| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Dec 2005 05:47:15 PM |
| Object: |
Replacing helium on earth |
G'day Groupies,
I saw a telly documentary last night which in discussing gasses in
general, explained the valuable nature of helium in industry and
science. Apparently it is lost all the time to space, due to its
bouyancy, and steps have been taken to store it underground when
recovered from flammable hydrocarbon deposits.
Q: Is synthesiation of He possible, and does this (production) occur
naturally?
Do we need fear running out?
Thanks
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
19 Dec 2005 06:23:26 PM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1135036035.735898.174440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
G'day Groupies,
I saw a telly documentary last night which in discussing gasses in
general, explained the valuable nature of helium in industry and
science. Apparently it is lost all the time to space, due to its
bouyancy, and steps have been taken to store it underground when
recovered from flammable hydrocarbon deposits.
Q: Is synthesiation of He possible, and does this (production) occur
naturally?
Do we need fear running out?
The nucleus of the common isotope of helium is an alpha particle.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hans Lohninger" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
20 Dec 2005 06:21:46 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1135036035.735898.174440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
G'day Groupies,
I saw a telly documentary last night which in discussing gasses in
general, explained the valuable nature of helium in industry and
science. Apparently it is lost all the time to space, due to its
bouyancy, and steps have been taken to store it underground when
recovered from flammable hydrocarbon deposits.
Q: Is synthesiation of He possible, and does this (production) occur
naturally?
Do we need fear running out?
Thanks
Jim G
c'=c+v
More on Helium can be found here:
http://www.vias.org/encyclopedia/persys_he.html
Estimates on the total amount of He are:
1.9 x 10^14 kg in Earth's crust and 9 x 10^9 kg in the oceans.
So, there's plenty of Helium....
Regards,
Hans
=====================================
Hans Lohninger
EPINA GmbH - Software Development Lohninger
www.lohninger.com
======================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
20 Dec 2005 03:50:34 PM |
|
|
Hans Lohninger wrote:
More on Helium can be found here:
http://www.vias.org/encyclopedia/persys_he.html
Estimates on the total amount of He are:
1.9 x 10^14 kg in Earth's crust and 9 x 10^9 kg in the oceans.
So, there's plenty of Helium....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium#Abundance
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
21 Dec 2005 12:05:43 AM |
|
|
Summary:
(Thanks to all who replied)
He _can_ be synthesized.
Value of He is such (present) that it is collected by some
(far-sighted?) organisations,
and dumped by others.
Access to He is not considered a looming problem, but as it is being
stored,
is considered by some as a finite resource.
My sceptical thoughts: the program was a beatup as to the loss of He to
space.
Is H also lost similarly? Is the stratosphere composed of a high
concentration of the two,
both of which are escaping earth's gravity?
Thanks again
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
21 Dec 2005 04:10:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
He _can_ be synthesized.
Not economically. Commercial helium as the byproduct of fusion is
still a long way off. Helium as the byproduct of fission requires doing
*SOMETHING* that isn't environmentally catastrophic with the
radioactive daughter isotopes of the fission/alpha decay. Right now we
can't even decide what to do with the radioactive byproducts of the
power generating nuclear reactors we have currently in service.
The data regarding the production of helium at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
is essentially correct.
The price of helium may be expected to drop sharply in the near future
as the Federal government starts selling off some 32 billion cubic feet
(about $2 Billion at 1995 prices) that has been held in storage.
Value of He is such (present) that it is collected by some
(far-sighted?) organisations,
The Federal government *used* to be far-sighted regarding helium. The
Helium Conservation Program (set up in the 1960's) prevented the
wasting of the helium that was a by-product of developing the
helium-rich natural gas fields. Previously it had been vented, as is
currently being done in helium-rich gas fields in Poland and Algeria.
and dumped by others.
Access to He is not considered a looming problem, but as it is being
stored,
is considered by some as a finite resource.
From the Helium Privatization Act of 1996:
"Not later than January 1, 2005, the Secretary shall commence offering
for sale crude helium from helium reserves owned by the United States
in such amounts as would be necessary to dispose of all such helium
reserves in excess of 600,000,000 cubic feet on a straight-line basis
between such date and January 1, 2015."
Public Law 104-273, Section 8(A)(1)
That means flooding the market with 31.6 billion SCF (standard cubic
feet - the amount of helium in a cubic foot of gas at 760 Torr and 70=B0
F - an 'engineering' unit). This will be done in only 10 years,
requiring adding over 3 billion SCF per year to the marketplace.
My sceptical thoughts: the program was a beatup as to the loss of He to
space.
