Discussion > Do Chandra, Replicant and Entropic man add value to BH?
" but not at low concentrations and not to the general public."
No of course not, that's why all worker safety data sheets explicitly warn of the dangers and that's why people near fracking well exhibit exactly the same type of symptoms that are listed on the data sheets.
" spent five years in a wet lab using H2S for analytical purposes"
I was a nuclear physicist in my former life so I know what I'm talking about.
replicant
Nuclear physicist?
What do they do? Sit in front of computers and books would be my guess. No practical knowledge or experience. Kind of useless to society.
shub
"Kind of useless to society."
Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact I know what I'm talking about. And that's the only thing that counts. I'm sure society will get along without me.
replicant
Martin A, you need to be wearing a tin foil hat to tell the difference. It has the added value of stopping the lizzard Prince Phillip reading your thoughts.
TinyCO2
David Porter
Ford face an added layer of risk: hydrogen sulfide, also known as H2S or sour gas, a naturally occurring component of "hard boiled eggs".</I>
Oh wait, you're the guy who wanted to confront me and explain that H2S is no more dangerous than boiled eggs. And Martin had to com in and settle you down a bit. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that have no knowledge of H2S. What is this post, an attempt at recovering some loss of face?
replicant
"Martin A, you need to be wearing a tin foil hat to tell the difference. It has the added value of stopping the lizzard Prince Phillip reading your thoughts."
I thought that was that Martin guy and the Club of Rome that were going to be reading your thoughts and control you. Did I get that wrong?
replicant
"And that's the only thing that counts"
Not the first guy to declare what he says "counts" is what counts.
shub
Well all you have to do is ask the machine and out comes an answer.
replicant
Martin A
That's about it. Along the way I imagine you also encountered all the other effects that replicant's replicants claim it is doing. :-)
Entropic man
"I was a nuclear physicist in my former life so I know what I'm talking about".
Good for you. Obviously you didn't take enough precautions.
And that is my last comment on this idiot. Hopefully all other sensible commentators will do the same.
David Porter
You guys sure all love to sit here and pat yourselves on the back don't you? You accuse me of being a troll yet most you post as if you were all sticking your tongues out in the school playground. You accuse me of promoting conspiracy yet the biggest conspiracy on the site can't be explained to me. Most of you swear and pout and get your underwear in knots because I am posting on your private little get to. It's a lot of fun. Easy to kill time here. I can't imagine what you guys do here.
replicant
So rather than act as policeman for this thread I would suggest you look at your own posts and stop feeding him. You are merely giving encouragement to make a mockery of this thread. And by the way I spent five years in a wet lab using H2S for analytical purposes. Dangerous it may be but not at low concentrations and not to the general public. Replicant is a Luddite and Chemophobe who delights in winding you up. If you keep on responding to him you will most certainly come to acknowledge that he/she is, after all, a prat.
Mar 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Porter
David Porter, so you think that by my saying "David Porter - I suggest not being rude to replicant nor to other commenters" (Mar 6, 2014 at 9:19 PM) after you called replicant a prat, apparently because you disagree with his view of the toxicity of H2S, I am "acting as policeman for this thread"?
To say, without provocation, to someone who has stated facts that you think are incorrect "you really are a stupid prat" is not the sort of behaviour that is normal on this blog. I notice that Bishop Hill has snipped your subsequent rudeness (Mar 6 8:36).
As replicant has pointed out, since his handle appears in the title to this thread, it's hard to see how he can 'make a mockery' of the thread (to use your expression) by giving readers more examples of the sort of value he adds.
From replicant's first reply to my response to his original comment, I think I formed an accurate assessment. Replicant is not winding me up at all. He is simply commenting in the way that is his manner. Replicant clearly has strong views that I do not share and he has a way of debating that is different from mine. If he and I wish to continue our debate we have the right to do so, especially on this particular thread (subject to BH allowing it of course).
