The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

On Nov 10, 11:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Mook, you're WRONG. *

No you are with your bogus interpretation of very limited findings you
cited.

I've posted several cites now that show you are
wrong.

No, those cites basically said a static electrical discharge couldn't
start a thermite reaction and then went on to show that without a
thermite reaction regular burning of the doped cotton fabric would
take 10 hours or more, not 34 seconds.

You wrongly assert from this that there was no thermite reaction and
the papers prove it was the hydrogen that caused the damage.

I doubt the authors would say that.

The point is, these papers are correct as far as they go. They didn't
do any experiments, and they didn't explain the features plainly seen
on the film. The films and photos shot at the time of the accident
clearly show iron and aluminum oxide sparks raining down from the skin
which was aggressively burning with the sort of flame associated with
a thermite reaction.

*You, as usual, are immune to any facts that don't support your
personal delusions. *

Nonsense. I read your cites and have given you my reasoning. It is
you who have ignored me and steadfastly seek to shape the discourse to
have others ignore it too.

This is another reason why it is obvious to
anyone with a clue that you are no kind of engineer at all.

hahaha - you are the one immune to rational discourse. Have you read
the UCLA paper that

(a) did experiments and
(b) analyzed data retrieved from the accident

???

I cited it. I also gave a clear cogent summary of it.

You have yet to respond other than to say its wrong.

This isn't engineering.

Its politics.

You excel at the latter, not the former.

Fact is, the most reasonable explanation is that a hydrogen air
mixture was allowed to form between the bladder and the skin of the
tail section and that somehow detonated - likely a spark. That
detonation ignited a thermite reaction in the skin which consumed the
ship in seconds. The remaining hydrogen, and even the hydrogen flame
contributed very little to the damage.

So, lets bring this back to the original reason I cited the Jay Leno
clip on hydrogen fueled BMWs, and later gave two videos, one showing
the thermite reaction and the other showing a hydrogen reaction. A
thermite reaction is aggressive and throws off sparks. A hydrogen
flame is gentle by comparison and produces no sparks.

The film of the Hindenberg shows sparks falling in profusion from the
stricken airship, and flames rapidly engulfing the ship. This is
evidence of a thermite reaction.


This topic is done so far as I'm concerned until YOU produce some peer
reviewed studies.

I did. The study I cited from UCLA - which you ignored.



On Nov 9, 11:15 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Nov 8, 9:14 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen
but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon..
The magnesium struts didn't help either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaOX2UAs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXjVxOGCEpQ

Jay Leno is out of date and is a paid advertising spokesman. It does,
however, demonstrate the level at which Mr Mook adopts things as
'fact'.

shrug The facts are unassailable.

Yes, they are. Leno's claim is wrong.

"Nevertheless, more recent research conducted at the University of
Colorado has contradicted this theory and found the airship's skin
could not have been responsible for the fire's rapid spread.

cite?

I gave it, you dip****.

I read the cite you gave at the end, it was a numerical analysis
involving no experimental work. *The numerical study *showed why the
results of one set of experiments done by mythbusters gave the slow
burning result it did, it did not explain the other results, the one's
that ignited a thermite reaction and consumed the airship in seconds.

This
theoretical and experimental research suggests that even if Hindenburg
had been coated in actual solid rocket fuel, it would have taken at
least 12 hours to burn in the absence of hydrogen.

A Hindenberg model was coated with the same material as that found on
the Hindenberg and it went up in less than 30 seconds when ignited.

By what? A blowtorch?

Sure, once the thermite reaction is established the ship is consumed
in seconds by it. *The paper you cite says the thermite reaction
couldn't have gotten started the way Bain said or burn the way Bain
said, so Bain is wrong. *This is quite different than saying it was
hydrogen's fault after a careful set of experiments.

See, you're not even wrong. *You cite Dessler's paper which shows
through a numerical analysis and general physical considerations that
electricity couldn't spark thermite reaction and that iron-oxide/butyl/
aluminum paint on cotton doesn't burn very fast. *These are correct as
far as they go they do not address the issue; is a thermite reaction
possible? *what would the ship burn like without a thermite reaction?
how much did thermite reaction contribute to the disaster? *These are
quite independent of how the reaction got ignited. *What is not in
question is that it was a thermite reaction that destroyed the ship in
seconds, not hydrogen.