The Helium Conservation Program worked, as long as the Federal
government was willing to support it. The Cliffside Storage Field keeps
the gas sealed under a caprock of dolomite (compressed Mg/Ca carbonate)
some 400 feet thick. Analysis of gases from a second formation that
overlies the caprock of the storage formation indicates no measurable
helium losses have occurred from the reservoir.
The helium that is being lost to space originates from sources that are
not sealed with a caprock, from natural gas production in fields with
low helium content (generally less than 2%), from production activities
that are not trying to conserve the helium, or from end users of
helium.
Is H also lost similarly?
Most H in the earth is chemically bound - usually to oxygen as H2O.
H2O is lost to space much more slowly as it weighs about 4.5 times as
much as a helium atom. Much H2O is also effectively bound permanently
to heavier compounds as hydrates or hydroxides such as lime or potash.
Is the stratosphere composed of a high
concentration of the two,
both of which are escaping earth's gravity?
The closest I could find to a 'composition' for stratospheric air is
this:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
which is an average up to 25 km. This includes the lower stratosphere,
which starts at about 8 km at the poles and from 7 to 17 km at the
equator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere
The concentration of helium is fairly uniform at 5.22 ppm from the
ground up. Hydrogen concentration varies because water generally
condenses before it reachers the stratosphere, falling back down.
Thanks again
Jim G
c'=3Dc+v
P=2ES.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
21 Dec 2005 09:12:17 PM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
He _can_ be synthesized.
Not economically. Commercial helium as the byproduct of fusion is
still a long way off. Helium as the byproduct of fission requires doing
*SOMETHING* that isn't environmentally catastrophic with the
radioactive daughter isotopes of the fission/alpha decay. Right now we
can't even decide what to do with the radioactive byproducts of the
power generating nuclear reactors we have currently in service.
The data regarding the production of helium at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
is essentially correct.
The price of helium may be expected to drop sharply in the near future
as the Federal government starts selling off some 32 billion cubic feet
(about $2 Billion at 1995 prices) that has been held in storage.
Value of He is such (present) that it is collected by some
(far-sighted?) organisations,
The Federal government *used* to be far-sighted regarding helium. The
Helium Conservation Program (set up in the 1960's) prevented the
wasting of the helium that was a by-product of developing the
helium-rich natural gas fields. Previously it had been vented, as is
currently being done in helium-rich gas fields in Poland and Algeria.
Much is being done (sic talked) about the looming hydrocarbon runout
(whenever that may be). It would seem very short sighted of Uncle Sam
to squander this stored He, especially as it would cost practically
nothing (once it is under the cap rock).
and dumped by others.
Access to He is not considered a looming problem, but as it is being
stored,
is considered by some as a finite resource.
From the Helium Privatization Act of 1996:
"Not later than January 1, 2005, the Secretary shall commence offering
for sale crude helium from helium reserves owned by the United States
in such amounts as would be necessary to dispose of all such helium
reserves in excess of 600,000,000 cubic feet on a straight-line basis
between such date and January 1, 2015."
Public Law 104-273, Section 8(A)(1)
That means flooding the market with 31.6 billion SCF (standard cubic
feet - the amount of helium in a cubic foot of gas at 760 Torr and 70=B0
F - an 'engineering' unit). This will be done in only 10 years,
requiring adding over 3 billion SCF per year to the marketplace.
=3Dsell the farm and leave He demise to future generations-- (typical
of this one)
My sceptical thoughts: the program was a beatup as to the loss of He to
space.
The Helium Conservation Program worked, as long as the Federal
government was willing to support it. The Cliffside Storage Field keeps
the gas sealed under a caprock of dolomite (compressed Mg/Ca carbonate)
some 400 feet thick. Analysis of gases from a second formation that
overlies the caprock of the storage formation indicates no measurable
helium losses have occurred from the reservoir.
The helium that is being lost to space originates from sources that are
not sealed with a caprock, from natural gas production in fields with
low helium content (generally less than 2%), from production activities
that are not trying to conserve the helium, or from end users of
helium.
Is H also lost similarly?
Most H in the earth is chemically bound - usually to oxygen as H2O.
H2O is lost to space much more slowly as it weighs about 4.5 times as
much as a helium atom. Much H2O is also effectively bound permanently
to heavier compounds as hydrates or hydroxides such as lime or potash.
Is ALL our atmosphere being lost then? A molecule/atom would need to
exceed 22,000km altitude (geosync orbit); where comes the energy to
give it such a shove against gravity?
Is the sun stealing it?
Is the stratosphere composed of a high
concentration of the two,
both of which are escaping earth's gravity?
The closest I could find to a 'composition' for stratospheric air is
this:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
which is an average up to 25 km. This includes the lower stratosphere,
which starts at about 8 km at the poles and from 7 to 17 km at the
equator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere
The concentration of helium is fairly uniform at 5.22 ppm from the
ground up. Hydrogen concentration varies because water generally
condenses before it reachers the stratosphere, falling back down.
