoughts out about itself and the
world it is in. All its arguments need two sides. You would not
exist were it not for Patrick.

cheers, Ian


Einy was not good at math.

That's an urban myth.

I see you've been listening to the hype again, and I just
explained to
you that it *isn't* occurring 'faster'. It's doing exactly the
same
thing it did 60 years ago, and at the same rate.

I have not checked...

Well, maybe you should if you're going to worry about the horrible
possibility of ships not being attacked by ice in the arctic
gasp.

D'yer think it'll rain termorra?

Is that your way of ignoring the data just presented?

At the end of the day, its what the theory boils down to.
What goes up must come down.

I have no idea what 'theory' you're speaking of.


But notice how there's still oxygen left to breath?

If my allotment of air is say 30 tonnes, and I add 2 tonnes of CO2
per annum, but 4 out of 5 others with the same allotment of air
in 3rd world countries don't do what I do, then what am i doing?
I'm screwing up the balance in my own and other ppl's air.

You're still using the fallacious model of a stagnant atmosphere.

But if you're worried about it, stop breathing. You're putting out
CO2.

Let me give you some numbers for your 'allotment' because the
global
warming folks never will. The earth's atmosphere is 99% nitrogen
and
oxygen. EVERY thing else is in the last 1%, CO2 being about
0.0360%.
And that includes all the "tonnes" you speak of.

So when you hear numbers like "25% increase in CO2" you're looking
at
a 0.009% atmospheric change (strike me dead). Btw, that 25% is how
much it's increased over the last 300 years and last I heard
mankind
wasn't driving internal combustion automobiles in 1705. or 1805
for
that matter, and damn few even in 1905.

The earth is becoming a sterile container due to mankinds
effects upon the container.

Utter nonsense based on absolutely nothing.

But look its all too complex to really reach a conclusion.

That's the most accurate thing you've said on the topic.

I am non technical and non expert with climate analysis.
So I don't expect to win an argument or admit i lost one.

So then explain how you can be so absolutely sure, to the point of
using ridicule as a weapon, about something you just said is too
complex to reach a conclusion about?

To me we are heading for an unsustainable future.

And that's what the Egyptian said before someone thought of
storing up
grain.

Iraq is a very good example of unstainable agriculture.
Look at its 10,000 year history.
Its quite starkly grim.

No offense intended but I doubt you have sufficient knowledge of
Iraq's 10,000 year history to rationally arrive at such a
conclusion
and, even if you did, what makes you think that Iraq is the
definitive
model for all of mankind?

Not to mention it is a trivial exercise to point to other places
that
have astronomically higher crop yields per acre and produce many
times
over that which is needed for their own local populations.

Fortunately, mankind invented a little thing called trade that
allows
folks who, for example, make tube amplifiers to eat even though
they
do not produce enough food to feed themselves.

Maybe the boffins with thinka somethin.
They sure will need to.

The entire history of mankind has been to "thinka somethin."
Otherwise
you'd be out foraging for nuts, berries, and grub roots instead
of
building tube amps and winding OPTs.

Well, I have multiple positions there but the first and foremost
one
is that I don't trust people who lie with data and no one beats
the
'global warming' fanatics on that score.

You can virtually be assumed that whatever a global warming
fanatic
tells you is a misrepresentation because their one and only
objective
is to 'convince' you and they don't seem to give a dam how it's
done.
And if telling you your dick will fall off would work then
they'd
'predict' your dick will fall off.

But I reckon when i do die, it will be at a good time.
But unless major changes are made, in two generations, the
world
won't be so kind to mankind.
And womenkind will moan about it.

And you base that prediction on what? That someone said your
dick will
fall off?

Contrary to the popular belief, 'global warming' has not been
proven,
much less that it's caused by human activity vs normal, yet you
already know how its going to destroy mankind.

Even Bush says climate change is here to stay.

And since when did you ever believe anything Bush said?

The statement is, however, true albeit trivially obvious as the
climate on this planet has always changed and will continue to
change
regardless of anything mankind does.

Now the big companies want to know how to profit
from it.

Dern shame we can't go back to slave labor and make them do it all
for
'free', eh?

Aren't you just the least bit suspicious at how the
'predicitons' are
always doom and gloom?

Not all.

So much for your "cynic" credentials.

Some one predicted we'd have cars and roads instead of horses
and buggies.

Then some said we'd have such a happy 20th century, but
millions died screaming in wars.

And what the hell does any of that have to do with the global
warming
propagandists? Answer: not a damn thing.

CO2 is actually good for plant life, so is increased rainfall, and
global warming would turn many currently unaerable lands into
gardens.

I'm not suggesting that means we should 'encourage' global warming
but
you're not being told the truth about it. You're being given
selective
misleading data and one sided distortions. In short, propaganda.

Well, buy a bigger air con when it warms up.

Why? One of the 'predictions' is that 'global warming' will
trigger an
ice age.

Then buy a heater so you won't freeze.

Why? The others say it's getting warmer.

See? The point is they can't even decide if 'global warming' is
warming or cooling. Which is why they've decided to call it
"climate
change." 'Solves' the conundrum of not having a clue.

