CPL.Luke

pangloss between the years of 1970 and 1975 (the big opec years) oil by the barrel hit $80 per barrel (US inflation adjusted) which is higher than it was back when katrina hit, the idea that suddenly US oil companies stopped getting new oil during this time due to changing economics is absurd in light of the fact that the price of oil was at its highest in the years when US oil production had flatlined and begun to decline. you really are saying that oil companies packed up and stopped investing in the US just as the price of oil quadrupled, and most of the oil producing nations ofthe world ceased shipping oil to the US. That is a very extraordinary claim. As to your point on the uncapping of wells in california. It doesn't surprise me that there were and are oil wells that are only economic when the price of oil is over $50 a barrel, afterall during the opec years the cost was higher, so companies found the oil and drilled it. However even as the price of oil remained high even by today's standards between '70 and '75 US production fell. Even when there were massive shortages and politcal presure to increase production the production still fell. You really are saying that oil companies packed up and stopped investing in the US just as the price of oil quadrupled, and most of the oil producing nations ofthe world ceased shipping oil to the US. That is a very extraordinary claim, especialy in light of the fact that this massive withdrawal took place almost exactly when a guy ignorant of any of the events of the 1960's and 70's predicted almost 20 years earlier (and to a very similar curve that he predicted).

its interestng that the first tangent line seems to yield an expoentil, however I may be missing parts of the line.

Hmm its interesting to note that during the energy crisis (that happened right around the peak) gas was at the highest price per gallon in US history, right around $3.50 a gallon (after inflation), this would not be consistant with Pangloss's argument that it suddenly became unfeasable to pay the workers to maintain the pumps. (also is it really logical that it was cheaper for companies to import the oil and ship it clear across the oceans than to pay a couple of guys 20 bucks an hour to maintain the pumps) Also why are the known numbers for saudi arabia and other arab states not included in the graph? POM

although if I understand right you have a very large rotor which spins some weight around, and eventually hits the top of the fence post driving the post into the ground. this is then an energy problem, you have to calculate the kinetic energy of the roter, and you also need to know the amount of energy required to drive the post into the ground, the first is a straight forward calculation, whereas the latter is a bit more difficult.

I think part of the problem is that nobody here really understands what the device is, maybe a diagram?

sorry pangloss, I was commenting on someone elses interpretation of the events. I'll try and dig up a link on those gravitational interferometers, I saw an article in sciam about them and they're use in oil searching a couple years back.

I have yet to see pangloss pick apart any evidence, or anybody pick apart the evidence, all I have seen is a number of posters saying "no, you're wrong" no counter evidence, nothing more than a vague oppinion such as "well there are a couple of finds here and there, therefore we are gaining reserve capacity at a faster rate than we are burning it." POM then provides statistics showing conclusively that we are burning oil faster than we are finding it, and unless some magical discontinuity occurs in the nxt several years, we are still going to reduce the world wide oil reserve. Its time that we stopped pretending that humanity is incapable of depleting planetary resources cause we are just that insignificant. We exist on every continent on the planet, and in some places up to a density of 66,000 people per square mile. Were using resources and fast. As fr deep sea finds I would like to mention that a very quick calculation will show that the deeper the oil is, the more energy it takes to extract it, then you also have to add in the energies involved in shipping it. and pretty soon you aren't getting energy out of the oil. And as for detection methods, they now have instruments sensitive enough to detect the tiny differences in gravitational field that would indicate oil, and we can put these things in planes and fly them over vast amounts of land. If these tools aren't picking up the oil at a rate faster than we are burning it, than I would doubt that the left over oil is worth finding.

sun spots can cause a change in temperaure, but if you look at the solar trens of the past hundred yeaers they clearly are not affecting the current warming trend.

he matrix P is formed by finding the orthonormal eigenvectors of the matrix, first find the eigenvectors, and then orthonormalize for a symmetric matrix, all of the eigenvectors are orthogonal for unique eigenvalues.

I did a project on this where I routinely burned metals in a standard microwave every day for months. The worst thing that can happen is some burn marks in the microwave. although if you run it for two long with glass around, or if there isn' a glass plate to insulate the metal from the microwave cage, oyu can cause damage. the worst problem I ever encounterred was glass melting in the microwave, in the name of science my partner and I continued to run the experiment. after several seconds the glass got to be white hot (once the glass begins to heat up it becomes a conductor, and from there the microwaves will heat it directly), and proceeded to melt a dent into the microwave, permanently killing the microwave. there were also some close calls when the metal sparked to the microwave cae, while the cage is grounded and somewhat rotects the magnetron from being shocked to death, this isn't guarenteed. my suggestion would be to get a glass bottle (like an IBC rootbeer one (12-20 oz size) and place a couple of paperclips inside of it, the bottle will capture the plasma temporarily and give you a nice light show, this will work until the bottle cracks/shatters which will then require some clean-up, however the microwave shouldn't recieve any damage, and as long as you watch for melting glass you'll be fine. alternatively 2 halves of a grape placed right next to each other will work quite well.