The program didn't mention other gasses being evapourated to space. A
homogenous atmosphere suggest to me the He might not be being lost any
more than other gasses.
Q: We use argon for welding (inert fields to work in). Perhaps this is
a good enough substitute that humanity can do without He??
P.S.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
No. Is that the same Brian Wallace who committed suicide when he
realised that
c' NOT=3Dc+v ? (except when v=3D0)
Jim G
c'=3Dc+v
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
21 Dec 2005 11:03:19 PM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
P.S.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Humble apologies for my gratuitous remarks ref Brian G Wallace.
Thank you VERY much for that link, which is gratifying to me in
supporting
my views expressed here (and are based on logical diagnosis of
phenomena/data/observation)
I'd better learn to "look before I lip" :-)
Years worth of ammo..............
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
21 Dec 2005 11:23:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2005, wrote:
tadchem wrote:
P.S.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
Richmond, VA
Humble apologies for my gratuitous remarks ref Brian G Wallace.
Thank you VERY much for that link, which is gratifying to me in
supporting
my views expressed here (and are based on logical diagnosis of
phenomena/data/observation)
I'd better learn to "look before I lip" :-)
Years worth of ammo..............
You mean you'd never bothered reading any of the "c+v" literature that's
out there? O'Rahilly? Waldron? Dingle?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
22 Dec 2005 01:47:23 AM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2005, wrote:
tadchem wrote:
P.S.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
Richmond, VA
Humble apologies for my gratuitous remarks ref Brian G Wallace.
Thank you VERY much for that link, which is gratifying to me in
supporting
my views expressed here (and are based on logical diagnosis of
phenomena/data/observation)
I'd better learn to "look before I lip" :-)
Years worth of ammo..............
You mean you'd never bothered reading any of the "c+v" literature that's
out there? O'Rahilly? Waldron? Dingle?
Honestly, does that surprise you?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
22 Dec 2005 02:08:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2005, Eric Gisse wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2005, wrote:
tadchem wrote:
P.S.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
Richmond, VA
Humble apologies for my gratuitous remarks ref Brian G Wallace.
Thank you VERY much for that link, which is gratifying to me in
supporting
my views expressed here (and are based on logical diagnosis of
phenomena/data/observation)
I'd better learn to "look before I lip" :-)
Years worth of ammo..............
You mean you'd never bothered reading any of the "c+v" literature that's
out there? O'Rahilly? Waldron? Dingle?
Honestly, does that surprise you?
Honestly, no. Not after his refusals to read even the English language
sources in the Arago experiment discussion. Not after his continued "GR
predicts" about gravitational lensing after it's been repeatedly pointed
out that GR predicts something other than what he claims.
Reading is hard work! Thinking is hard work! Learning is hard work! At
least bleating on usenet is easy! Is it really that surprising that usenet
shows that Sturgeon was a couple of orders of magnitude too optimistic?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
22 Dec 2005 04:34:04 PM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2005, wrote:
tadchem wrote:
P.S.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
Richmond, VA
Humble apologies for my gratuitous remarks ref Brian G Wallace.
Thank you VERY much for that link, which is gratifying to me in
supporting
my views expressed here (and are based on logical diagnosis of
phenomena/data/observation)
I'd better learn to "look before I lip" :-)
Years worth of ammo..............
You mean you'd never bothered reading any of the "c+v" literature that's
out there? O'Rahilly? Waldron? Dingle?
Your options: Wallace was a liar and dissembler of the first order,
OR c'=c+v
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
22 Dec 2005 08:13:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2005, wrote:
tadchem wrote:
P.S.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
Humble apologies for my gratuitous remarks ref Brian G Wallace.
Thank you VERY much for that link, which is gratifying to me in
supporting
my views expressed here (and are based on logical diagnosis of
phenomena/data/observation)
I'd better learn to "look before I lip" :-)
Years worth of ammo..............
You mean you'd never bothered reading any of the "c+v" literature that's
out there? O'Rahilly? Waldron? Dingle?
Your options: Wallace was a liar and dissembler of the first order,
OR c'=c+v
You mean you'd never bothered to read any of the "c+v" literature?
There is a 3rd option that you failed to mention: Wallace was wrong. It's
quite possible that he was honestly mistaken. Why do you assume
dishonesty?
Wallace's data, or at least the analysis and interpetation, is not
undisputed. Doesn't matter; there should be lots of data to support
"c'=c+v", if it is correct. As you should be well aware, there is no
single experiment that supports special relativity against all competing
theories. It's a whole bunch of experiments together that support SR
against competing theories. "c'=c+v" must be able to adequately explain
_all_ the experiments, not just Wallace's data.