Oh, cite?

Experiments with
recreations of the ship's skin have also found it would have taken
some 40 hours for the Hindenburg to be consumed if the fabric had
caused the fire.

Cite? Actual experiments with coated fabrics indicate that 34 seconds
it actually took was validated. Also, the film shows clear evidence
of thermite reaction.

I gave the cite, you dip****.

You gave a cite at the end, not before. *The cite you gave doesn't
support what you're saying here.

In the cite you gave at the end, Dessler is saying Bain's ignition
theory is all wet and that his numerical analysis shows iron-oxide/
butyl/aluminum paint on cotton burns slowly. *He's right as far as he
goes, but there are two rates of combustion based on total energy
involved. *The higher rate is one where a thermite reaction is well
established. *This is reflected in some of the experiments done by the
mythbusters. *They ignited a panel and it burned slowly, then after a
few seconds *bam* a thermite reaction took over. *That's because
burning in air occurs at one temperature, and thermite reaction occurs
at another and it takes a critical fire mass to switch from one type
of reaction to another.

These finding led the researchers to conclude that
although the Hindenburg's skin was combustible, it was not flammable."

If you would cite a peer reviewed article that actually did these
experiments I would be greatly appreciative.

I did. Keep reading...

You cited a paper that used a numerical analysis and general
appreciation of physics involved to demonstrate that static
electricity couldn't have caused a thermite reaction like Bain
supposed. *The cite is silent on the subject we're discussing here and
the results of actual tests with iron-oxide/butyl/aluminum paint on
cotton.

"Given the inability of investigators to conclusively determine why
the Hindenburg crashed, it is not surprising so many theories to
explain its destruction have emerged. Even so, the static spark theory
is still considered the most likely since it is the best corroborated
by the wreckage, video and photo evidence, and eyewitness reports.
This evidence and academic research also supports the belief that the
ship's hydrogen gas was ignited by static discharge and not the skin.

On Nov 11, 8:39*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ce67646d-2191-4bf3-82ce-f5925df36390
@r6g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, says...



Jay Leno is not a spokesperson paid or otherwise for BMW or hydrogen.
Jay Leno is knowledgeable about the facts of hydrogen and facts as
they relate to the Hindenberg. *I dare say that Leno's knowledge and
care are vastly superior to that of folks like Fred McCall.

You're an idiot. *

No I'm not.

Again, Jay Leno is a comedian and late night talk show
host.

Yes.

*Cars is his hobby.

Cars *are* his hobby you mean. Have you ever talked to a car
enthusiast? Have you ever worked on your own car? If you had, you'd
know that these people are very capable in understanding an
argument.

The point isn't one of credentials. Its one of facts. The fact is
the papers Fred cited were armchair studies that said basically, a
spark can't ignite a thermite reaction and so, the skin was burning in
air, and that type of burning would take more than 10 hours - so it
couldn't be the skin that caused the accident.

haha - The fact is the papers I cited from UCLA were experimental
studies which included detailed analysis of the films and photos of
the day. They concluded that the explosion of air/hydrogen mixture in
the space between the bladder and skin ignited a thermite reaction
which consumed the ship. It was the thermite not the hydrogen that
caused the bulk of the damage.

*Certainly he's more knowledgeable than the
average Joe about cars, but hydrogen? *Really? *I mean REALLY?!?!?

What do you need to know? Compare the films I cited that show
hydrogen burning and thermite burning. What does the film of the
Hindenberg look like? How much do you need to know to see that the
Hindenberg was consumed by a thermite reaction.

You're such a tool Mook.

No I'm not. You are.

*You think research is posting links to YouTube
videos,

No I don't. The YouTube videos are illustrative of my point. I
think a YouTube video that illustrates for anyone with eyes the
findings of the UCLA paper summarizing experiments and analysis of
films versus the Colorado armchair study involving numerical analysis
only - cuts through a lot of bull.

while never showing anyone any real progress you've made on your
own mooky ideas.

haha - where do you get that idea? lol. Its clear you and Fred
spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to paint anything I say
to the public through this media as something its not. Give it up -
you and Fred are complete assholes as far as most people are
concerned.

