barfbag

I have disagred with "Phi For ALL"'s personal assessment of the insults used in the Killer Drone thread. It is still on first page and I challenge anybody to read it and not spot the insults and attacks despite my polite demeanor throughout the thread. An example... A person directed a post at me and said, and continued as if I was not old enough to comment. Am I the only person that can see that as an insult? Note.. I just posted a video where a tiny drone was weaponized. The idea of personal drones being weaponized seems like a logical progression and feasibility is not an issue. Read the thread if you have doubts. So.. if someone is insulting you it is acceptable to say to them.. "I know Scienceforums doesn't have an age restriction, but I expect your comments to be intelligent" because according to moderation here (not all possibly) that is not insulting or demeaning. I took it as a stab at maturity, but maybe I'm wrong. (NOT). I challenge anyone to read that entire thread and pretend you are a moderator.. NOTE: If this is the wrong place to complain about moderation then it was honest mistake. Please direct me to whom I should PM or where to post. Phi for All commented on this thread in a locked moderation section so I thought a rebuttal was in order.

@ pwagen, Start with this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A8mErds5-c Maybe this one is better.. It addresses all your concerns and uses tiny drones like the tiny cheapest versions Then see post 14 video by GregH. If you dislike the $150 new model so much save up $200 and buy a used one. I picked $200 as an arbitrary figure, but I'm sure you can find something sturdy enough to fire a shot at that range. YOU CAN SAVE A LOT IF YOU ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO BUILD YOUR OWN.... Have you ever seen a pen gun? Simply attach one of those to any size drone (even yours) and it could get a shot off by remote. I am sure you will want me to build one and demonstrate it for you but that will likely not happen anytime soon. Here is a cheaper one for $125 from same link I gave you, Watch video... looks fairly stable to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urEQqEhWvVQ Cheers.. Fun video related to stability, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tZq6lAL4dg

@ Arete, I was merely comparing cost analysis and have real interests outside of this thread. I only came into this thread because someone said the topic was not worth even discussing, and I think discussing any topic is beneficial. Especially if it has global ramifications. However the method I listed the costs for (and I did show labour and profits) is meant to be a working farm for profit and food. Should these farms simply expand repeatedly in thousands of locals then the 180kg of biomass per week you speak of would not be harvested but be allowed to grow and multiply. A poster had suggested that an acre of seaweed would cost $20k to plant. Real estate costs would be relevant as you say, but the target growth regions would be out of the way "Big Sur" type environments ideally. Setting up on Santa Monika Boulevard would be unlikely. We have many island communities predicted to sink over the next 100 years. I am sure some of them would do their share to offset GW. However the consensus of this science forum is that we should do nothing and just sit back and watch them all die. I have no problem with that. I don't know any of them hopefully.

@ Charony, http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AC287E/AC287E03.htm That link was found in 1 minute by googling "Seaweed farming for food cost". EDIT: These charts looked like they copied okay until I posted. Charts on link provided. 320-LINE FARM 480-LINE FARM Materials Cost per Unit Amount Needed Total Cost Amount Needed Total Cost Posts (timber or mangrove wood) $ 1.50 each 30 $ 45.00 45 $ 67.50 7 mm rope $ 0.14/m 210 m $ 29.40 320 m $ 44.80 3 mm rope $ 0.025/m 1,700 m $ 42.50 2,500 m $ 62.50 Raffia $ 1.25/roll 30 rolls $ 37.50 50 rolls $ 62.50 U nails $ 3.00/kg 1 kg $ 3.00 2 kg $ 6.00 Galvanized Wire $ 2.80/kg 10 kg $ 28.00 10 kg $ 28.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 185.40 $ 271.30 So if we add $271.30 + (see chart below) 320-LINE FARM 480-LINE FARM Materials Cost per Unit Amount Needed Total Cost Amount Needed Total Cost Stakes nil 360 nil 540 nil 3 mm rope $ 0.025/m 1,760 m $ 44.00 2,640 m $ 66.00 Raffia $ 1.25/roll 30 rolls $ 37.50 50 rolls $ 62.50 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 81.50 $ 128.50 So if we add $271.30 + 128.50 + (see chart below) Crowbar $ 18.00 Mall hammer $ 18.00 Pliers $ 8.00 Claw hammer $ 10.00 Bow saw $ 12.00 Mask and snorkel (2 sets) $ 54.00 Kitchen knives (2 at $.75 each) $ 1.50 Cane knive $ 7.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 128.50 So if we add $271.30 + $128.50 + $128.50 = $528.30 (see my calculator works fine). That is a cost of $528.30 for all supplies necessary for an acre of seaweed. Now Labour: If you decide to work 4 days per week, you can harvest 10 to 15 lines per day, depending on the size of your farm. In case you plan to expand your farm, say up to 800 lines, two people will be sufficient to look after the planting and harvesting operations. For a larger farm a family of 4 to 5 members is recommended. $528.30 compared to $20 000. Again that link is http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AC287E/AC287E03.htm DAILY RECORD Example Number of hours spent farming : 6 hrs Hours spent elsewhere (plantation, etc.) : 2 hrs Labour (Number of people working with you) : 4 Numbers of lines harvested : 40 Numbers of lines planted : 20 Weight of seaweed collected and dried : 120 kg Amount of money earned by selling seaweed : $ 60.00 Other incomes (fish sales, etc.) : $ 25.00 EXPENDITURES Loan (FDB and others) payment : Fuel for your motor boat : Fuel for your car (or truck) : Grease : Repair/maintenance : Labour cost : Food for you and your family : School fees, etc. : Travelling : Medical expenses : Traditional : Housing : Farm costs : Others. : TOTAL EXPENDITURES : I am done with this thread, but still think that your estimates for $20 000 to grow an acre of seaweed when the people in this link do it for $ 528.30 is a huge difference. How do you account for this discrepancy? I still think you are talking about a different type of Farm.. Your link was for a Hatchery where they grow seaweed to feed many breeds of fish for 18 million Euro profit. http://ecopreneurist.com/2012/11/09/the-benefits-of-seaweed-farming-on-the-environment/

A new paper discussing a New Theory as to why this is occurring here,,, http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3941 At least this theory also has no requirement for new physics like The Quantum Ring Theory, but I found it a hard read (PDF is free on above link). I shall endeavor to wrap my head around it and explain it in simpler terms, unless someone else wants to try explaining it better.. I hope they are correct.