For example, the early anti-"c'=c+v" evidence was astronomical. Sans
extinction, the astronomical evidence is against "c'=c+v". Fox covers
the issue of extinction is his paper. With extinction, how come
Fresnel-Fizeau drag? The correct theory must be able to explain both. I
have yet to see an adequate explanation of Fresnel-Fizeau drag based on
"c'=c+v" that is also compatible with the use of extinction to explain
the astronomical results. If you find one, let me know.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
22 Dec 2005 11:27:26 PM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2005, wrote:
tadchem wrote:
P.S.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
Humble apologies for my gratuitous remarks ref Brian G Wallace.
Thank you VERY much for that link, which is gratifying to me in
supporting
my views expressed here (and are based on logical diagnosis of
phenomena/data/observation)
I'd better learn to "look before I lip" :-)
Years worth of ammo..............
You mean you'd never bothered reading any of the "c+v" literature that's
out there? O'Rahilly? Waldron? Dingle?
Your options: Wallace was a liar and dissembler of the first order,
OR c'=c+v
You mean you'd never bothered to read any of the "c+v" literature?
There is a 3rd option that you failed to mention: Wallace was wrong. It's
quite possible that he was honestly mistaken. Why do you assume
dishonesty?
Wallace's data, or at least the analysis and interpetation, is not
undisputed. Doesn't matter; there should be lots of data to support
"c'=c+v", if it is correct. As you should be well aware, there is no
single experiment that supports special relativity against all competing
theories. It's a whole bunch of experiments together that support SR
against competing theories. "c'=c+v" must be able to adequately explain
_all_ the experiments, not just Wallace's data.
Except that using radar ranging of venus from dusk and dawn positions
simultaneously, subjected to AE, show venus at two positions at the
SAME instant.
(Hint: This categorically denies veracity of c= c+v)
For example, the early anti-"c'=c+v" evidence was astronomical. Sans
extinction, the astronomical evidence is against "c'=c+v". Fox covers
the issue of extinction is his paper. With extinction, how come
Fresnel-Fizeau drag? The correct theory must be able to explain both. I
have yet to see an adequate explanation of Fresnel-Fizeau drag based on
"c'=c+v" that is also compatible with the use of extinction to explain
the astronomical results. If you find one, let me know.
Read the whole friggin link.
Wallace clearly explains (and Shapiro admitted) that that the
astronomical observations were subjected to, and obtained through
systems USING c=c+v, BEFORE "data" was analysed.
(ie the data was AE spaghetti before conclusions were made from it.)
Jim G
c'=c+v
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
PS: This "shrine to the spirits"................that would be to AE ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
23 Dec 2005 12:24:02 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2005, wrote:
tadchem wrote:
P.S.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
Humble apologies for my gratuitous remarks ref Brian G Wallace.
Thank you VERY much for that link, which is gratifying to me in
supporting
my views expressed here (and are based on logical diagnosis of
phenomena/data/observation)
I'd better learn to "look before I lip" :-)
Years worth of ammo..............
You mean you'd never bothered reading any of the "c+v" literature that's
out there? O'Rahilly? Waldron? Dingle?
Your options: Wallace was a liar and dissembler of the first order,
OR c'=c+v
You mean you'd never bothered to read any of the "c+v" literature?
There is a 3rd option that you failed to mention: Wallace was wrong. It's
quite possible that he was honestly mistaken. Why do you assume
dishonesty?
Wallace's data, or at least the analysis and interpetation, is not
undisputed. Doesn't matter; there should be lots of data to support
"c'=c+v", if it is correct. As you should be well aware, there is no
single experiment that supports special relativity against all competing
theories. It's a whole bunch of experiments together that support SR
against competing theories. "c'=c+v" must be able to adequately explain
_all_ the experiments, not just Wallace's data.
Except that using radar ranging of venus from dusk and dawn positions
simultaneously, subjected to AE, show venus at two positions at the
SAME instant.
(Hint: This categorically denies veracity of c= c+v)
And that has what to do with the above comments on (a) the 3rd option, or
(b) that "c'=c+v" must be able to explain _all_ experiments?
You've read Ash 1967 (ref 62 in Wallace)? In any case, Wallace gives the
important stuff. So there the goodness-of-fit to the Crimean data was 5
times worse than the quoted measurement error.
Do you think that this was equal to the expected (maximum) difference in
measured distances to Venus of 260km? You did of course note that the
accuracy of the measurements was expected to be 1.5 km?
For example, the early anti-"c'=c+v" evidence was astronomical. Sans
extinction, the astronomical evidence is against "c'=c+v". Fox covers
the issue of extinction is his paper. With extinction, how come
Fresnel-Fizeau drag? The correct theory must be able to explain both. I
have yet to see an adequate explanation of Fresnel-Fizeau drag based on
"c'=c+v" that is also compatible with the use of extinction to explain
the astronomical results. If you find one, let me know.