But the fundamental problem remains that if your models can't
figure
out which the hell way it's going then what makes you think the
models
are worth a ****?

Now I realize you don't 'need' a computer model to design tube
amplifiers but just for the sake of argument lets say you wanted
to
get one. So I show you a modeling program, you plug in a tube amp
schematic you've already built, and it pops up with "well, it
might
put out 5 watts max, or 30 watts, or it might oscillate, but maybe
not. Plate current is low, but then it might be too high. Freq
response might be -+ 1db 20 to 20k, or maybe -+10db 50 to 10k,
or...
are you sure this is an amplifier?:

You'd tell me to shove the stupid thing where the sun don't shine.

But with global warming models that do the same thing you run
around
screaming how the world is coming to an end.

flipper wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:50:21 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

flipper skirmished with poor Patrick

...[flurry, below]

Go easy, Flips!

Have you forgotten the halcyon days of simple pleasures? Patrick is
of the generation that sang stuff like "we've gotta get ourselves
back to the garden". He may not have been into flower power, but
would have been keen on Schumacher. There is much he has in common
with many devotees of valve audio.

You'll have to enlighten me as to what any of that has to do with the
accuracy and truthfulness of data.

As for your argument, I see no more evidence on one side than the
other. Perhaps that is also your view, in which case I don't see how
you get to appear so sure that Patrick is wrong.

You'd first have to tell me what you think the 'sides' are and what
you think I've said Patrick is 'wrong' about, and why.

Two factors, IMHO,
are responsible for the emergence of the debate you seem to despise.

I don't despise 'debate'. I despise deceitful data manipulation,
mischaracterization of fact, hype and propaganda.

First, people are aware that we have the power to change the
environment in which we live.

And that statement is a typical circular argument where the global
warming advocates seek to establish the expected conclusion in an
assumed premise before the so called 'investigation' has even begun.

Everything affects 'the environment'. Beavers do. termite fart does,
and if you think that's a joke look up methane emissions by
termites's.

This is a new awareness, partly
informed by global monitoring,

Incorrect. The premise was presented as 'fact' long before 'global
monitoring', as such, began and sprung from the anti-technology, some
say anti-mankind, movement. Everything mankind does is 'un-natural',
because we conveniently define 'natural' as anything other than what
mankind does, so everything mankind does is 'evil' because it's
'un-natural'. Self serving circular argument with the last element
being the deification of 'nature'.

Break out the lute and lyre, earth goddess is here.

and partly from such events as
Chernobyl and other disasters and nuclear stuff. A consciousness of
power automatically raises the issue of responsibility, and all the
moral and practical questions it entails.

Interesting train of thought that begins with an unestablished
assumption.

Simple rule of logic. Take "if A then B then C." If you haven't
established A then the rest is moot.

And contrary to your assessment of Chernobyl, it didn't raise any
'new' questions of 'responsibility' that mankind hasn't dealt with
since the first Cro-Magnon walled off 'their' water hole from the
neighbors or 'accidentally' triggered a rock slide that buried his
hunting pal.

As for 'power', the energy released by the Indian Ocean earthquake on
December 26, 2004 alone, just that one event on one day, was roughly
equivalent to the entire world's nuclear arsenal. As impressive as it
seemed to 'powerful mankind', Chernobyl wasn't even so much as an itch
on the earth goddess ass.

Second, there is the continuing effort of science to get a grasp of
complicated things. The immediate need is for informed analysis for
the purpose of making decisions about how we use our power.

I have no problem with science. What I have a problem with is
deceitful manipulation of data, misrepresentation, unfounded hype and
propaganda.

The need
for practical advance in "earth management" skills is only just
emerging.

That presumes mankind has the power and ability to 'manage' a planet,
not to mention the wisdom to do it based on truthful data instead of
deceit.

There is a progression here, BTW, from social science:
once the universal spirit becomes self-aware, the focus of its
attention passes to the universe in which it finds itself.

I knew some form of 'religious fervor' would eventually crop up. Its
endemic.

At first
we fleetingly see the big picture before losing ourselves in the
detail. Eventually we will emerge and grasp it all as one again.
Like Star Trek. But seriously, the scale of public involvement in
the environmental debate is even greater than the left/right social
science thing was. Of course it will be political...that's what
politics *is*.

That isn't what science is and its bad enough you seem to feel that
deceitful data manipulation, misrepresentation of fact, hype and
propaganda are 'just politics' without trying to inject it into
science.

So how would you expect this debate to progress?

With honest data and rational analysis. Without it you've broken all
resemblance to science and cause-effect so you might as well call for
virgin sacrifices to appease the earth goddess.

We have a world
full of people applying a new-found social awareness, an emergent
social being trying to sort its thoughts out about itself and the
world it is in.

What you have is a world full of people being lied to.

All its arguments need two sides.

Or 3, or 4, or 5, or any number. Otherwise it would be 'agreement'
rather than 'argument'.

But arguing with lies does not lead to truth, and that's what we seek,
isn't it?

You would not
exist were it not for Patrick.

My 'existence' does not depend on Patrick.

Thank goodness for that.