@ Arete, Yes. It is pointless. My last post was to show someone that they were way off base on the BREED of Algae and that's why so many photos. why would we carry on talking about something else

@ Greg H, That is interesting. So it is fast enough to keep a subject at bay.. like a little robocop. @ Post 13 / Pwagen, Huh? What would I win? I started this thread because I find the topic interesting. I am discussing in this thread because I started it. What do I win by the way? Something good I hope. Heeeeeeeeeeeeere's Barf Bag! (sorry it's hard to do Ed MvMahon in type). I am unsure what this means but it seem to be intended as an insult. your post 11 contains out of context quotes, ad hominem attacks, and even a few Straw man arguments for good measure as I noted in my last post and gave examples. This seems to be a continuation. Please try to be civil. You are the only person who has been rude in this thread. Everyone else has been nice including me.

@ Pwagen, While I know this forum doesn't have an age restriction, I expect the discussions here to be civil and mature. Think you could kick it up a notch in the future? This was out of context and is somewhat Straw Man. It is Straw Man because it implies I was being insulting and hurt the drones feelings. Here is what was actually said, Things sound different when they are in context. I even apologized to the manufacturer/hobbyist who made it. For the record though. This was the drone I referred to as lame. you say, So there is an ad hominem attack suggesting because I think the drone is lame I am under 18. It is what it is.. Just because it "survives" shooting a projectile doesn't mean it's stable enough to aim it. If a bullet has enough power to actually penetrate something, you can be sure it's left quite a recoil. Even a lame drone could blow up beside someone, but if you think drones are not capable of shooting a bullet or a poison dart and/or exploding then you are simply under informed. Obviously drones would come in many shapes/sizes and quantities, why would you argue they are incapable of shootings. Helicopters can fire 50 cal rifles and they stay in the air. So we take your drone and double its size, what's the problem? I even went out of my way to demonstrate what average drones look like. What better way to find an average drone than with Craigslist. So I gave him a nice link full of todays craigslist ads so he could see his drone was far below average. Quote Your link certainly doesn't have any. Feel free to link a specific drone. Really? I will post the VERY FIRST TWO from that ad page I linked. I will let others decide which looks more stable. Here is the link again that I gave you, http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=drone Now let's look at the first drone on that page... Not bad.. A nice little quadcopter with camera attached. $150.. So is it true my link did not have any nicer, more stable looking drones? The one you linked to (picture in this post) is a tricopter and looks much more fragile. Let's look at the second drone from that craigslist link... Also a nice little camera quadcopter. It also looks less fragile than the one you found. Honestly I searched drones a few times and cannot find any that are as weak looking as the one you linked to. Surprisingly, I think you'll find that the majority of drones are in fact not made for murder. This is a perfect example of Straw Man argument. You imply that I believe most drones are made for the purpose of murder, and then you tear down that Straw Man by stating a common known fact. I do not even believe most Military Drones are used for murder. Most military drones are used for Surveillance and mapping. So your post 11 contains out of context quotes, ad hominem attacks, and even a few Straw man arguments for good measure. Do I think you are being serious here? No. I think you are trolling over what occurred in another thread a few hours ago, but it is possible you are just under informed and ad hominem/Straw man attacks are just in your nature. Others can decide..

@ CHALCONY, No. Seaweed does not cost as much as the rainforest. I gave no numbers. If you are discussing the Philippines project that is a mainland fuel factory and not nearly the same. No. I check all links provided. what are you talking about? No. Everything I have said suggests the idea is Seaweed on a floating ocean lattice. Seagrass has actual roots buried in the soil. There is quite a difference. http://myfwc.com/research/habitat/seagrasses/information/seagrass-vs-seaweed/ How large an acre is , is necessary to calculate how fast a person could labour to seed it. Since supplies are cheap most of the seeding costs would be labour. If you stand by the notion that it would take $20 000 to seed an area less than the size of a football field I think you are mistaken. You said earlier this is equal to the cost of replacing an acre of Rainforest which I think is also a gross exaggeration. You should provide source info if you want to invent costs. How does scaffolding have anything to do with an ocean based seaweed farm? If this Irish Sea Fisheries is indeed using it as a platform to create ocean algae then I am sure not every acre of seaweed planted would require such infrastructure. Are you suggesting that a floating seaweed farm must have floating or scaffold docks on all sides. That seems a might excessive. I would say the same to you, especially if you are thinking of a microalgae species replete with docks all around it and I posted a picture a few posts ago.. By low cost I'm betting they mean less than $20 000 per acre. Above quote is with this photo... Notice the lack of $30 000 scaffolding in this acre of seaweed farming. Here are step by step instructions like I said there would be. This is what you are saying would cost $20 000. This is why i think that figure is ridiculous. This is what I think you are thinking of... If that is the case then we are talking about very different breeds of Algae/kelp/seaweed. I am talking about the kind of seaweed you pull out of your propeller everyday. If you buy an Algaeburger it comes from the kind of seaweed I am talking about. I think you are talking about microalgae. I am speaking of the rough and tough seaweed that sometimes grows so thick it is like a small tree trunk... Seaweed and Algae are synonymous. They are the same thing, but with many breeds and sizes. Microalgae is not suitable for growing on a wire lattice as you stated, but the rough and tough breeds of seaweed that grow taller than men are. This is what it would look like. No $30 000 scaffolding, no $20 000 in labour or costs. It is just throw a bit of seaweed on a floating rope and push it out to sea. Rinse and repeat like in the instructions I quoted. This picture is meant to show a seaweed farmer lifestyle, but just look at how the MASSIVE ALGAE BREED's are in this. That is Algae in the picture. Algae = Seaweed = Kelp. They are all the same thing except with numerous breeds. If your Oxygen in the atmosphere idea is devoid of published information then why bring it up repeatedly. I certainly cannot find any papers on it either. The amount of plant life needed to raise oxygen levels to the point of causing fire hazards seems hard to swallow. Any excess oxygen would be lifted with the Brewer–Dobson circulation and find its way to The Stratosphere and aid in the creation of O3. The UV would transform the O2. I do not fathom how you can say it is next to impossible to create oxygen and have stated how it stays the same over a millennia, and then in a separate paragraph warn of the dangers of creating too much (fire hazard). Is the above farm similar to what The Irish Fisheries have? Is what you see in the photo above going to cost $20 000 to $50 000 (if we add scaffolding somewhere?). I have suggested that one person doing the work seen above could do a football field size area in less than a week, and at a cost of less than $20 000. The above is a seaweed farm similar to my description, but ropes would not last if we are wanting the plants to live long. Is this the algae farm you describe when you said, Since this idea came from the top of my head, don't you think my breed of seaweed is the one we are (supposed) to be discussing as an aid to the ozone. I sure hope the massive amount of photos help, because I have no idea how you are arriving at estimates of $20000+ per acre, and am assuming you are thinking of Microalgae that pretty much stays tiny and floats in murky waters. There is a difference. Maybe you think yours is better, but yours can't be seeded (planted) on ocean strings now could it? If I was creating a health shake or fuel microalgae might be good, but I am talking about turning air bound carbon into life. I really think you are on a different tangent /understanding of what I had proposed. Now.. Now that I have shown many pictures.. Do you still think an Algae/Seaweed/kelp farm (The version I'm describing) requires $20 000 per acre and /or a $30 000 scaffold system?