Read the whole friggin link.
Wallace clearly explains (and Shapiro admitted) that that the
astronomical observations were subjected to, and obtained through
systems USING c=c+v, BEFORE "data" was analysed.
(ie the data was AE spaghetti before conclusions were made from it.)
And the observations so analysed agreed well with Newtonian modelling of
the orbits. They also agreed even better with GR modelling of the orbits,
but that's beside the point of current discussion.
A quick look at Ash's graphs shows that the deviation from the modelled
orbit, as given by the difference in the speed of light required to give
the difference in time of flight, is about 1 m/s.
Since Wallace doesn't give any of the data or analysis in his book, it
isn't clear whether c+v conversion of radar observations to positions
would have agreed as well or better, but given that changes in relative
speed due to the rotation of the Earth would be 100s of m/s, rather than
1m/s or less, it doesn't look too good. Wallace's book is a diatribe
against the "physics establishment", a work on the politics of science,
largely devoid of any science content.
PS: This "shrine to the spirits"................that would be to AE ?
Still not reading links, I see.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
23 Dec 2005 04:11:24 AM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2005, wrote:
tadchem wrote:
P.S.
Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
Humble apologies for my gratuitous remarks ref Brian G Wallace.
Thank you VERY much for that link, which is gratifying to me in
supporting
my views expressed here (and are based on logical diagnosis of
phenomena/data/observation)
I'd better learn to "look before I lip" :-)
Years worth of ammo..............
You mean you'd never bothered reading any of the "c+v" literature that's
out there? O'Rahilly? Waldron? Dingle?
Your options: Wallace was a liar and dissembler of the first order,
OR c'=c+v
You mean you'd never bothered to read any of the "c+v" literature?
There is a 3rd option that you failed to mention: Wallace was wrong. It's
quite possible that he was honestly mistaken. Why do you assume
dishonesty?
Wallace's data, or at least the analysis and interpetation, is not
undisputed. Doesn't matter; there should be lots of data to support
"c'=c+v", if it is correct. As you should be well aware, there is no
single experiment that supports special relativity against all competing
theories. It's a whole bunch of experiments together that support SR
against competing theories. "c'=c+v" must be able to adequately explain
_all_ the experiments, not just Wallace's data.
Except that using radar ranging of venus from dusk and dawn positions
simultaneously, subjected to AE, show venus at two positions at the
SAME instant.
(Hint: This categorically denies veracity of c= c+v)
And that has what to do with the above comments on (a) the 3rd option, or
(b) that "c'=c+v" must be able to explain _all_ experiments?
You've read Ash 1967 (ref 62 in Wallace)? In any case, Wallace gives the
important stuff. So there the goodness-of-fit to the Crimean data was 5
times worse than the quoted measurement error.
As I read it, Shapiro would only give Wallace data from radar
coordinates 0,0,0 earth at NOON. Therefore dusk and dawn (simultaneous)
was not ABLE to be analysed. This sort of dishonest distortion may fool
some, but not Wallace (or YT)
The 12 hourly (or whatever) had to be known within degreees of accuracy
not able to be timed in '60s.
You are still impressed by such trickery because you WANT to be; I'm
not.
The greatest laff would be, that the US govt was aware that c'=c+v, and
relying on the commoes to follow, send them on a wild goose chase ref
star wars.
Apparently that is not the case (or they started beleiving their own
entrails), or otherwise an airborn lasar would be able to hit a fly in
the eye (using Newton)
Such is not the case, unless the source and target are on the same
axis.
My cat would know that suggests light is source dependent.
Do you think that this was equal to the expected (maximum) difference in
measured distances to Venus of 260km? You did of course note that the
accuracy of the measurements was expected to be 1.5 km?
On data that was made unavailabe?? (wasn't Shapiro's fault-- those
wicked CIA made him do it!!!!!)
For example, the early anti-"c'=c+v" evidence was astronomical. Sans
extinction, the astronomical evidence is against "c'=c+v". Fox covers
the issue of extinction is his paper. With extinction, how come
Fresnel-Fizeau drag? The correct theory must be able to explain both. I
have yet to see an adequate explanation of Fresnel-Fizeau drag based on
"c'=c+v" that is also compatible with the use of extinction to explain
the astronomical results. If you find one, let me know.
Read the whole friggin link.
Wallace clearly explains (and Shapiro admitted) that that the
astronomical observations were subjected to, and obtained through
systems USING c=c+v, BEFORE "data" was analysed.
(ie the data was AE spaghetti before conclusions were made from it.)