Feel free to discuss the issues of global warming/cooling/whatever
at rec.life.world

When you got to your bit about Chernoble not having much effect,
and after reading about the increase in cancer rates in that part of the
world
since Chernoble happened, I decided that there are limits to
discussions, and I am too busy to discuss more especially
since nothing is related to saturation in transformers.

Patrick Turner.

I had a quick read of what you are saying Flipper, and it was very interesting,
and i don't mean to offend by top posting, but I don't have all the time in the world to
spend talking about the next 20 years, or 20,000 years of world climate patterns
at rec.audio tubes.

But basically i think humans have a lot to fear from their activities.

Regards,

Patrick Turner.

flipper wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:30:50 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

snip


Well storms there are only going to get worse in coming years since the average
sea
temperature is slowly rising with the greenhouse effect.

Don't even start on that nonsense till you can tell me what the
'normal' temperature 'should' be and why,

Take the latest media hype: the arctic has been warming for 20 years,
aka "The Dwindling Arctic Ice."

Yeah, but the changes that used to take hundreds of years appear to be occuring
in decades.
I may live to see ships sailing across the arctic, no ice to stop them.

I see you've been listening to the hype again, and I just explained to
you that it *isn't* occurring 'faster'. It's doing exactly the same
thing it did 60 years ago, and at the same rate.

I have not checked...

Well, maybe you should if you're going to worry about the horrible
possibility of ships not being attacked by ice in the arctic gasp.

I don't care where the ships go.
But the polar bears might find conditions have changed.

You could ask them what they did 90 years ago when the same thing
happened,

At the end of the day, its what the theory boils down to.
What goes up must come down.

I have no idea what 'theory' you're speaking of.

Water goes up because the extra heat evaporates more water.
So it them comes down again, maybe bigger storms.

And maybe irrigates plants and food crops.

However, that was not the 'theory' under discussion when you wandered
off into rainfall.

So if you look at the 100 year trend it's essentially FLAT, not that a
100 year trend, much less 20, means diddly squat to global cycles
that last thousands and millions of years.

Yeah, well, if every person in this little blue planet works hard saves up he and she
may all enjoy the life of uncle sam, and how is the world going
to cope with 6 billion using a tonne of coal and oil per year instead
of the 1 billion who use such amounts now?

That's a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the
arctic temperature trend lines.

There is only so much tonnage of air per person.

The implication you're trying to infer is untrue. If the 'air per
person' really were a constant closed system then the entire planet
would have run out of breathable oxygen long before the first mammals
mucked around in the muddy goop.

But notice how there's still oxygen left to breath?

If my allotment of air is say 30 tonnes, and I add 2 tonnes of CO2
per annum, but 4 out of 5 others with the same allotment of air
in 3rd world countries don't do what I do, then what am i doing?
I'm screwing up the balance in my own and other ppl's air.

You're still using the fallacious model of a stagnant atmosphere.

But even though 6billion share all the air, we can consider how much of it
is allotted to each one of us in tonnes.

No, you can't because it is not a static closed system and there's an
entire planet full of things sucking the CO2 back out.

Then work out who is making all the pollution and CO2, and you will find its the wealthy
20% of the world is polluting the other 80% of the population.

In the first place, what you please to call 'pollution' is a natural
component of the atmosphere without which we would all freeze to
death. Second, you have yet to establish mankind is putting 'too much'
into it, or even what 'too much' could possibly be, much less
established it results in a 'bad thing'. Its all fear mongering based
on hysterical speculation of distorted. misrepresented, and incomplete
data which you, yourself, said was too complex and unknown to draw any
conclusions from.

But when 40% of the population gets wealthy within 40 years,
then regardless of whether we stop sending up smoke, the overall smoke
factor will be much worse.
More tonnes per person od ****e will be generated.

Why don't you worry about termite fart instead? There's a hell of a
lot more of them than use.

But if you're worried about it, stop breathing. You're putting out
CO2.

Let me give you some numbers for your 'allotment' because the global
warming folks never will. The earth's atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and
oxygen. EVERY thing else is in the last 1%, CO2 being about 0.0360%.
And that includes all the "tonnes" you speak of.

So when you hear numbers like "25% increase in CO2" you're looking at
a 0.009% atmospheric change (strike me dead). Btw, that 25% is how
much it's increased over the last 300 years and last I heard mankind
wasn't driving internal combustion automobiles in 1705. or 1805 for
that matter, and damn few even in 1905.

From little things, big things grow.

If it's a seed and it gets enough rainfall, maybe.

But platitudes aren't science.

Small increases in CO2 may seem like nothing now, but
wait 50 years and things could be very different.

Could, might, maybe. That isn't science it's fear mongering.

Researchers have tried to do experiments with 'excess' CO2 but you
know what happens? You get a roomful of bushy green plants sucking it
up. Take out the plants and you get bacteria rich soil sucking it up.
In fact, the only way they've been able to get an excessive CO2 build
up is to pump it into a empty sterile container, and that ain't earth.

The earth is becoming a sterile container due to mankinds
effects upon the container.

Utter nonsense based on absolutely nothing.

Oh, so how much forest has been levelled in the last 100 years?

vs how many trees that have been planted.