@ Endy, Then what would they use to attack? Explosion maybe? @ Roamer, Yeah.. but would you rather stab someone or have them killed by a robot when you're 100 miles away. I just worry it might be too easy and less scarring on the assailant.

@ Acme, Yes. It has been a thought bothering me as well. I'm not trying to endorse it. I just envision the possibilities and think pizza delivery might not be the only thing it delivers. I wouldn't hurt a fly. I am also an animal lover and have trained my Jack Russell quite well. I could walk in heavy traffic with no leash and my dog will happily remain at my side. She is beside me now. I did not think of killer drones. The military uses the everyday. I just see it coming here soon enough. I enjoy future trends in science and keep up with some fringe elements. I also enjoy writing (you may have noticed), and try to envision the future. I understand your concern.

I don't mind, but I've written much more than you about this in this thread. Fortunately ocean seaweed farms are nothing new and you could likely buy a book on "growing Algae for dummies" that could tell you the best species and methods for farming your location. I was giving you a estimate of how big an acre really is because you suggested that it would cost as much to seed an acre of seaweed as it would to replant an acre of The Rainforest. If you want to get all snippy with me I will now give my less polite response. No sane person would equate the cost of planting an acre of seaweed with replacing an acre of The Rainforest. Honestly... That's the kind of "stuff you are shoveling.. Remember this? So I was politely trying to show you that an acre is not as big as you seem to imagine. An acre is just over two thirds of a football field. The Wikipedia link showed that an ACRE IS AN ACRE BECAUSE ONE MAN (+OXEN) COULD PLOW THAT SIZE AREA IN A DAY. Yet you think it would take the same man $20k worth of supplies and labour to do the same thing. I was being polite to you. It is certainly NOT GOING TO BE AS COSTLY AS REPLACING THE RAINFOREST. That is a really bad comparison from someone claiming they have ... So the Kyoto numbers told you an acre of algae is as costly as replacing an acre of rainforest? Do you think anybody reading this will agree with you (even this crowd)? Is that not how you calculated $20 Trillion? please... Get real You also have suggested numerous times that Oxygen might hurt the planet... What the heck are you talking about. Show a single paper in history that shows excess oxygen on our planet could hurt. I will stop here because I refuse to entertain your beliefs further in this post. $20 Trillion? Okay.. whatever... Your notions are certainly "Out there". This idea is only rough and not great, but some of the stuff you write seems really silly.

@ Acme.. Yes. I have a toy Helicopter I use to torment my dog on occasion that looks just like that. It was a gift but I'd bet $50 was a close guesstimate. Funny. @ Pwagen, This is true, but you would not need to look the person in the face as you kill them and could have a good alibi as you cruise the Mediterranean. In today's age it would likely be caught on a camera anyhow so you would not want it to recover. It has to make one shot into the persons head and then it could blow up as far as the murderer is concerned. You could even explode it to kill the person/people on purpose. Naturally you would not want your fingerprints or DNA all over the thing anyways. Why would you want it to last past the shooting? Maybe it would confuse the police though if it were able to limp a few miles away to a lake and sink itself. I suppose you get what you pay for though, and my cheap $200 version could be replaced with a more stable version depending on what you want and your bankbook. I'm sure if they can make Helicopters capable of 50 caliber weapons a drone can be made that can handle a single 9mm round or shotgun blast. I looked at your link. That is one of the least sturdy drones I have ever seen. Here it is... Look at an average Craigslist drone for under $200. Most of them look a lot sturdier than the one you found. How did you even find that photo? Did you search for "Lamest Drone ever"? No insult to manufacturer intended it's cute and functional for hobbyists, but not murder. Average Craigslist drones .... http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=drone Killing someone via drone also removes the need to watch it. It becomes a lot less personal. I think we will see it happen frequently enough in 20 years that drones sales become licensed. Maybe not. IDK.. It's possible It's also possible in 20 years mankind might not exist so who knows. Note: This is only a discussion. I'm not selling drones.. lol