I think replicant is right, at least to some extent, of the dangers of H2S in hydrocarbon extraction:
METHODS:
A review of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) for occupational deaths related to hydrogen sulfide from 1993 to 1999 was performed.RESULTS:
Fifty-two workers died of hydrogen sulfide toxicity in this 7-year period. Deaths were most commonly reported in workers who were white (85%), male (98%), and in their first year of employment with the company (48%). Common industries included waste management, petroleum, and natural gas. In 21% of cases, a co-worker died simultaneously or in the attempt to save the workers.
Martin A
Don’t like being chastised then Martin, even to the extent that you are willing to bat for the other side. That’s a shame because your contribution to this site is normally very positive. However you are wrong. Your apparent evangelical desire to convert this prat is all to obvious and will fail. Your pride is interfering with your customary logic. Get over it.
David Porter
David - perhaps you have not read my previous posts in thread - or at least understood the implicit meaning that I had thought would have been apparent to a careful reader.
If my exchanging comments with replicant (or with Chandra or with Entropic Man for that matter) offends you, my suggestion is simply not to read the comments.
At no time have I ever thought that my comments were going to 'convert' anyone and I don't know why you should have inferred that that was my 'desire' or that I had any expectation or hope of doing so.
Martin A
Perhaps a bit late to the argument but, sorry, replicant, but it does seem that you are leaping to some quite extraordinary conclusions:
You brought up the fact of 6 gallons of water.Er, no. Martin A mentioned that figure based upon assumptions drawn from figures he was aware of in his apparently limited knowledge of flying and hydrocarbons.
Your use of the term “chemtrail”, and your subsequent definition, suggests that you do not understand the basic concept of a trail; “contrail” is generally used with reference to the long plume of white cloud (of unspecified components, though usually accepted as being primarily water, hence “contrail”, being a conflation of the two words: “condensation” and, erm, “trail”) often seen behind aircraft, generally at high altitude – i.e. the plane leaves a visible trail. As the air behind any aircraft is incredibly turbulent, then the trail left would be quickly enlarged from the metre or so of the jet exhaust to the several (perhaps tens of) metres visible from the ground, the exhausts from up to four engines quickly combining to form one trail. The continued existence of the contrail would depend upon the relative humidity of the air at that altitude, as well as the variations in the winds at that level. However, you say that a chemtrail covers the entire sky, so is not really a trail, and, if it is uniform, how can it be generated, and how can it be defined and identified?
Your opinions are displaying a quite touching level of thought: on Mar 4, 2014 at 3:24 PM, you berated Martin A (3:06 PM) for “… thinking that the military is separate from the government.” yet you quite distinctly separated the two in your previous post, at 11:45AM. That you claim to be an ex-nuclear scientist makes your posts even more unusual.
Radical Rodent
Martin, I have read your threads and to me they do come across as trying to convert replicant and I think you are banging your head against a brick wall trying to debate this man. That is your choice but when I encounter someone who I believe to be making argument for arguments sake I feel compelled to comment. I appreciate your very significant contribution to this blog, but when I think you are wrong you need to understand I will not lie silent if I feel I have something to contribute. Working with hydrogen sulphide was, in this instance the trigger.
Best regards
David Porter
Rad -
on Mar 4, 2014 at 3:24 PM, you berated Martin A (3:06 PM) for “… thinking that the military is separate from the government.”
I think you should read the relevant post again. I did not berate him for that. He asked me asked pertaining to switching some words in my post and wondered if I would accept such a position - as being a position. I said no, because that would separate the military from the government. So from my view such a position is not something that can exist.
“contrail” is generally used with reference to the long plume of white cloud
This not something that I don't understand, this is the crux of the matter. This is the argument itself that you are missing. Contrails from commercial passenger aircraft do not exist as long plumes of white cloud. Contrails only exist as short trails which disappear within a few seconds. The long plumes of white cloud that you see are 'chemtrails'.
replicant
someone who I believe to be making argument for arguments sake
That is silly if you think I am making arguments for arguments sake. I can absolutely assure you that stand behind every single one of my opinions. (OK the flakey ones I can dispense with) Not one single argument do I make just for the sake of making an argument.
replicant
Replicant, I have to disagree with you on all points: you separated the state from the military (“… government, wall street and commercial banks, military…” – Mar 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM); Martin A merely left out the military in his amendment, though continued with the government (and, surely, by inference, all its various arms, including the military).