There are more trees in the U.S. now that when the pilgrims landed and
the biggest 'deforester' was the ice age glaciers that wiped
everything flat through the entire middle U.S., what we now call "The
Great Plains" because the glacier left it flatter'n a board with zippo
trees in it.

Compared to the havoc wreaked by 'earth goddess' mankind is a piker
and while 'earth goddess' thinks nothing at all of blowing the top off
a mountain or wiping nearly every living thing off half an entire
continent with glaciers mankind actually cares and trots in after the
carnage planting trees and ****.

In 20 years, most of the amazon will be gone.
Its been there for thousands of years, and in a few centuries, poof,
gone.

I don't know where you got that specific incarnation of the gem but
the "trees will be gone in 20 years" has been tossed out for over 50
years that I personally know of and guess what? They still ain't gone.

As for the Amazon, since most of it is in Brazil I imagine you might
have gotten, through some circuitous route, the 'prediction' that, at
current rates, 42% of it will be deforested by 2020. Besides the fact
that the 'current rate' assumption is nonsensical, the calculation
itself it bullocks. At the 'current rate' it would result in 8% less,
not 42%, which is a damn far cry from "most." Further, all these
'predictions' assume the nonsensical notion that nothing ever changes.

Studies show that 87.5% of the Amazon is basically intact and of the
other 12.5% HALF is in the process of regeneration.

I won't mention the terrible fires thay have in
southern asia, indonesia due to cleared forest that has been felled then set alight in the
dry season.
Smoke lingers in monstrous clouds for weeks.

Good for not mentioning it because I don't have the time to debunk
every 'environment' myth.

Desertification in Africa and the drying up of its lakes is well underway;
its not a greening continent.

And what happened in Iraq with its farming land can happen in america
and australia.
We get over the problems early Iraqi cities had when they ran out of grain
with ships and truck all based on oil power.

What happens when the oil runs out?

You have now gotten to just whining about any and every 'problem' you
can imagine whether it has anything to do with the subject or not even
to the final absurdity of adding 'what happens when there's no oil' to
a discussion of how much CO2 burning oil puts in the atmosphere.

OK, here's your answer. There won't be any CO2 put out by oil when we
run out of oil.

The French are building what they hope will be the first fusion reactor.
So if power ever becomes dirt cheap then all the monkeys will
just buy 4 chainsaws instead of one, so the demise of the natural world will be
propelled by the abundance of the cheap energy as every little boy grows
up to a man and promises his demanding wife that he can provide the best life.

Going to be one hell of a long extension cord from France to the
Amazon powering the kids electric chainsaw.

Not that it has a damn thing to do with CO2 emissions from oil.

In 25 years I doubt 9 billion all trying to live like north americans
will be sustainable.

And that 'prediction' has been made since time immemorial too with the
most famous being Malthus in 1789. He was wrong.

I don't care much because I won't be around, didn't have any offspring,
and couldn't change the materialistic consumeristic patterns of behaviour
if I tried.

Good thing you can't change it too because if they "all lived like
north americans" there wouldn't be 9 billion "in 25 years." Population
growth in the developed countries is close to flat with declining
populations in many European countries and nearly 100 percent of
future growth will occur in the less developed countries of Africa,
Asia, and Latin America.

The North America growth rate is less than 1%, and expected to decline
even further, with a major chunk, if not all, of that being
immigration.

That's why you don't hear the enviros whining about population growth
any mo you can't bash America with it.

But look its all too complex to really reach a conclusion.

That's the most accurate thing you've said on the topic.

I am non technical and non expert with climate analysis.
So I don't expect to win an argument or admit i lost one.

So then explain how you can be so absolutely sure, to the point of
using ridicule as a weapon, about something you just said is too
complex to reach a conclusion about?

We can propose that mankind will change the world in this way or that.
There is no conclusion to be had though. Can we fortell what
life will be like in 10,000 years?
100,000?
Of course not.

Its irrational to 'propose' when you can't draw a conclusion.

To me we are heading for an unsustainable future.

And that's what the Egyptian said before someone thought of storing up
grain.

Iraq is a very good example of unstainable agriculture.
Look at its 10,000 year history.
Its quite starkly grim.

No offense intended but I doubt you have sufficient knowledge of
Iraq's 10,000 year history to rationally arrive at such a conclusion
and, even if you did, what makes you think that Iraq is the definitive
model for all of mankind?

Gee, Iraq bought enormous loads of wheat from Oz.
They must import their food.

Go ahead and try telling me they've been doing it for 10,000 years.

Oz produces enough to feed itself, and export a lot.
But soil salinity is a much rising problem in the fragile Oz lands, and
in 100years there may be only 1/2 the arable land left here.

Since we're going to just 'imagine' things, in 100 years there may be
flying pigs.

Only 100 years.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

In 10,000 years, at the current rate of land pillage, I expect
serious troubles to keep up with demand for food.

In 10,000 years I expect mankind will employ technologies just as
mysterious to us as a TV set would be to a cro-magnon.

But by then maybe we have genetically altered the human race to eat its own ****
and rubbish. There will be large mountains of rubbish in the year 12005
if nothing much is done about landfill.

