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

On Nov 10, 8:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Mook, you're WRONG. *I've posted several cites now that show you are
wrong. *You, as usual, are immune to any facts that don't support your
personal delusions. *This is another reason why it is obvious to
anyone with a clue that you are no kind of engineer at all.

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

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Jay Leno is out of date and is a paid advertising spokesman.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.

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. Again, Jay Leno is a comedian and late night talk show
host. Cars is his hobby. Certainly he's more knowledgeable than the
average Joe about cars, but hydrogen? Really? I mean REALLY?!?!?

You're such a tool Mook. You think research is posting links to YouTube
videos, while never showing anyone any real progress you've made on your
own mooky ideas.

Jeff
--
42

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

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

In article 7941cba8-a78e-4a35-b953-b59b1da57ebc@
37g2000prx.googlegroups.com, says...

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.

Original, yes. Way better, no. They're better only in a fantasy land
where engineering is as easy as slapping together a Lego Mindstorms
model. In Lego, nearly everything is ABS and every part has common
interfaces which were engineered to work together. In other words, the
systems level engineering problems have already been solved.

In Mook's proposals, none of the systems level engineering has been
done. He just assumes it will be a cake walk to get all of his proposed
disparate technologies to work together (even though many of them aren't
even proven in and of themselves).

Systems engineering is *freaking hard*! In just about any engineering
organization, the engineers who get paid the big bucks are often the
most senior level systems engineers. There are huge reasons for that.
If you don't believe me, find a few real aerospace engineers and ask
them about systems level engineering.

Jeff
--
42

On Nov 11, 12:50*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7941cba8-a78e-4a35-b953-b59b1da57ebc@
37g2000prx.googlegroups.com, says...



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.

Original, yes. *Way better, no. *They're better only in a fantasy land
where engineering is as easy as slapping together a Lego Mindstorms
model. *In Lego, nearly everything is ABS and every part has common
interfaces which were engineered to work together. *In other words, the
systems level engineering problems have already been solved.

In Mook's proposals, none of the systems level engineering has been
done. *He just assumes it will be a cake walk to get all of his proposed
disparate technologies to work together (even though many of them aren't
even proven in and of themselves). *

Systems engineering is *freaking hard*! *In just about any engineering
organization, the engineers who get paid the big bucks are often the
most senior level systems engineers. *There are huge reasons for that. *
If you don't believe me, find a few real aerospace engineers and ask
them about systems level engineering.

Jeff
--
42

Yes, most all of Mook’s stuff is complex and potentially very spendy.
However, when there’s a greater than investment payback, and not even
that far down the road, then where’s the logic in stonewalling or not
going ahead?

Most of what Mook and others need has long been public funded and
public owned as is, as well as those as insiders having been given
multiple grants to their special interest groups so that they always
get the utmost out of whatever we own (sometimes including enough to
cover its logistics and operational overhead), and that’s the public
funded status-quo norm for more than the last few decades, as always
kept inaccessible and/or need-to-know or simply taboo/nondisclosure
rated to those of any outsiders with deductive interpretations as to
whatever else could be accomplished, and apparently you're good with
that exclusive Skull and Bones approved policy.

Actually, even stuff of whatever is privately bought and utilized for
similar research and development, such as spendy software solutions
for design, engineering and structural or aerodynamic analysis, along
with those fully interactive 3D simulators that are the next best
thing to real world full-scale prototypes, are essentially public owed
as well, because corporations and institutions of most any kind have
depreciated every investment dime at least once if not double, so that
they seldom if ever pay any income taxes on those otherwise extra
profits that materialized because of such investments. In other
words, it’s always a win-win for them, and a lose-lose for those of us
because, we the consumers and primary taxpayers are the one and only
ones that ever get to pay for absolutely everything (including their
overhead and mistakes), sometimes over and over until we’re dead.

Only the Rothschilds can afford to go it entirely alone in order to
accomplish everything privately from scratch, as though the mostly
public funded world didn’t exist. So you can take your mostly public
funded attitude of pompous superiority and Zionist approved authority,
and shove it.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

In article 89485f83-8581-41fe-87c7-
, says...

Yes, most all of Mook?s stuff is complex and potentially very spendy.
However, when there?s a greater than investment payback, and not even
that far down the road, then where?s the logic in stonewalling or not
going ahead?