Jeff
--
42

On Nov 11, 8:45*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d2df5297-5f09-4455-8f70-dd0f5b2571e2
@g7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says...



Jeff, Leno is careful in what he says publicly on these topics and
while he makes a lot of money as a comedian, he is a serious mechanic
and auto enthusiast. *He is aware of the studies done by UCLA on this
topic, and the analysis of the films which clearly show that the skin
is consumed in a thermite reaction.

Something you are not aware of, and as a result, are sadly, looking
very foolish about.

Then cite the UCLA studies, not an on-line video of Jay Leno! *

Didn't you pay *any* attention in school when they talked about the
difference between primary and secondary sources?

You're the one who is saying a numerical study trumps the UCLA paper
which did experiments and looked at data from the accident. hahaha

*Geez, you post
"information" like a 5th grader who just figured out how to use YouTube.

No I don't. The video of a thermite reaction, a hydrogen reaction,
and the Hindenberg neatly summarize the UCLA paper for those who want
to cut through all the crap you and your buddies are putting out.

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm


Jeff
--
42

On Nov 11, 2:40*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:45*am, Jeff Findley wrote:



In article d2df5297-5f09-4455-8f70-dd0f5b2571e2
@g7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says...

Jeff, Leno is careful in what he says publicly on these topics and
while he makes a lot of money as a comedian, he is a serious mechanic
and auto enthusiast. *He is aware of the studies done by UCLA on this
topic, and the analysis of the films which clearly show that the skin
is consumed in a thermite reaction.

Something you are not aware of, and as a result, are sadly, looking
very foolish about.

Then cite the UCLA studies, not an on-line video of Jay Leno! *

Didn't you pay *any* attention in school when they talked about the
difference between primary and secondary sources? *Geez, you post
"information" like a 5th grader who just figured out how to use YouTube..

Jeff
--
42

Our Mook has YouTube for the dysfunctional half of his brain, whereas
the other half is actually capable of coming up with a few original
solutions that are way better than most.

Basically, our William Mook is a one man band, except not all of the
Mook musicians are reading from the same music sheet, or even keeping
to the same beat. *So, you have to pick and choose the musical
instrument you happen to like the best, and then tune everything else
out. (easier said than done)

*~ BG

Interesting how Jeff, Fred and Brad all tend to echo one another when
it gets right down to it. lol. Everyone knows you three have
destroyed any logical discourse on this group. I wanted to talk about
what we could do today to make this world a wonderful place to live
with technology. I mentioned hydrogen fueled and lifted airships to
transport goods around the planet. Freddie calls me an idiot and
cites the Hindenberg. I reply with a good Leno piece on Hydrogen
safety. Freddie cites a bogus Colorado study and makes claims for it
that even the authors wouldn't buy. I reply to what Freddie says, and
you and Jeff climb on my back. hahaha---

I cited already the UCLA work done in this area by the hydrogen
program manager at NASA.

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm

This is what Jay Leno knew when he said the skin of the Hindenburg
caused the problem - not the hydrogen. Hydrogen is a safe reliable
fuel. There will be accidents with it as with all fuel. The losses
will be less than we suffer today from hydrocarbons.

On Nov 11, 9:03*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message

...

The Earth As a Planet.

Science has shown that it is highly efficient at doing things when
enough people put enough resources behind the right sorts of
programs. *For example, fission was discovered in 1938 and this
resulted in the Manhattan Project in 1942 and the first atomic bombs
in 1946. *Humanity built a network of nuclear weapons capable of
ending modern civilization in an afternoon should we choose to do
that.

Can we move as quickly to create what Buckminster Fuller called
'livingry' (as opposed to weaponry) to make our world a paradise?

Oh, this post shows so clearly that abstract thought
is a lost art.

How to build Utopia, in ten easy steps!