Nonsense. In just 100 years it'll all be routinely recycled in the
food replicator.

Not to mention it is a trivial exercise to point to other places that
have astronomically higher crop yields per acre and produce many times
over that which is needed for their own local populations.

Then populations build up and equilibrium is exceeded and another green revolution
is required.

Nope. You have your population growth sites exactly backwards, as I
showed above.

Maybe they'd learn how to grow rice in the desert.

Why not?

Fortunately, mankind invented a little thing called trade that allows
folks who, for example, make tube amplifiers to eat even though they
do not produce enough food to feed themselves.

But it all boils down to arable land and the number of mouths to feed.
In 100 years, maybe there are 12 billions, and 1/2 the land that will grow anything.

Even Bush says climate change is here to stay.

And since when did you ever believe anything Bush said?


Not very often. But he said he'd go to war in Iraq, and he did.

He said he'd go to war if Iraq didn't comply with the 13 over 12 years
of mandatory 'last chance or else' U.N resolutions. They didn't.

( To grab the oil for America. He never says that's the reason but without
a drop of oil there he'd have let Saddam's country rot.)

He didn't say it because that wasn't the reason and it still isn't the
reason no matter how many times you spurt that nonsense.

The statement is, however, true albeit trivially obvious as the
climate on this planet has always changed and will continue to change
regardless of anything mankind does.

Now the big companies want to know how to profit
from it.

Dern shame we can't go back to slave labor and make them do it all for
'free', eh?

Well the big bosses of corporations want you to be
exploited, and brain dulled, so you will be compliant
little consumers, buying all that ticky tacky modern rubbish,
fed on BS and kept in the dark.
Its like we are mushrooms.

Speak for yourself.

Aren't you just the least bit suspicious at how the 'predicitons' are
always doom and gloom?

Not all.

So much for your "cynic" credentials.

Some one predicted we'd have cars and roads instead of horses
and buggies.

Then some said we'd have such a happy 20th century, but
millions died screaming in wars.

And what the hell does any of that have to do with the global warming
propagandists? Answer: not a damn thing.

Well they predicted a nice peace full war free world after WW1, we had the war to end all
wars.

No, the global warming propagandists did not.

But we got far more state inspired terror during the following 60 years.

Which, again, hasn't got a damn thing to do with global warming
propagandists.


PPL like you are saying we will have a nice lot of weather in the future,

I never said any such thing.

despite all the indicators saying we won't.

The problem is there ARE NO 'indicators' saying what you claim.
There's just wild ass one sided hysterical speculation based on
falsified half data and misrepresentation.

OK, the predictions are wrong on the weather maybe.
Maybe they are right though.

Anyway, we will have to muddle along like always.

That would be fine if it weren't for the enviro fascists trying to
tell everyone the precise means to 'muddle' with based on lies and
hysterics.

CO2 is actually good for plant life, so is increased rainfall, and
global warming would turn many currently unaerable lands into gardens.

And many other places will revert to deserts with changed weather patterns.
We will face both good and bad.
Northern latitude regions that warm up a bit may not be much good for
increased cropping; not enough sunshine.

At least I got you to realize there's potentially two sides to it.

I'm not suggesting that means we should 'encourage' global warming but
you're not being told the truth about it. You're being given selective
misleading data and one sided distortions. In short, propaganda.

But you see the splinter in my eye while there is a log in yours.

Not so.

Don't you see that dismissing the greenhouse effect as trivial and unimportant is
the propaganda of avoidists.

You are making the classic mistake of presuming that my insistence on
valid data and rational analysis means I'm 'dismissing' something.
Well, yes, I'm 'dismissing' invalid conclusions derived from falsified
data.

But I said not one thing about 'dismissing' the greenhouse effect.

What if you are forced to eat your words?

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh I won't have to worry about that. At my age I've been 'warned' of
every possibility on just about everything, including space alien
invasion.

In fact, if you plot the arctic temperature trend line from 1880 to
1938 and project it on to now we're actually COLDER than it's
'supposed to be', based on 'what it was doing before' and there is NO
cooling OR warming, on average, from 1938 to now. It just got colder
for a while and then warmed back up to BELOW 'normal' (based on the
1880 to 1938 trend).

Well, buy a bigger air con when it warms up.

Why? One of the 'predictions' is that 'global warming' will trigger an
ice age.

Then buy a heater so you won't freeze.

Why? The others say it's getting warmer.

Buy both a huge heater and cooler, and no matter what happens, you'll
be OK.

What are you? A shill for the big bad business folks trying to sell me
****?

See? The point is they can't even decide if 'global warming' is
warming or cooling.

Well as you can see, some say its definately warming up an an unprecedented rate.
Others say its all natural fluctuations, and in 50 years it may have cooled down,
but with so much energy and CO2 being liberated in the atmosphere
I doubt it will get cooler.

You left out global warming causing another ice age. That's not the
'natural fluctuation' folks.

So while YOU "doubt it will get cooler" you're at odds with the global
warming gods.

Which is why they've decided to call it "climate
change." 'Solves' the conundrum of not having a clue.

Its greenhouse effect.
But we can be forced to get used to it, regardless of what we call it.