My own observations, albeit usually from some considerable distance, is the generation of contrails pluming behind identifiable commercial aircraft, often several visible at a time. These plumes may linger for some time, or they can dissipate quite quickly – both scenarios have logical, scientific explanations.
Alas, your arguments are rather shaky, with all the hallmarks of a “tin-foil hatter”; to give yourself more credence, I suggest that you formulate a more coherent argument, and present some verifiable evidence for your hypotheses.
Radical Rodent
Rad -
What can I say? It is an incorrect interpretation. This is one group. They are even bracketed together. (government, wall street and commercial banks, military, military industrial complex) and then Martin changed the group by leaving government in and striking out the military of that group. You can not strike out the military and then tell me (and, surely, by inference, all its various arms, including the military). Why strike them out if they are to be inherently included. Now you want to change what Martin wrote and you want to tell me that I am wrong because of it.
I suggest that you formulate a more coherent argument
More coherent argument? I fail to see something you have said which renders anything I have said as incoherent. Incoherent is a pretty strong word. You have merely stated that these long plumes are contrails and it would seem as if you feel this statement is sufficient argument. We all know what creates contrails. The question is whether or not it is possible for the exhaust of a modern commercial aircraft carrier is capable of producing long plumes of clouds. The answer of course is no. If you find this argument incoherent then you might need remedial studies. If you find this argument incorrect then you should explain how it is possible. My position is that it is flat out 100% completely impossible. There is no chance - ever - of that long plume of cloud being a common garden variety vapour trail. None.
replicant
The exhaust from a jet engine contains the product of combustion of hydrocarbon fuel in air compressed into a chamber; a lot of that product will be water. Its ejection into the low density air at high altitude will cause rapid expansion of the exhaust gas, and so rapid cooling (see one of the gas laws; and hence the visible gap between the exhaust of the engine and the beginning of the trail); this rapid cooling causing the water vapour in the exhaust to condense, thus causing the trailing cloud. How can this not be possible?
Oh, by the way, while incoherent may be a pretty strong word, it was NOT a word that I used; while I am not very tall, that does not mean that I am short.
Sorry, David Porter, you do present a good argument, and one that I might cede to.
Radical Rodent
"a lot of that product will be water"
Pretty much the only product will be water. Modern jet engines are extremely efficient. Companies have spent millions of dollars on research and development to create the most efficient engines money and ingenuity can buy.
Like I said, we all know what creates contrails. The question is whether or not there is sufficient product (whatever you think that product might be) that escapes as exhaust to form a contrail that is several hundred meters wide and persists for days. The answer is no. As Martin has stated we can go with 6 gallons of water per mile. Try to understand what 6 gallons of water per mile spread out several hundred meters wide and as well of course a few hundred meters thick. Varying in color. Varying in texture. Varying in form. I maintain. Not possible.
Take a look at satellite photos of the trails. Where are commercial flight paths? Why are some of them in circles. What kind of a passenger jet flies and turn corners? etc. etc.
replicant
"while incoherent may be a pretty strong word, it was NOT a word that I used"
You're right then. 'More coherent' is not the same as 'incoherent'. I stand corrected.
replicant
"Pretty much the only product will be water."
No that's not right. Very roughly half of the combustion product will be CO2 -- around one molecule of CO2 per molecule of H2O. [As I said - that's a *very* rough estimate.]
A plane is burning hydrocarbon fuel - not hydrogen.
Martin A
Martin A
Have you got the message yet? You’re fighting a pig and we all know how that ends. So rather than act as policeman for this thread I would suggest you look at your own posts and stop feeding him. You are merely giving encouragement to make a mockery of this thread. And by the way I spent five years in a wet lab using H2S for analytical purposes. Dangerous it may be but not at low concentrations and not to the general public. Replicant is a Luddite and Chemophobe who delights in winding you up. If you keep on responding to him you will most certainly come to acknowledge that he/she is, after all, a prat.