And the observations so analysed agreed well with Newtonian modelling of
the orbits. They also agreed even better with GR modelling of the orbits,
but that's beside the point of current discussion.
If you are claiming that the distances to the distant astronomical
bodies was NOT arrived at per AE, BEFORE data was collected or
analysed, I say, as does WALLACE, RUBBISH!!!
A quick look at Ash's graphs shows that the deviation from the modelled
orbit, as given by the difference in the speed of light required to give
the difference in time of flight, is about 1 m/s.
Same ol same ol! The distance again was ???????????
Since Wallace doesn't give any of the data or analysis in his book, it
isn't clear whether c+v conversion of radar observations to positions
would have agreed as well or better, but given that changes in relative
speed due to the rotation of the Earth would be 100s of m/s, rather than
1m/s or less, it doesn't look too good. Wallace's book is a diatribe
against the "physics establishment", a work on the politics of science,
largely devoid of any science content.
"Physics establishment" and "politics" fit well!
Money, power and ego drive the whole AE wagon, and the cliff ahead
(make that the stone wall) is ignored
PS: This "shrine to the spirits"................that would be to AE ?
Still not reading links, I see.
Sit on the throne, read the links up to the flusher, pull the chain,
and find out that
AE was disproven in '60's, and kept on life support through
self-perpetuating dogma since.
But not forever!
Jim G
c'=c+v
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
23 Dec 2005 08:14:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Sit on the throne, read the links up to the flusher, pull the chain,
and find out that
AE was disproven in '60's, and kept on life support through
self-perpetuating dogma since.
But not forever!
Jim G
c'=c+v
Spoken like a guy who is bitter that he can't understand
the principles or mathematics of relativity. Better to claim
it is wrong than admit failure, eh Greenfield!
The sad part is that you choose not to learn... Pitiful really.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
23 Dec 2005 07:10:32 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
Sit on the throne, read the links up to the flusher, pull the chain,
and find out that
AE was disproven in '60's, and kept on life support through
self-perpetuating dogma since.
But not forever!
Jim G
c'=c+v
Spoken like a guy who is bitter that he can't understand
the principles or mathematics of relativity. Better to claim
it is wrong than admit failure, eh Greenfield!
The sad part is that you choose not to learn... Pitiful really.
Beautifully summed up!
"The mathematics of relativity" says it all!
Crap math INVENTED to SUPPORT crap theory.,
About as good a proofs as proof of Santa; enjoy your presents,
and don't forget to write him a thankyou, or he won't come next year.
Jim G
c'=c+v
PS: Merry Christmas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
23 Dec 2005 01:36:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, wrote:
Wallace clearly explains (and Shapiro admitted) that that the
astronomical observations were subjected to, and obtained through
systems USING c=c+v, BEFORE "data" was analysed.
(ie the data was AE spaghetti before conclusions were made from it.)
And the observations so analysed agreed well with Newtonian modelling of
the orbits. They also agreed even better with GR modelling of the orbits,
but that's beside the point of current discussion.
If you are claiming that the distances to the distant astronomical
bodies was NOT arrived at per AE, BEFORE data was collected or
analysed, I say, as does WALLACE, RUBBISH!!!
Can you provide anything other than hot air? Ash et al show how well the
processed-using-c'=c data agrees with Newtonian modelling of the orbits.
Where is Wallace's same presentation showing that processing using c'=c+v
fits the Newtonian (or GR) orbits better? Not in Farce.
A quick look at Ash's graphs shows that the deviation from the modelled
orbit, as given by the difference in the speed of light required to give
the difference in time of flight, is about 1 m/s.
Same ol same ol! The distance again was ???????????
Avoiding the issue? If c'=c+v is correct, why are the radar returns
such that v would need to be less than 1m/s, when the relative speeds are
much greater than that?
So tell me, was Wallace claiming c'=c+v, or c'=c+epsilon v, where epsilon
is much smaller than 1?
Since Wallace doesn't give any of the data or analysis in his book, it
isn't clear whether c+v conversion of radar observations to positions
would have agreed as well or better, but given that changes in relative
speed due to the rotation of the Earth would be 100s of m/s, rather than
1m/s or less, it doesn't look too good. Wallace's book is a diatribe
against the "physics establishment", a work on the politics of science,
largely devoid of any science content.
"Physics establishment" and "politics" fit well!
Money, power and ego drive the whole AE wagon, and the cliff ahead
(make that the stone wall) is ignored
Money, power, and ego (well, money and power, at least) will go to anyone
who provides a convincing overturning of the "whole AE wagon". Care to
have a crack at it yourself? It's really simple: c'=c+v means that the
Maxwell equations are wrong. Design, build, and perform a reliable and
replicable experiment to prove that.