You're behind on the official propaganda wording. The greenhouse
effect is responsible for "climate change."

See, it's problematic for the predictions to contradict each other
because even the average fool might begin to suspect it's nonsense so
you call it "climate change," and since the climate is always changing
you can then point to absolutely anything and go... SEE? See? SEE?
see? Then you can pull out whichever model of the hundreds 'predicted'
that and say See? see? See? see?

But the fundamental problem remains that if your models can't figure
out which the hell way it's going then what makes you think the models
are worth a ****?

Very few models indicate cooling.

Well then, by all means, throw those suckers out because they're not
giving the answer you've already decided on.

Now I realize you don't 'need' a computer model to design tube
amplifiers but just for the sake of argument lets say you wanted to
get one. So I show you a modeling program, you plug in a tube amp
schematic you've already built, and it pops up with "well, it might
put out 5 watts max, or 30 watts, or it might oscillate, but maybe
not. Plate current is low, but then it might be too high. Freq
response might be -+ 1db 20 to 20k, or maybe -+10db 50 to 10k, or...
are you sure this is an amplifier?:

You'd tell me to shove the stupid thing where the sun don't shine.

But simulation of amplifiers has been a tool used for a long time now.

Doesn't matter. You'd throw out one that gave those kinds of answers
because it's useless, regardless of how long its been out or anything
else.

Simulation of weather patterns in the world is a lot more complex

Which is a big reason why schematic modeling programs work and the
global climate ones don't.

The other big reason is you have to know how something works in order
to model it and we're not even remotely close when it comes to 'global
climate'.

and
nobody is saying its getting cooler,

Au contraire

http://www.iceagenow.com/

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

all the record hot years have been withing the last
10 years.

"Record hot" compared to what? The previous 'record cold'?

Speaking of which, did you know that the 'global warming' numbers
usually touted from "1850 to the present" just happen to coincide with
the earth recovering from the mini-ice age of 1300 to 1850? That's
right 'selective data' again.

Here, read this synopsis (and do read it because there's a lot more
than I'm pasting in)

http://www.americanoutlook.org/index...detail&id=3007

As to your 'record hot':

"The Hysteria:

Average global temperatures in 2002 could be the highest ever
recorded, British weather experts said yesterday.
Reuters News Service, August. 2, 2002.

------------------ Temperature records only go back to 1860, the end
of the Little Ice Age."------------- (emphasis added)

-------- So it's 'hotter' than an ice age. Woe is me------------ (me)

So what were temperatures?

"Reality Check:

The study, appearing in the March 21, 2002 issue of the journal
Science, analyzed ancient tree rings from fourteen sites on three
continents in the northern hemisphere and concluded that temperatures
in an era known as the Medieval Warm Period some 800 to 1,000 years
ago closely matched the warming trend of the twentieth century.
Associated Press report, March 22, 2002."

"During the Medieval Climate Optimum, global temperatures were about 1
to 3 degrees Fahrenheit higher than our current temperatures (See
Global Changes in the Perspective of the Past, edited by J.A. Eddy and
H. Oeschger, Wiley and Sons, 1993). During the Little Ice Age, which
lasted from about 1300 to 1850 AD, temperatures in Europe and Asia
fell 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit below the present and may have dipped
as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit lower during the thirteenth century
(See Climatic History and the Future, vol. 2, Princeton University
Press, 1985, p. 463). We have less exact knowledge of temperatures
during the Roman warming or in the mini-Ice Age that followed it.
However, it is clear that the Earth’s climate has been cycling warmer
and colder as far back into history as the records go."

---------Notice how we survived all those previous 'global warming'
periods? And, if the 'dire predictions' happen we'll warm to LESS than
the "Medieval Climate Optimum."----------------------------- (me)

"The Medieval Climate Optimum was one of the most favorable periods in
human history. Crops were abundant because winters were milder and
growing seasons were longer. There was more rainfall because higher
sea temperatures evaporated more moisture, which then descended again
as rain or snow. Farmers moved farther up the mountain slopes and
farther north in Scandinavia, Russia, Manchuria, and Japan. The
Vikings discovered Greenland, which really was green with grass; three
thousand colonists pastured cattle on what is now frozen tundra.

What did not happen is equally interesting from our modern
perspective: Rising sea levels did not inundate low-lying cities.
Malaria mosquitoes did not infest Sweden. Virtually none of the scary
scenarios currently being advanced to help convince us to quadruple
our energy prices actually occurred during the medieval warming.

--------------What happens when we DON'T have 'global
warming'?-------- (me)

After 1300 AD, the world began to cool, and the Little Ice Age began
to develop across the planet. Harsh weather problems emerged as a
result: the Little Ice Age brought deeper cold, fiercer storms, severe
droughts, more crop failures, and more famines. The Viking dairy
colonists in western Greenland starved. The fishing colony in eastern
Greenland lasted another one-hundred-and-fifty years before ice closed
in on it, too (See The Little Ice Age; Basic Books, 2000, pp. 66-68).