Edit: @ Acme, Yes I have heard of this before. Thanks for input. Burying might also be feasible on its own if it is deep enough. http://cmi.princeton.edu/resources/pdfs/bury_globalwarming.pdf Thanks. @ Charony, The CO2 part of it actually is pretty huge if it is a part cause of Global Warming. There is no other way of removing it from the atmosphere that I know of, unless as Acme suggests we transform to Bio-Charcoal. If we harvested a hundred thousand acres of seaweed and buried it deep in the earth then it would be removed from the system a lot more permanently. So the alternative is do nothing? I had mentioned the oceans were poor in nutrients, but was trying to make the idea more feasible in an age where land prices are fairly high. The nutrients may not like plastic wires, but the plastic wires would soon enough be buried in thick plant life as long as they are being well fed. When I say seed the wires I meant with other mostly grown Algae, not actual seeds. There are already many farms out there with established seeding protocols and studies. I do not need to invent the mechanisms myself. This idea was conceived in rebuttal of the notion that space shuttle delivery was the only way to deliver unstable CO3 into our atmosphere, and it seems like you are just looking to poke holes in the concept as some figures seem exaggerated. With supplies and an area to work I bet I could easily seed an acres worth of ocean lattice in a 40 hour work week, and I would not ask for $20k/week salary. A football field is more than an acre in size. Trivia:During the Middle Ages, an acre was the amount of land that could be ploughed in one day with a yoke of oxen and measured by one chain in width (22 yards), and one furlong, or 10 chains in length (220 yards), yielding 4840 square yards. (wikipedia) That is per day.............. but let's say a week is fair for our slow workers... If one person could seed an acre per week and they were not volunteer and was working for $20/hr. Then the cost for a billion acres would cost 20 Billion in labour. Your figure of 20 trillion is much higher. Come on. An acre a week my kid could do. That is also if each worker were paid $20/hr. That may be a minimum wage in our countries but work could be done in other countries also. What about the millions of people who live on welfare in ocean states. This could also reduce unemployment. An average nuclear reactor costs at least $10 billion, An average nuclear power plant will cost at least $30 billion. Even if my simple cost analysis here were off tenfold that is still removing a billion acres of plant carbon from our atmosphere for 200 Billion (10 X my guess). http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/05/10/philippines-government-to-develop-5-million-250-acre-seaweed-ethanol-aquafarm/ So in the Philippines they do use inland growing techniques at a higher price, but sell it off as fuel. Now we are helping to fuel the planet and could a) bury the waste b) just sell enough to finance the fields. This facility can harvest 1500 acres per year Now this part, This part I am not that familiar with. I understand nature has huge oxygen sinks like the ocean, but I'm interested in any papers on this because I'm guessing this part of your post was not the only one free from exaggeration. Going to have to tell all them boy scouts that planting trees is pointless. I am under the belief sinks are storing Oxygen. How does it deplete? I do not understand your view and would like to know more. Please link to a paper on this. This should be obvious to anyone. But you gave me an idea. You could have a giant nursery that grew just algae possibly in some type of floating conveyor system, where they started small at one end and and when they reached maturity by the other end you could drop it in a big hole and cover it with enough earth to contain the compost. This would not aid the Ozone, but would directly remove carbon from our system. My idea was also rough... Do we really need to keep the plants alive for years, or do we bury them upon maturity? I think this would depend upon locations and available nutrient land. Ocean harvesting would also greatly increase fish populations and would be a welcome addition to the Grand banks etc. The idea of this costing 20 Trillion dollars though seems a bit much. However mankind is looking at Global Warming which threatens future generations. I have three kids and have honestly thought about filling a shelter with enough food preserves that should a famine hit North America in their lifetimes (They are all under 20) they would be able to feed themselves and their families. Perhaps even have the facilities to farm meal worms or ants as an emergency food source in there. Here is a quick overview from Wikipedia.. Maybe Trillions of dollars (if your huge estimates are correct) would seem to have been worthwhile in time. Not only will Droughts occur, but also humans will continue to multiply like rabbits ( I helped by having three kids... Do your part). So the choices according to the census here (not you acme, your suggestion was contributory) is it is better to be inactive than be proactive. People die, so let them die. Nice. Here is a fun link.... http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1284156/cause-qingdaos-green-tide-algae-mystery

We have been watching and playing with personal drones for the past decade. I even have a toy helicopter to play with. There is now talk of having pizza's delivered via drone, although I expect every kid with a BB Gun is holding his breath for that day. Here is something nobody talks about. Lets pretend you buy a Drone with a 30 minute battery capacity. What is to prevent you from adding photo recognition to the camera and a tiny sawed off shotgun type attachment. People will be able to kill each other simply by showing a photo to a machine and sending it off in the right direction or hover in your driveway. All of this technology exists and has likely been done in the military. Imagine a drone with the image of Osama Bin Laden or some such critter. The potential exists that in the future I (Anyone) could simply copy your profile picture and send my drone to your address or city to search for you (much longer battery life needed for that), or I could simply launch it from a kilometer away as it is now. Anyways. This thought is recurring and yet I have yet to see anybody discuss it on television or elsewhere. IDK, maybe this is an ethics debate.. (Mods move thread if you find a better spot).

@ Charony, Wow! You're talking to a guy who sends all his samples to a lab for analysis, and has no need to even own a calculator these days. I have one on my desk, but I'm making a point. Every plant that grows is directly removing the carbon from our environment. As long as the carbon remains in plant form it is not causing GW. How many trees/Algae would we need to remove the carbon that 500 million+ cars/trucks are creating on a daily basis would be extreme. I've heard that planting about 15 trees a year (providing they reach maturity) would rid one person of their carbon imprint, however the problems there are that once the trees die they will release the carbon right back into the environment. The Algae farms would be a great start to help curb Global Warming (if it's carbon induced), but the farms would need to be maintained or increased in size as years pass. Simply letting it fall into ruin would release all the old carbon back to the previous levels. What are the costs? I suppose you would need to create floats attached to about 10 feet of plastic wire and then hire a few villages (in countries of your choice) to seed the wire with algae and push it out into the oceans until they have amassed a few hundred acres here and there. They could be towed to nutrient rich areas or of choice. Wave power could easily run a few pumps to bring in nutrients if you were forced to plant in poor conditions. The rainforest is over a billion acres so the project would take years to match its size, but keep in mind you would only be planting enough to encourage growth on that area of the lattice. The costs. What are the costs in doing nothing to solve Global Warming or fix the Ozone? How many lives is it acceptable to lose? I had proposed that funding come from companies willing to offset their carbon footprints, but in reality politics would need to be involved and that means many will die before this idea would be implemented. If you voted for someone who told you you had to pay for seaweed you'd kick him out of office (truth). Maybe it could start out as volunteer efforts at one location and then spread the format to other countries. Have contests to see who can build the biggest lattice's. Algae needs food so mostly lives near shorelines, and it currently produces about 80% of our oxygen. I could not tell you how much oxygen the rainforest outputs without looking it up and I'm not that interested at the moment. I am not sure and you are asking to determine the density of a gasses. You need the pressure, molar mass and absolute temperature to calculate in many locals. Some of the best computers around require many months to calculate ozone predictions so we likely won't get too far in a simple discussion thread. Yes. Algae Farms have been created and harvested for biofuel purposes and exploring its potential. Fish Farms also can double their yield with heavy algae. Now THE OZONE.... I am clever enough to realize that if I thought of it perhaps it has already been discussed. So I googled "Oxygen Ozone Repair" and found this paper. http://stephaz.webs.com/ozoneholerecovery.htm I am not vouching for it, but it does contain some of the math involved. It is also an idea not yet considered on these pages and is nicer than the idea of delivering ozone itself which would be problematic at best. This is not as elegant as my idea though because my idea would also slow Global Warming (in theory). Thank you for being on topic and contributing to the discussion. It is a welcome change.