Hard work, perhaps, but far more productive than bleating on usenet. If
you really think c'=c+v is correct, then you'll be successful, right? How
can you lose, with Nature on your side?
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
23 Dec 2005 07:29:24 PM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, wrote:
Wallace clearly explains (and Shapiro admitted) that that the
astronomical observations were subjected to, and obtained through
systems USING c=c+v, BEFORE "data" was analysed.
(ie the data was AE spaghetti before conclusions were made from it.)
And the observations so analysed agreed well with Newtonian modelling of
the orbits. They also agreed even better with GR modelling of the orbits,
but that's beside the point of current discussion.
If you are claiming that the distances to the distant astronomical
bodies was NOT arrived at per AE, BEFORE data was collected or
analysed, I say, as does WALLACE, RUBBISH!!!
Can you provide anything other than hot air? Ash et al show how well the
processed-using-c'=c data agrees with Newtonian modelling of the orbits.
Where is Wallace's same presentation showing that processing using c'=c+v
fits the Newtonian (or GR) orbits better? Not in Farce.
Read it again; the data Wallace needed to confirm was withheld (still
in Russia??)
A quick look at Ash's graphs shows that the deviation from the modelled
orbit, as given by the difference in the speed of light required to give
the difference in time of flight, is about 1 m/s.
Same ol same ol! The distance again was ???????????
Avoiding the issue? If c'=c+v is correct, why are the radar returns
such that v would need to be less than 1m/s, when the relative speeds are
much greater than that?
Bloody hell! What is my rel speed to the sun at noon? What is at dawn?
Use the "noon" data, and of course there is negligible difference. What
was CAREFULLY avoided, was comparisons (SIMULTANEOUS) at dawn and dusk
(America and Russia)
So tell me, was Wallace claiming c'=c+v, or c'=c+epsilon v, where epsilon
is much smaller than 1?
Since Wallace doesn't give any of the data or analysis in his book, it
isn't clear whether c+v conversion of radar observations to positions
would have agreed as well or better, but given that changes in relative
speed due to the rotation of the Earth would be 100s of m/s, rather than
1m/s or less, it doesn't look too good. Wallace's book is a diatribe
against the "physics establishment", a work on the politics of science,
largely devoid of any science content.
"Physics establishment" and "politics" fit well!
Money, power and ego drive the whole AE wagon, and the cliff ahead
(make that the stone wall) is ignored
Money, power, and ego (well, money and power, at least) will go to anyone
who provides a convincing overturning of the "whole AE wagon". Care to
have a crack at it yourself? It's really simple: c'=c+v means that the
Maxwell equations are wrong. Design, build, and perform a reliable and
replicable experiment to prove that.
Too easy!
1) Just do the old radar measure to venus again. This time allow the
data
from different radars taken SIMULTANEOUSLY to be HONESTLY evaluated.
2) Compare the arrival times of simultaneously emitted emr bursts from
differently moving sources (ref us and from large distance) which are
reasonably close.
30kms per sec at saturn would show an order of one sec here
Hard work, perhaps, but far more productive than bleating on usenet. If
you really think c'=c+v is correct, then you'll be successful, right? How
can you lose, with Nature on your side?
How can "The Establishment" lose, with 100 years of brainwashing, the
US govt, and billions of dollars in defence and grants at stake? Not to
mention the pathetic tender egos of too many in the science comunity.
Example this very days paper: The "top" scientist in a Korean
university (professor) quit because he was caught blatantly cheating
and falsifying data. Pity he couldn't have just hidden it like Shapiro,
eh?
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
23 Dec 2005 08:26:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2005, wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, wrote:
Money, power and ego drive the whole AE wagon, and the cliff ahead
(make that the stone wall) is ignored
Money, power, and ego (well, money and power, at least) will go to anyone
who provides a convincing overturning of the "whole AE wagon". Care to
have a crack at it yourself? It's really simple: c'=c+v means that the
Maxwell equations are wrong. Design, build, and perform a reliable and
replicable experiment to prove that.
Too easy!
1) Just do the old radar measure to venus again. This time allow the
data
from different radars taken SIMULTANEOUSLY to be HONESTLY evaluated.
2) Compare the arrival times of simultaneously emitted emr bursts from
differently moving sources (ref us and from large distance) which are
reasonably close.
30kms per sec at saturn would show an order of one sec here
Okay, find the people who can do the measurements, get them to talk to
each other, get them to agree to the project. Apply for funding if more
money is needed.
At least that's a more feasible experiment than your spaceship proposal.
Go ahead an organise it. You're the one who's convinced it'll work, so
you're the one who should do the work.
If that's still too hard, just remember that it should be possible, if
you're correct, to design a cheap table-top experiment that you can do
yourself, without having to organise an international collaboration.