------- In other words, the historical evidence is exactly the
OPPOSITE of what the global warming fanatics claim.-------------(me)

The number of glaciers in Europe and North America peaked between the
late 1600s and mid-1700s. Glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere peaked
later, after 1800. The innovative historical climate research analyst,
H. H. Lamb, notes that oxygen isotopes from German oak trees document
a continuing decline in temperatures from 1350 to about 1800. "

-----------Hey, there's been 'global warming' since 1850. THANK GOD.
Actually, thank the sun. --------- (me)

"The most striking feature of the four-hundred-year sunspot record is
a seventy-year period during which there were virtually no sunspots at
all. That period is called the Maunder Minimum. It began in 1640 and
ended in 1710, the low-temperature nadir of the Little Ice Age
absolutely linking the absence of sunspots (low solar activity) with
low temperatures on Earth.

When we use carbon-14 isotopes (which are predominantly used in carbon
dating) as a proxy for solar activity before 1600, they show a high
level of solar activity during the medieval warming and a reduced
level of solar activity during a cold period (the Sporer Minimum)
around 1350 AD....

According to Dr. Sally Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics, Twentieth-century temperature changes show a strong
correlation with the sun’s changing energy output. . . . The low
magnetism of the seventeenth century . . . coincides with the coldest
century of the last millennium, and there is sustained high magnetism
in the latter twentieth century [when temperatures rose]"

But with global warming models that do the same thing you run around
screaming how the world is coming to an end.

Well the world *is* coming to an end in much the same way as when we are born we
are on a timescale that takes us to death.
If we ride our Harleys carelessly, and make silly decisions about
food, drugs and alcohol, maybe we have a briefer life than had we made better decisions.

If you want to discuss the sun eventually going dark then fine but
saving up oil isn't going to help.


Many ppl feel that we are changing the world too much.

People "feel" a lot of things but 'feelings' ain't science.

Its like when ppl started to go to the coastal towns to have a better simple life
with the simple unhurried locals and everything was cheap and there was no crime,
and the local fishing boats on the beach were all so picturesque.
But millions are on the damn move to the coastal places for a spot near a beach so we have
high rises,
shopping centres, high prices, traffic jams, and the quiet villages we loved so much are
gone forever and every local has turned into a spiv out to fleece you
and many crims have moved in to feed and the life is no better than the cities ppl fled from
and the sea has sewerage run off, fishing is ****ed and because of all the changes they had
to make to
the shore line the beach has been washed away.
The island of Rhodes is an example.

It may be an example of something but its a completely useless one for
global warming.

But the cockroaches curl up and die when they
smell Australian Garlic.

Send me some.

Nope, its a "controlled and dangerous substance" classified under
new anti terrorist laws.

Patrick Turner.

Feel free to discuss the issues of global warming/cooling/whatever
at rec.life.world

When you got to your bit about Chernoble not having much effect,
and after reading about the increase in cancer rates in that part of the
world
since Chernoble happened,

That is a total mischaracterization of what I said. The topic was
global warming and how 'powerful' mankind is relative to nature and in
that context Chernobyl pales in comparison to an earthquake equal to
the entire world's nuclear arsenal.

Mischaracterization is a word I don't hear much around here....



But I am just as saddened by injuries from Chernobyl as I am by the
millions upon millions buried in earthquakes, drowned in tsunamis, or
brunt to a crisp by volcanos.

Don't forget the car crash victims, and the poor folks in countries where
life expectancy is 45.

Patrick Turner.

flipper wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:39:58 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



I had a quick read of what you are saying Flipper, and it was very interesting,
and i don't mean to offend by top posting,

No problem.

but I don't have all the time in the world to
spend talking about the next 20 years, or 20,000 years of world climate patterns
at rec.audio tubes.

Good timing as this is probably enough to show that the 'other side',
so to speak, has at least as much, if not more, supporting evidence
and is not a frivolous 'feeling', whether you agree with it or not.

But basically i think humans have a lot to fear from their activities.

I'm not surprised because you seem prone to the most negative view on
most things.

Other people say you are the negative one.
Maybe they are all negative.
But wherever there is a positive charge, there will be a negative charge nearby,
and sometimes there is lightning.....

I don't like standing on top of a hill in a thunderstorm.


I positively think we are subjects ruled by the king or the tyrant in our mind, our actions and
decisions,
our wisdom and ignorance, and the luck we get.

Patrick Turner.





Now back to tubes.

flipper wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:58:49 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



flipper wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:39:58 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



I had a quick read of what you are saying Flipper, and it was very interesting,
and i don't mean to offend by top posting,

No problem.

but I don't have all the time in the world to
spend talking about the next 20 years, or 20,000 years of world climate patterns
at rec.audio tubes.

Good timing as this is probably enough to show that the 'other side',
so to speak, has at least as much, if not more, supporting evidence
and is not a frivolous 'feeling', whether you agree with it or not.

But basically i think humans have a lot to fear from their activities.

I'm not surprised because you seem prone to the most negative view on
most things.

Other people say you are the negative one.
Maybe they are all negative.

Maybe they are but it would sure be interesting to find out what
definition 'they' use for "negative" if 'they' think postulating that
mankind isn't destroying the planet is a 'negative' viewpoint.

Perchance 'they' have confused a differing opinion with a 'negative'
one.

Well whatever is -ve or +ve is opposite depending which side you are on.