@ Ophiolite, I am new here. I do not know what negative votes implies aside from a popularity contest, but as far as I'm concerned it simply means people have read it which makes me happy. Odd though. I solved Ozone Depletion problem, Global Warming, and Fed starving children with my Algae Farm Idea in that post, yet some think that is a bad thing? If they disagree they should say something intelligent (if capable) instead of hiding behind a voting system. A CV is basically a Resume. You said you would reveal your first language after, but you never did. I happily accept insults from someone whose first thoughts of solving this problem were as follows. Perhaps it was you JohnC was admonishing for citing such a ridiculous concept and maybe he was not poo-pooing the entire subject. This is EXACTLY the type of straw man argument (since you brought it up) that I was expecting. You are trying to change the argument by implying I did not understand JohnC's Grammar or intended meaning. However just before he said that he also said, Which blatantly describes his disgust with the entire topic. My tree planting (Algae) solution was a little more elegant than your notion (from post 2) of delivering Ozone from the ground via space shuttle or balloons or whatever your intended delivery method was, but that's just the way I roll. It is obvious JohnC was talking about all possible methods in above statement, and if you think of my planting trees (algae) solution then you will also see it as wrong. The energy used to plant trees (algae farms) would likely not damage the environment an insane amount. @ Ophiolite still, Also.. He continued his argument for many posts after I brought up discussion is relevant and made comments like this, Which is wrong actually. The depletion kind of stops every year and picks up again in the spring, but the ozone has not stopped depleting itself. The good news is that the harmful cfc's are not as abundant now so we are expecting the ozone will someday start repairing itself (20 years). @ Ophiolite still, or how about when he says this, which I cannot make any sense of. He clearly thinks the topic is garbage and that no solution can ever be found even though I found one. I listed four methods to create ozone (Plant Algae, Drop a mirror, Limit use of CFC's like Montreal Accord, or encourage GW) since then that do not require shouting (at clouds (?) or otherwise). @ Ophiolite still, Oh, I have a good one for you... There goes your Straw Man (Poof). Try to tell me how that statement from post 17 can be misinterpreted to mean discussion on this topic is okay, just not your idea of delivering man made ozone to the Stratosphere. He also said, By increasing O2 in our atmosphere we increase the amount of it affected by UV and thus create more O3 (Ozone) molecules. This means that planting trees or algae farms will produce ozone. The cost would be higher at the beginning, but if a tree lives for a hundred years then it becomes more cost effective. Maybe planting trees/algae will cost the same as the worlds electric bill, but I think he is alluding to the trillion dollar man made ozone kick he was on. He also said, And yet I solved the problem already before the end of the second page of this thread. Brilliant idea to stop discussing. He also said, Okay.. But it sounds as if he is expecting the energy to come from our energy grid, and I gave three (3) methods of creating ozone that will require no electricity. He said, How do my three (3) solutions have anything to do with violating energy principles. This is also Straw Man since you like to use that term so much. He is inferring that any solution must meet his criteria. He is changing the argument to make it seem like thermodynamics will prevent any solutions, and yet I found one anyways. You said (ophiolite), I agree. Was this supposed to infer I am supporting your space shuttle or whatever delivery system you were discussing in post two? It was you whose first thought on the matter was to use ozone machines and some sort of delivery system to space. I NEVER supported that notion as viable. By inferring I was supporting ANY methods never mind your one is also Straw man. You set up a Straw Man that is supporting ridiculous notions and then you knock it down. I am beginning to see where you learned about Straw Man attacks. A lot of what you write is ad hominem or Straw Man (at least in this thread). @ Ophiolite still, Since you enjoy laughing, here is another chuckle for you, JohnC said, This came in post 25. It is like a noticeable change in stance from ... "why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work? [underline of ELSE added for emphasis] He had said, "Nobody is claiming there is only solution", yet he said "Why would we carry on talking about something else" in an earlier post. This is backpedaling. Both statements cannot be true. This sets up the nonsense spewed in post 31. I won't even bother to explain. It's too painful to re-read such shallow thinking. Post 27, I doubt Tesla would have given up on the first page of a thread, give the man his due. You said, Yet in actuality JohnC said "why would we carry on talking about something else". How can you entertain several ideas without discussing something ELSE. Now.. @ Opholite still, You have yet to show me how I have used Straw Man arguments. I showed you that you use them frequently. You accused me of doing so, but I don't see it. Please explain? (IF YOU CAN...) will you admit, Will you admit that it is you that has misunderstood now that you have read so many qualifying statements? I doubt you are capable of admitting you are wrong here actually, but at least I know the reality. You never beat up on my Algae Farm idea to save the planet. Does this mean you cannot think of anything wrong with it, or is it just in your nature to mainly make off topic posts that are filled with Straw man ad hominem attacks. If this is a debate I declare myself the winner. The only way you could win (you can't) is to attack my Algae Farm Idea until it is dead and gone, and I would still have insisted that discussing something else, is conducive to finding solutions. I hope this clears up JohnC's statement for you in post 11. Here is some algebra... no point in discussing any potential solutions = why would we carry on talking about something else However if you cannot see the similarities I will not expect that (see quote below)... So do I get an unreserved apology? Somehow I don't think so. I can see the similarities though. I guess that is enough for me. Don't kill yourself with apologies.