call them up and apply

meh stories about schools getting sponsored and producing kids who go on to various colleges are a dime a dozen. in short it is a question about motivation, however I think its also enviromental. Places like cities easily allow one to make significant amounts of money by just dropping out of school, its not like the burbs where the only thing you could see yourself doing is either going to college and escaping, or working at a dunkin donuts for the rest of your life. Also gun crime is not directly related to drop-out rates, you can find hundreds of small towns out in the midwest with dropout rates between 50 and 80 percent, these towns may not even develop large amounts of crime, however they will tend to be impoverished, and that does lend itself to crime. Statement of bias I as well am a highschool dropout, but now I go to a university.

I think were missing a fundamental point here, who profits? with a drug like heroin or coke you can quite eaily get addicted (I have friends who have been), and getting off can be difficult to impossible due to withdrawal. For substances like that people can get addicted and may never be able to get off of them, and yet all the while somebody is making money. And i'm not aying that this doesn't occur now, its just that we try to eliminate it.

yawning is something the body does to suck in alot of air if its starting to run out, this can happen if the room is a bit stuffy (stuffy means the room doesn't have enough oxygen). I wouldn't be to concerned with it.

I think its similar in the US, where there's a gang culture there's gun violence. near my hometown there are two cities, Stamford and Bridgewater, which are currently in the midst of a gang war. I met a guy at the dineer the other day who heard a drive-by right next to his house the other day. Likewise in my hometown there are a large number of gun owners who use guns to hunt or just go shooting. There is not a single gun crime in my hometown.

hmm thats interesting, in the US it is considered very very unusual and in most circumstances uncessesary for officer to be carrying a rifle. even in our airports and places where the national guard has been stationed are limited to the use of handguns.

I believe gib65 is referring to the 3rd annual IPCC report, which stated that global warming is occuring and that humans are the primary cause. the report was authored by over 2000 climate scientists. I would say that settles the debate.

it appears clear that there will be some form of conventional crude oil peak in the coming years. This will increase energy prices which will hurt any economy and as such the economy's that begin to switch now will be the most succesful over the next half century. Luckily we have many ways of producing energy, and as long as there is proper planning involved the economy won't suffer. it should also be noted that Energy production hasn't been handled on a purely free market basis for the past hundred years, and if you don't believe me ask yourself who comissions power plants. There is also nothing inherently wrong with producing fuel on a negative energy return provided that you have alternative means of generating the energy in the first place. An example of this would be to use a nuclear power plant to produce energy that would then be used to make oil, as the oil infrastructure is there already it makes sense to provide fuel in this manner rather than hydrogen, as oil is a better fuel than hydrogen and any hydrogen production would follow the same general principal of using more energy to make the fuel than you get out of burning the fuel. I personally believe that battery power is the way to go, however battery technology isn't exactly what would be required to provide effective transportation (however there may be better battery technology out there, anybody have any links?). I'm curious as to how efficent coal gasiffication would be at producing oil, as thats been the tactic of many countries that have been cut off from there oil supplies in past wars, and its a critical component of modern clean coal technology. The moral of the story however is that planning is a necessity , as the government can help raise prices now in order to increase efficencies and avoid possible shortages in the future. one of the dangers of not properly planning for a future peak is that its difficult to tell how fast the oil will run out in comparison to other sources being scaled up. fuel shortages could literally bring the economy to a screaching halt if not handled correctly.

yes, probably brighter as there would be nothing to absorb it between the blast and you.

sort of, your ear would interpret it as a sound (think fireworks) however theshock wave itself doesn't give off sound but instead turns into a sound wave once it loses enough energy.

and the reason why it forms is due to the air around the bomb absoring a tremendous amount of energy from the blast.

meh beer pong schmeer pong play drink the beer NICE JOB! getting into WPI

depends on the beer, if you drink coors or something along those lines your never going to get drunk. if you try something like a sam adams lager/ double bock or any of ther others I mentioned you'll get the same alcohol as you would in the UK

its not doing work the way you think it is you could theoretically due the problem by using the formula nr delta t= w however since knowledge of the temperature is beyond us we should use the formula delta pv=w however the two are exactly equivalent. heat merely means the energy transferred, so technically you can state that work is a form of heat, however as people don't usually think of it in this fashion, it is better to say that the transferred energy is equal to Q+W where Q is the energy transferred in the form of temperature, out of the system. in this case you could say that the work was zero or that the heat is zero and get the same answer. although you should see that the temperature changed in my equation to, by the amount E0(ln(b)-E0)/nr

yeah the energy that hits you would be the same (or greater) to that which would hit you at the same radius on earth. due to the space between you and the detonation not absorbing the energy in the form of heat/breakage.