Hard work, perhaps, but far more productive than bleating on usenet. If
you really think c'=c+v is correct, then you'll be successful, right? How
can you lose, with Nature on your side?
How can "The Establishment" lose, with 100 years of brainwashing, the
US govt, and billions of dollars in defence and grants at stake? Not to
mention the pathetic tender egos of too many in the science comunity.
Example this very days paper: The "top" scientist in a Korean
university (professor) quit because he was caught blatantly cheating
and falsifying data. Pity he couldn't have just hidden it like Shapiro,
eh?
First you say that "The Establishment" can't lose, even if they support a
wrong theory, and then give an example of "The Establishment" losing.
Almost no scientists have any personal stake in relativity. For starters,
most scientists are not physicists. Even most physicists don't use
relativity in their everyday work. Why would they be affected by you
overturning it?
Of course, that's rather irrelevant until you or somebody else is
successful in falsifying current relativity theories. Why don't you wait
until you have a successful, reliable, and replicable falsification in
hand before you bleat about the awesome power of the Establishment?
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
19 Dec 2005 11:20:18 PM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1135036035.735898.174440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
G'day Groupies,
I saw a telly documentary last night which in discussing gasses in
general, explained the valuable nature of helium in industry and
science. Apparently it is lost all the time to space, due to its
bouyancy, and steps have been taken to store it underground when
recovered from flammable hydrocarbon deposits.
Q: Is synthesiation of He possible, and does this (production) occur
naturally?
Do we need fear running out?
We are running out when it Costs a lot.........
Cost
The cost of helium fell from $2500/ft3 in 1915 to 1.5 cents /ft3 in 1940.
The U.S. Bureau of Mines has set the price of Grade A helium at $37.50/1000
ft3 in 1986.
Nitrogen gas prices vary from 2 cents to $2.75 per 100 ft^3 depending on
purity, etc. Production of elemental nitrogen in the U.S. is more than 9
million short tons per year.
Helium is $37.50 and Nitrogen is $27.50 per 1000 ft^3 No Shortage (in the
USA)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
20 Dec 2005 04:56:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
G'day Groupies,
I saw a telly documentary last night which in discussing gasses in
general, explained the valuable nature of helium in industry and
science. Apparently it is lost all the time to space, due to its
bouyancy, and steps have been taken to store it underground when
recovered from flammable hydrocarbon deposits.
Q: Is synthesiation of He possible, and does this (production) occur
naturally?
The helium extracted from geological deposits of gases is produced by
the radioactive decay of naturally occurring uranium and thorium,
mostly in granitic and rhyolitic rocks.
Sometimes sedimentary deposits can be compressed by the overburden of
later sediments, forming an impermeable layer that can be hundreds of
feet thick. This layer, called a 'caprock,' traps gases beneath it.
There is a caprock in almost every natural gas reservoir. There is
also helium in almost every natural gas reservoir, from trace levels to
over 8%. Only natural gases with more than about 2% helium are
economically worth producing.
Do we need fear running out?
The air has 5.220 parts-per-million of helium in it. This helium is
constantly being lost to space, and constantly being replenshed by
radioactive.
We may notice a decrease in the rate of production of naturally
occurring helium after a significant portion of the natural uranium and
thorium has decayed. The half life of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion
years; that of thorium-232 is 13.9 billion years.
Loss of helium production is not a forseeable problem.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
19 Dec 2005 10:48:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I saw a telly documentary last night which in discussing gasses in
general, explained the valuable nature of helium in industry and
science. Apparently it is lost all the time to space, due to its
bouyancy, and steps have been taken to store it underground when
recovered from flammable hydrocarbon deposits.
Q: Is synthesiation of He possible, and does this (production) occur
naturally?
Do we need fear running out?
Helium makes up almost a quarter of the universe and it is a byproduct
of main sequence fusion in stars... and there is plenty of Helium in
the earth's interior.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Replacing helium on earth |
20 Dec 2005 11:27:46 AM |
|
|
In article <1135036035.735898.174440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
jgreenfield@seol.net.au <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote:
G'day Groupies,
I saw a telly documentary last night which in discussing gasses in
general, explained the valuable nature of helium in industry and
science. Apparently it is lost all the time to space, due to its
bouyancy, and steps have been taken to store it underground when
recovered from flammable hydrocarbon deposits.
Q: Is synthesiation of He possible, and does this (production) occur
naturally?
Do we need fear running out?
Thanks
Jim G
c'=c+v
I've been told that European laboratories have helium recovery systems.
Where I've worked in the US, standard practice has been to vent, e.g.
liquid helium boil-off, to atmosphere.
Synthesization of He could be done by nuclear processes. The cost might
be brought down to about that of tritium.
--
"Tell me, Dr. Einstein, at what time does Boston arrive at this train?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