@ Ophiolite, Untrue, See last line of post 11. This is the ONLY reason I entered thread. Of course. Don't you think if there was a practical way to fix the ozone we would be doing it. EDIT: I retract that because I had already put forth a practical idea in post 12. You're resorting to ad hominem attacks against my education now? Where is my poop slinger? lol. Don't pick a losing argument and you won't get so mad. I could pick examples from almost every paragraph you wrote. It is amusing, and if I respected your opinion I still wouldn't care. English is my first language so I can safely tell you that when someone says, "Why are you still discussing this?", the likely feel that that the fruitlessness of the topic has been amply demonstrated. This occurred after ONE(1) idea, which was to have everybody generate ozone at a cost of a trillion dollars using electricity and then transported somehow (unspecified) to the required areas. He basically told the OP to shut up and now you are as well. You said, Please define your idea of a straw man argument. I find it puzzling that you could find my statement (in quote below)... ... a straw man argument. The ONLY way my argument was a straw man is if you are of the belief more than one idea was proposed. I don't see it. A straw man argument means that I am altering the argument to suit my defense. Actually this was nicely done by John C earlier in this thread (can you spot it or do I need to point to it?), Again; English is my first language so let me take a stab at it. We are talking about "Can we add ozone to the ozone layer", and not converting the vast majority of the economy towards the sole goal of producing ozone. That means we halt education, stop health care, direct 90% of power to ozone production, curtail the holiday industry, cease mining, etc The topic is quite clear in the title of this thread actually. Yes, That is a dumb idea, do you get a lot of them? Note: Now my above statement is slightly straw man (an example for you) because I infer you are misinterpreting the OP, and when I agree your idea was dumb it is slightly ad hominem (example). However only slightly because you and John seem to think that dumb idea is the only possible answer in this discussion. You're straw man here is inferring I support this idea or you would not be so enthusiastic about bolding your curse words ("Friggin"? Honestly. Did you learn that from a 10 year old.). Your last post alone I could dissect into mostly ad hominem and straw man attacks which have nothing to do with the OP and are totally off topic. Now i am forced to off topic in order to respond. I gave two other methods to create ozone without electricity and yet you never mention them at all. That would have been the scholarly choice and not the grade school one. @ John c, You are speaking of electric energy. This was your "Friggin Dumb idea" (Quoting Ophiolite) that got you so worked up. I gave two solutions that require no electricity yet you ignore them in favour of what? Relating how thermodynamics is related to replenishing the ozone. Seriously? I am a Soil Engineer which basically makes me a glorified driver these days, but I bet my CV is more impressive than 90% of the posters here. I do not need to be an ozone expert to know that problems often have many solutions and deserve discussion despite your complaints otherwise. Placing a mirror on the ground would reflect the sunlight back into space and the remaining UV (especially if under the Ozone Hole) would split the O2 molecules and allow them to bind into O3 molecules. How can you not grasp this? It does not matter which direction the sunlight/UV is coming from. Here is a diagram... I also said Global Warming is helping fix the Ozone so any (not cfc's) use of greenhouse gasses might help fix it sooner than 2070. Another solution that has been applied without electricity is the Montreal Protocol which limited chlorofluorocarbons. I forgot I had put forward three ozone creation ideas, not two. In post 12 I had said, So I solved GW, Ozone Depletion and World Hunger since you said, "why are we still discussing this?" in post 11. Tell me how my above plan wouldn't work? Funding? I already said campaign to have companies voluntarily (or force them) to have a carbon footprint of zero. Any other reasons why my last idea does not increase global Oxygen levels (also Ozone (two birds)), decrease Carbon in our atmosphere (Global Warming is often attributed to Carbon (three birds)), and also solve world hunger as towing a few hundred acres of yummy algae (That is smart talk for seaweed) to countries suffering droughts (World Hunger (Four birds same stone)). So while you guys just want to argue for the sake of it I have been contributing to the thread and solving the problems. Admit it.. I solved GW, Ozone Depletion and World Hunger in one shot. Now back to Ophiolite, I proposed the above idea long ago in post 12. How is that impractical? Funding will be your only choice of answer here because planting more trees is my basic proposal. Do you know 80% of our Oxygen comes from Algae already? I am an avid sailor and would like to retire on the oceans sailing from continent to continent as I have strong archeological interests, and I can tell you that even in patches of the ocean with little nutrients it is common to see seaweed attaching itself to the floating refuse. The concept of a seaweed rainforest (alluding to size of it and Oxygen benefits) I am proposing here would encompass long lasting floats attached with seaweed supporting connections likely in triangular shapes when attached. So Ophiolite, I just solved GW, Ozone Depletion and World Hunger.... You can go all ad hominem on my butt now (referring to his/her (idk) last post which was mostly ad hominem). What have you solved? NOTE: I might start a thread with that idea so I may quote your responses to it. You know my idea would work, but I am saying that whatever your stance is it might be reviewed by many others. In other words try to reply intelligently and without ad hominem or straw man attacks. I honestly am expecting a combination of both based on previous posts. Maybe we can discuss Thermodynamics some more (LMAO).

Nature Magazine - @ JohnC, Wow! Now you are equating freedom to discuss a topic with Thermodynamics. How do you even relate these two? Nevermind that. How is the first and second law of Thermodynamics making you think nothing good can come from discussions? How doe thermodynamics even relate to the ozone? I actually was planning on leaving this thread, but now I think it's getting ridiculous. Your stance has been (and likely will remain) that the ONLY WAY to help the ozone repair (and it won't happen in our lifetimes) is by generating Ozone with Ozone generators at a cost of a trillion dollars. Stop me when I'm wrong here. Is that not your stance. Okay so maybe people here could discuss alternatives to that if rude people were not saying "Why even discuss it?". I gave you a method to increase Ozone. Simply place a mirror on the ground. Now you are going on about Thermodynamics. Sooooo. I will give you another method to help repair the Ozone. Simply encourage Global Warming will aid the Ozone... so just makesure we all contribute to GW and then maybe the Ozone will fix in our lifespan. There. That is another solution that will fix the ozone. That's two so far just off the top of my head that don't require electricity. Maybe discussion is warranted. I've thought of two other ways to aid the Ozone, can you? @ Ophiolite, Thus far... But if he had his way no other ideas would ever be explored by anyone anywhere. He said, "Why even discuss it?", as if his method was the only one that could ever come to light. I've added two methods that are different and could likely find a few more if I had an interest in this topic.

no comment

@ John C, How is that wording contesting it. Repair by 2070 is likely not within my lifetime. You think that is so great we can stop talking about it? Whatever... (sigh) NOTE: I do not care an iota about Ozone. I did not enter this thread until JohnC said "Why are we still discussing this?" as if discussing things was evil. This not only indicates he feels his opinion is the only one relevant, but shuts out possible ideas from a young Tesla type genius of our time. My entire entry and point in this thread is that discussion should not become criminal just because someone thinks they know it all. No. At the bottom of post 11 you said , "Why are you still discussing this?" I would tend to agree with the statement you have in quotes, but not the idea that your thoughts are superior or should be the end of discussion. You have no idea what interesting ideas might come up (but you think you do apparently). then why try and halt discussion? Don't you want to hear if anybody else can think of something? Or do you really feel that way?