We only need one step. Find people like Ford and Kaiser and challenge
them to solve the problem after giving them valid data. You quote my
preamble. You fail to recount the details I gave that we already know
that gives us the scale of the problem and the resources available.

This is where we start.

We've spent trillions wiring our world for instant anihilation, and
we've spent trillions killing hundreds of millions in warfare for a
century. Its time we put at least as much effort in seeing what we
can do to build a better world for everyone.

On Nov 12, 7:18*am, William Mook wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:40*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Nov 11, 5:45*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article d2df5297-5f09-4455-8f70-dd0f5b2571e2
@g7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says...

Jeff, Leno is careful in what he says publicly on these topics and
while he makes a lot of money as a comedian, he is a serious mechanic
and auto enthusiast. *He is aware of the studies done by UCLA on this
topic, and the analysis of the films which clearly show that the skin
is consumed in a thermite reaction.

Something you are not aware of, and as a result, are sadly, looking
very foolish about.

Then cite the UCLA studies, not an on-line video of Jay Leno! *

Didn't you pay *any* attention in school when they talked about the
difference between primary and secondary sources? *Geez, you post
"information" like a 5th grader who just figured out how to use YouTube.

Jeff
--
42

Our Mook has YouTube for the dysfunctional half of his brain, whereas
the other half is actually capable of coming up with a few original
solutions that are way better than most.

Basically, our William Mook is a one man band, except not all of the
Mook musicians are reading from the same music sheet, or even keeping
to the same beat. *So, you have to pick and choose the musical
instrument you happen to like the best, and then tune everything else
out. (easier said than done)

*~ BG

Interesting how Jeff, Fred and Brad all tend to echo one another when
it gets right down to it. *lol. *Everyone knows you three have
destroyed any logical discourse on this group. *I wanted to talk about
what we could do today to make this world a wonderful place to live
with technology. *I mentioned hydrogen fueled and lifted airships to
transport goods around the planet. *Freddie calls me an idiot and
cites the Hindenberg. *I reply with a good Leno piece on Hydrogen
safety. *Freddie cites a bogus Colorado study and makes claims for it
that even the authors wouldn't buy. *I reply to what Freddie says, and
you and Jeff climb on my back. *hahaha---

I cited already the UCLA work done in this area by the hydrogen
program manager at NASA.

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm

This is what Jay Leno knew when he said the skin of the Hindenburg
caused the problem - not the hydrogen. *Hydrogen is a safe reliable
fuel. *There will be accidents with it as with all fuel. *The losses
will be less than we suffer today from hydrocarbons.

Making Eden/Earth a wonderful place means allowing the whole truth and
nothing but the truth to emerge, so that current and future mistakes
can be avoided or at least minimized. You insist upon excluding and/
or obfuscating the past as though it never happened, or insisting that
only good things were made to happen, and that somehow the past never
affects the present or future as long as you have good intentions and
some better way of doing stuff.

It seems the past is the only thing keeping Mook ideas and better
solutions from advancing, but then you never blame anyone except those
of us for your problems.

Try to remember, that for the most part I've been on your somewhat
bipolar side, agreeing as to utilizing the best available talent,
expertise and technology (most of which is public funded and thereby
public owned).

I've even agreed with several of your versions of utilizing green
hydrogen, even those where it's volume requirement is somewhat
problematic for extended range applications, especially where
prolonged storage needs to be accommodated. However, I'm certain that
existing technology could be adapted and made sufficiently capable for
many energy applications where those volumetric requirements are not
restricted, such as for various blimp applications of those terrific
commercial transports to/from remote areas that can not be affordably
accessed as is.

I'd have lots more to say about all of this, but not at this time.

~ BG

On Nov 12, 10:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Nov 10, 11:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Mook, you're WRONG. *

No

Yes, and I'm not wading through any further nonsense from you on this
topic until you come up with something credible.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Dude, I read you cites. Did you read mine? You are guilty of all the
things you wrongly ascribed to me.

The cite you gave concluded that;

(a) a spark cannot cause a thermite reaction
(b) without a thermite reaction, the skin takes 10+ hours to burn.