But if you have a 45 stuck in their mouth, they'll usually agree
with any idea of + or - you may be gently trying to explain.




But wherever there is a positive charge, there will be a negative charge nearby,
and sometimes there is lightning.....

I don't like standing on top of a hill in a thunderstorm.

Me either. On the other hand I don't feel like wasting my time
worrying about being eaten by a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Sure, it would be
horrible if it happened but I have more plausible things to deal with.

Yeah, would be horrible, you'd give the big lizard bad indigestion.

Patrick Turner.



I positively think we are subjects ruled by the king or the tyrant in our mind, our actions and
decisions,
our wisdom and ignorance, and the luck we get.

True enough but just because Johnny threw some rocks in the air
doesn't mean he cracked the sky.


Patrick Turner.





Now back to tubes.

"Phil Allison" wrote in
:


** Easier to just measure temp rise of a sample design to determine
VA rating.

Once you have that figure, a user only has to measure primary rms
current to see if the VA is within the limit.

what a crack ho.

--
stealthaxe

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:53:13 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

Follow my quite detailed account. It may help you with graphs in
future, dolt.

Thanks for the very entertaining and informing slap-down of a pair of
cretins. 8)

"dizzy"

Thanks for the very entertaining and informing slap-down of a pair of
cretins. 8)



** Another scumbag tube head ****wit.



............. Phil

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:28:20 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

....Snip...

***RDH is confused about µ***

The graph on page 230 (fig 5.15) doesn't fit the definition of µ
given on the same page. The authors emphasise that its value is B/H,
not dB/dH. The peak value should therefore occur at the knee of the
BH curve, from where its tangent passes through the origin. RDH has
got the peak in the right place, above the knee rather than above
the steepest part of the BH curve, which is where it would be were µ
to be dB/dH.

But the right hand side of the curve is wrong by miles. µ is shown
to plummet towards zero as the gradient of the BH curve flattens
towards saturation. This would be true if µ were dB/dH, but if it is
B/H then it should drop more gradually with an asymptote along the B
axis.

I think an explanation for this may be found in a similar plot found in the
book,"Magnetic Circuits and Transformers", by the staff of the EE Dept. at MIT,
published in 1943. On page 23 is shown a graph of the permeability and flux
density of standard electrical steel. The graph is very similar to the one on
page 230 of RDH, but this one shows that the x-axis is logarithmic, which
explains the apparent discrepancies you mention.

In this book, the permeability defined by the slope of a straight line from
the origin to any point on the magnetization curve is called "static
permeability". But, of course, it can't be a straight line drawn on semi-log
coordinates; however, once the line has been drawn on a linear coordinate
system, the locus of points constituting the permeability curve can be re-drawn
on semi-log paper, as was done in the MIT book. I've posted the graph over on
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic.

The name given in this book to dB/dH is "incremental permeability".


The shape of the curve shown on page 216 (fig 5.13D) fits their
definition better, but that is for AC, which is another can of
worms.

Checking several sites and books, there is no agreement on whether µ
is B/H or dB/dH.

For example, Menno van der Veen says that µ reflects the mobility of
the magnetic domains. This observation seems to favour the dynamic
definition, because at saturation there is no mobility even though
the value of µ may still be high according to the static RDH
definition. He shows a graph of inductance versus secondary voltage,
in which the inductance plummets to near zero at saturation, which
is what I would expect. He also correctly points out that µ is the
only variable in the equation for inductance for a given inductor.
Hence where the inductance falls to near-zero, so must µ.

Further, µ0 is used for the permeability of free space, and also for
initial permeability, as in the table on page 208. The unit for µ
and µ0 is also generally omitted. It does have a footnote that says
"strictly" the unit is gauss/oersted. It also states that µ0 = 1.
Actually its unit depends on what system of units you are using, as
does its value. In a table using both gauss and lines per inch, the
unit of µ should be stated.

The confusion is everywhere. It has infected various spice core
models that don't work properly. Much data is barely intelligible
because units and definitions are not clear.

Incidentally, Van der Veen, of Plitron fame, gets the formula for
inductance wrong in his book, transposing core area and magnetic
path length. I assume this is a misprint, otherwise Plitron
transformers would be very long and thin.

cheers, Ian

"The Phantom"

I think an explanation for this may be found in a similar plot found in
the
book,"Magnetic Circuits and Transformers", by the staff of the EE Dept. at
MIT,
published in 1943. On page 23 is shown a graph of the permeability and
flux
density of standard electrical steel. The graph is very similar to the
one on
page 230 of RDH, but this one shows that the x-axis is logarithmic, which
explains the apparent discrepancies you mention.

In this book, the permeability defined by the slope of a straight line
from
the origin to any point on the magnetization curve is called "static
permeability". But, of course, it can't be a straight line drawn on
semi-log
coordinates; however, once the line has been drawn on a linear coordinate
system, the locus of points constituting the permeability curve can be
re-drawn
on semi-log paper, as was done in the MIT book. I've posted the graph
over on
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic.

The name given in this book to dB/dH is "incremental permeability".



** My god - I think the man is finally, really onto something.



........ Phil ;-)