@ Arete, If you read previous content you would know this is not in contention. Ozone is scheduled to heal by 2070 providing it is not hurt further. @ Ophiolite, How do you know what ideas are practical if you only listen to one? I reject the concept that discussing things are wasteful. I mean; My God how can a few posts by you or others undermine science so harshly. Neither is telling that poster "Why are you still discussing this?" a polite or intelligent response. Rude begets rude. (from post 11) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83661-can-we-add-ozone-to-the-ozone-layer/?p=811115 Brainstorming is a group discussion where bad ideas are not scorned. John C deliberately scorned the Opening Poster by saying "why are you still discussing this?" as if his word was final. All Hail John? I refuse to think there is only one solution despite your advocacy. You also said what 75% of government spending should be allocated to this, but many industries would happily donate to show their carbon footprint/environmental good is positive, or was your word final also? Cheers @ JohnC, Even if the mirror was on the south pole? I am not saying it is practical. I am saying that generating it here and transporting it there is not a great solution. @ Everyone, John C claims the only way to repair ozone is to manufacture it and deliver it via some mechanism at a cost of a trillion dollars. I countered that claim by saying simply placing a mirror in the antarctic facing upwards would in fact create a tiny amount of ozone. I am not claiming it is the best solution, but who knows what discussing things might yield. Telling people what they can and cannot discuss is not only rude, but is akin to censorship. I want no part of that club. Ophiolite, and Arete may happily support censorship in this regard, but those are personal choices. I don't think discussions can hurt and sometimes a solution not worthy of one thing can be applied in an unrelated area.

@ Ten oz, Yes. As I was reading your story I realized this was information you must have overheard sometime in your life before you even said it (Re: Grandmother). Also television could cause Synchronicity which is the term Carl Jung gave it. Carl Jung (Famous Psychoanalyst) once went to a town and knew he wanted to meet up with an old friend while there. He made some attempts to meet the fellow, but had other commitments. Upon his last day in town the fellow randomly walked into the same restaurant Jung was dining in. This is the sort of thing Carl Jung calls Synchronicity. (This was in days before television) People who have accepted Synchronicities and believe often just call them Sync's which has taken on a duel meaning of Jiving up/being on the same wavelength. Sigmund Freud was a heavy advocate for telepathy but gave up that pursuit in fear his psychoanalysis work would be written off like the work of Walter Russell. No. Using subject matter that can be triggered by television or hidden memories do not count. You sound intelligent enough to know the difference so keep an open mind from here on out. None of the examples I have given thus far are moments that could be triggered by television or memories. I believe in the mass consciousness/god so I also believe our thoughts influence our reality. Think of something obscure like a blue feather (this experiment was someone elses). Think about a blue feather for 15 mintes and go about your day and I am sure you will see a blue feather. I originally read this experiment and tried it and noticed a blue feather in my wifes dream catcher before I left the house, and it was in view of the computer. I suppose maybe I could say I accepted the experiment because I knew a feather that colour existed in my house, so it is not perfect. Think of an obscure Cliche. I was watching tv and the show I PVR'd started with the ending of Modern Family where they were saying "Brothers from another mother". The first scene of the show i put on had the same cliche. You hear of things happening in threes... Dwell on topics you think are bizarre and you will soon see a commercial or scheduled television shows about that. When was the last time you heard the topic of The Dingo that ate the baby. Think on that and you will hear about it a lot. Hear is a video on similar idea ( was looking for video on Blue Feather experiment, but there are none, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bksg1PPlEI Here is The blue feather experiment, but not a video. http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Blue-Feather,-Creating,-and-the-Law-of-Attraction&id=7864592 I am a published fiction author and was once contemplating a story about a villain who put nicotine in peoples food to control them. You must admit that is a fairly unique thought and not many stories are written using that idea. Later we were watching television, and my friends daughter said if someone gave nicotine gum to a kid the kid would get addicted to gum. I would call that a synchronicity. I imagine it is a thought entertained by some, but I had been thinking about that plot for a few weeks at that time and had not discussed it. I am sure everyone thinks about stuff like that, but I had never heard anybody else actually suggest that before. How many thoughts running through your head are yours? Now those are simply synchronicities. Telepathy is another story but must work in a similar fashion. Telepathy the results are much more personal and astounding, but you must go out of your way to enter telepathy experiments. You must possess the curiosity. Unfortunately the only way to know one way or the other is to try it yourself because generations may pass before we are able to measure whatever is occurring, and there can be no 100% proof until then. I could point to dozens of legitimate psychic experiments that have had great successes, but I can also point to frauds and hundreds of failed psychic experiments. Who couldn't organize a failed psychic experiment? Influencing machines is another recent addition to the curiosity. The success of this has led many researchers into something called "The Global Consciousness Project". I am not endorsing it. I am just saying. I will also refute the previous quote by showing The Skeptics Dictionary Version. http://skepdic.com/pear.html Skeptics testing PSI techniques seem to always fail. Just watch any episode of James Randi on television/Youtube. I bet I could fail at any experiment if I tried hard enough. You will always get conflicting data on all successful psychic research because debunkers believe they will fail before they even begin, and belief is key to everything according to every major religion in the world. "If ye have faith as small as a mustard seed you could command that this mountain move from here to there and it will move." One of the points I am trying to make is that the ONLY way for people to believe in PSI topics are to try it themselves in double blind situations. No foreknowledge of Grandma's sister allowed. I advocate for an open mind.