I don't have any issues with those conclusions. I *do* have issues
with your interpretation of them. Namely;

(a) experiments with the skin show it can sustain a thermite reaction
(b) a thermite reaction in the skin consumes the ship in seconds
(c) film and photography from the disaster show evidence of a
thermite reaction

It is likely that hydrogen played a role in getting the thermite
reaction started. It is not likely that it caused the disaster.
Consider the USS Shenandoah;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shenandoah_%28ZR-1%29

it is a HELIUM filled airship that was destroyed in a storm in Ohio.
The structures possible in the 1920s weren't sufficient to withstand
the forces generated by operation of the airship. It was very much
likely that structural failure preceded containment failure of the
hydrogen. That poor ventilation inside the airship caused a deadly
air/fuel mixture to occur (similar to TWA Flight 800) and that
detonation of that air/fuel mixture led to a thermite reaction of the
skin of the airship.

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm

NONE of this would happen with hydrogen filled and hydrogen fueled
airships I propose. So, your citation of the Hindenburg as a caution
against modern use of hydrogen is ill-placed and frankly unfounded.
Your continuing willful ignorance of the facts just shows how pig
headed you are and to what lengths you will go to disagree with
whatever I say.

On Nov 12, 10:45*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Interesting how Jeff, Fred and Brad all tend to echo one another when
it gets right down to it. *lol. *Everyone knows you three have
destroyed any logical discourse on this group. *

You mean we keep puncturing you for the buffoon that you are.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

I'm smarter than you Fred. But, that's not saying much! lol.

On Nov 12, 7:21*am, William Mook wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:03*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:



"William Mook" wrote in message

....

The Earth As a Planet.

Science has shown that it is highly efficient at doing things when
enough people put enough resources behind the right sorts of
programs. *For example, fission was discovered in 1938 and this
resulted in the Manhattan Project in 1942 and the first atomic bombs
in 1946. *Humanity built a network of nuclear weapons capable of
ending modern civilization in an afternoon should we choose to do
that.

Can we move as quickly to create what Buckminster Fuller called
'livingry' (as opposed to weaponry) to make our world a paradise?

Oh, this post shows so clearly that abstract thought
is a lost art.

How to build Utopia, in ten easy steps!

We only need one step. *Find people like Ford and Kaiser and challenge
them to solve the problem after giving them valid data. *You quote my
preamble. *You fail to recount the details I gave that we already know
that gives us the scale of the problem and the resources available.

This is where we start.

We've spent trillions wiring our world for instant anihilation, and
we've spent trillions killing hundreds of millions in warfare for a
century. *Its time we put at least as much effort in seeing what we
can do to build a better world for everyone.

I 100% agree with that medicated version of Mook. We need to refocus
and pool our best talent and remaining resources for the greater good,
which means setting the record straight (using "valid data") plus
setting the best possible examples for others to follow, as well as
giving reason to join forces.

Better management of global resources is a priority, especially of our
global biodiversity that's currently getting kicked in the teeth and
butt at the same time.

In most instances that would mean treating mainstream religions and
their political puppets as the home-grown enemy, or at least treated
like private special-interest corporations or cabal/mafia voodoo cells
that have only their own best reelected or government grant funded
interest at heart, and otherwise because such pretend faith-based
groups seldom police their own kind and they've been getting way too
much protection as well as being untaxable for all the wrong reasons.
(remember that I'm not even an Atheist)

The risk of global annihilation was created by our mutually
perpetrated cold-wars and the subsequent global inflation of darn near
everything, as fully orchestrated by the rich and powerful that too
often used their faith as justification as well as a protective cloak
or shield. Now it's payback time, even though it'll be too little too
late for most of us.

You see, the past does come back to haunt us, and to impede progress
just by having wasted so much of our hard earned loot, resources and
decades of precious time. As long as fewer than 0.0001% are in charge
of most everything that matters, we're screwed because they really
don't care how many of us have to sacrifice everything, and that's
what has to change for the better.

In other words, out with the old, in with the new. Since you can't
possibly do everything; what position of global authority is Mook
going to take?

~ BG

I don't post bull**** Fred, you do.