@ Pwagen, There is a huge difference between religions and the idea of a god. I am sure if you want to call god Appolo, Buddha, All that is, Christ, God, or your fairy godmother then your prayers would have equal weight. I bet most religion posts discuss religion Religions were created by man. Not only that but by man thousands of years ago. We know it is safe to eat pork if it is cooked properly now, but some religions forbid it still. They seem dated. I'd pick a law of attraction/ New Age religion. @ Ten oz, That is another topic however... I think Mass consciousness/PSI topics are a foundation for belief in god. I will reiterate (was in my previous post). There can be no such thing as telepathy experiments just fooling lone individuals, nor can this be a mind easily fooled. The very nature of Telepathy requires two participants. For every successful experiment there are at least two people going "WTF!". I understand your point however as I am also a Magician, study NLP, and worship Derren Brown (see Youtube). I use the power of suggestion in normal conversations, and if someone says,"It's cold in here", I might respond with ,"Yes, but it's warming up fast" to implant that thought. You can make someone ill if you suggest they look pale and green a few times. I do not have enough time to convey the vast experience I have had mucking around in that field, but just as you cannot be swayed of there being a God/PSI, I could never be swayed in that direction. The Book I said started me on this was by Harold Sherman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Sherman As you can see in the link he was a famous book author, Adapted Screenplays, produced Broadway Shows, and more. He was not a professional "psychic". Him and Sir Hubert Wilkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Wilkins (Famous Explorer who was Knighted by the queen.) Decided to attempt Telepathy while Sir Wilkins was thousands of miles away in the arctic circle. Cell Phones did not exist at the time and when communication to the arctic was possible by radio or mail it was through third parties and some high ranking witnesses helped them document their experiences as individuals and compare them when word from the north did arrive. This became the basis for a book, "Thoughts through Space by Harold Sherman". I want to use this example because it shows how UNCANNY/REMARKABLE the actual comparisons are. These are the types of things that when they happen to you and your friends make you sit up and go, "WTF!" each time. They set up a telepathy experiment. Sherman was in New York. Wilkins was on his way to the Arctic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdmqZ1w4agA (Lots of Youtube Videos on both of these folks) Each night they sat down, relaxed and recorded on paper their thoughts. After 5 months they both each compared their recordings. It was proven that what they wrote was 75% accurate. They were over 2000 miles apart, but somehow they had been communicating with each other. Many things they wrote at the end of each day, appeared the same in their recordings. Also to rule all any kind of fraud, the notes each night were sent to independent scientists. During this telepathy experiment there was no chance of any cheating at all. 2000 miles away, neither were in any kind of contact. Let's take a typical example. Wilkins had attended a formal ball for the Army with the locals in Canada as his plane was forced to land due to bad weather, Wilkins recorded that he was worried about a dress-suit that he had to wear as the waistcoat was short in size. On the same night Sherman recorded in his dairy "You in company with men in military attire-some women-evening dress-important people present-much conversation-you appear to be in evening dress yourself. Can this be explained by mere coincidence? Really? And the other 100s of examples which lasted for over 5 months? Here is what Harold Wilkins wrote: “ When we finally were able to compare notes, what did we find? An amazing number of impressions recorded by Sherman of expedition happenings, and personal experiences, reactions and thoughts of mine. Too many of them were approximately correct and synchronized with the very day of the occurrences to have been 'guesswork'.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQTIITrjNz8 (Watch above video from 6:45, as Harold Sherman is 2nd guest.). Here is a link to a free copy of the book I read many years ago that grabbed my interest. http://www.scribd.com/doc/95854771/Harold-Sherman-How-To-Make-ESP-Work-For-You (It is not for sale so is not spam...) Unfortunately the book "Thoughts Through Space by Harold Sherman", is not available for free. Here is the synopsis, I don't want to discuss too much of the book, but I am just making a point. Sherman should have expected Wilkins to be in the Arctic or on his way. The example I give where he got roped into attending an Armistice Dance and needed to borrow dress greens to do it was just weird. Imagine you do this with a friend and you see him get a flat tire and walk into a local bar to call a tow truck because his Jack was missing from his trunk. Then when you talk to him the next day he says that is exactly what happened. HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND? How do you even begin to calculate the odds of your friend getting a flat tire for the first time in his life? Then on top of that you also knew he called a tow truck from a bar. The above scenario is the type of things that occur. Try it with a friend for a few weeks. If it does not work then what have you lost? a few hours of your time? Isn't a few hours worth knowing if I am full of it or telling the truth? Yes. It could have just been a lucky guess, so maybe you'll need to do it a few times. Now back to your post, Was Harold Sherman a lone individual, or did they both sit back and say ,"WTF!" (sticking to theme here). The 3rd party consisted of three different independent scientists, one of which was the psychologist Gardner Murphy, they had all reviewed the recordings. Murphy visited Sherman in person to collect his recordings, and when Wilkins returned to the USA from from the Arctic he gave one of these scientists his diary. It was not possible for Sherman to contact Wilkins they were 2000 miles away, and this experiment occured in 1937. No mobile phones! There was no way that either of them could of seen eachothers diary. Their experiment has been published in a book called Thoughts Through Space. The reports were submitted to several testifiers of the experiment so that the reports could not be changed or altered in anyway once submitted. There were no telephones or communication between Sherman and Wilkins. Wilkins later returned to the USA and discovered that 75% of his recordings we the same as Sherman. So.. I understand how people with less experiences can be skeptics. I feel sorry for them, but I am not a fool. I know what myself and colleagues have done and witnessed. Radio waves could not be measured a few hundred years ago, but that does not mean it only manifested itself in lone individuals, so your comment is also confusing that way. Anyways. If telepathy exists... Then Mass consciousness (we all interact) must exist. If Mass consciousness exists then the idea of god is not as ridiculous. Good luck in your pursuit, but you would have as much chance of convincing Sir Hubert Wilkins or Sherman that they are nutty as you do me. I made an objective choice to argue pro-god/pro-PSI, so I don't mind the insults that come from unbelievers, but it is very easy to try this and does not cost a nickel (we have no pennies in my country).

@ JC, Thanks for responding. The mermaid 2 looks like this and crossed the pacific just on wave power, but it was only 3 knots average.. I was hoping to build similar effect into design, but have lots of time. No big deal as sails are fine, but I don't want any regrets with that kind of money.