Mook asserts that there is a payback, but his cost and schedule
estimates are completely bogus. The technologies he picks are mostly in
the small scale research phase (i.e. not ready for "prime time"). I've
pointed this out many times.

There is no good reason to "go ahead" with these Mood designs until each
and every one of the required technologies matures and is scaled up to
the size needed. That will likely take decades and several billions of
dollars that Mook simply does not have, nor is he likely to convince
other people to give him their money to play with. So unless you've got
a spare billion dollars to give Mook, nothing is going to come of his
"deisgns".

Jeff
--
42

On Nov 11, 3:27*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 89485f83-8581-41fe-87c7-
, says...



Yes, most all of Mook?s stuff is complex and potentially very spendy.
However, when there?s a greater than investment payback, and not even
that far down the road, then where?s the logic in stonewalling or not
going ahead?

Mook asserts that there is a payback, but his cost and schedule
estimates are completely bogus. *The technologies he picks are mostly in
the small scale research phase (i.e. not ready for "prime time"). *I've
pointed this out many times. *

There is no good reason to "go ahead" with these Mood designs until each
and every one of the required technologies matures and is scaled up to
the size needed. *That will likely take decades and several billions of
dollars that Mook simply does not have, nor is he likely to convince
other people to give him their money to play with. *So unless you've got
a spare billion dollars to give Mook, nothing is going to come of his
"deisgns".

Jeff
--
42

Not everything of Mook is extreme cutting edge.

Even though I don't agree with many of his notions, none the less if
we had more Mooks and fewer naysayers we'd be a whole lot better off.

Mook loves to use LH2 and LOx, as well as using the existing inventory
of suitable rocket engines that have proven as highly reliable. So,
give Mook a few dozen of those engines and access to the best of
rocket and aerodynamic engineering plus whatever fly-by-rocket
software that we've already bought and paid for (several times over).

Doesn't the USAF, DARPA and NASA work for us, as well as everything
they have to work with also belong to us?

~ BG

"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!
Maybe the next step to Utopia is to put all
the 'ingredients' in a single box, marked
"add water only". Like pancake mix.

Paradise Mix!

Utopia is not some shining city on the hill.
Paradise is not an Avatar-like glimmering forest.
There can be no equation or formula
for Utopia.

There is /only one/ necessary condition required
for humanity to build paradise on Earth.

And that is ...understanding...how Nature works
but in /abstract/ form, so the forces and properties of
Nature can be applied to /any/ human endeavor.

Understanding the abstract mathematics of Darwinian
evolution. Called the science of self-organizing systems
or Complexity Science, provides the knowledge
needed so humanity can create societies that
take care of themselves, self organize.

Paradise cannot be designed in advance, it must
be allowed to emerge as it will. From natural
processes. Utopia is something that designs and builds...itself.

Any man-made creation, which means the final form
is known in advance, cannot become utopian/ideal.
The very fact this post is an attempt to design some
utopian system shows you don't understand how
Nature works.

So how can you comprehend the notion of paradise?


Jonathan


Calresco.org
http://www.calresco.org/

*Calresco Themes (in essay form)
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm

Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online text)
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Self Organizing Faq
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm




"Growth of Man like Growth of Nature
Gravitates within
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse it
Bit it stir alone

Each its difficult Ideal
Must achieve Itself
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life

Effort is the sole condition
Patience of Itself
Patience of opposing forces
And intact Belief

Looking on is the Department
Of its Audience
But Transaction is assisted
By no Countenance"




s

In article c17517b5-e028-4fdf-b465-e703fb86b958
@n10g2000prj.googlegroups.com, says...

Not everything of Mook is extreme cutting edge.

Even though I don't agree with many of his notions, none the less if
we had more Mooks and fewer naysayers we'd be a whole lot better off.

Mook loves to use LH2 and LOx, as well as using the existing inventory
of suitable rocket engines that have proven as highly reliable.

About the only thing "easy" about the design is the ET derived
structure, and even that will take a lot of development work in order to
integrate it with all the other new systems he proposes (aerospike
engine, parallel staging with cross-fed propellants, reusable inflatable
TPS, and etc.).

He proposes using *pieces* of existing engines to build a completely new
aerospike engine. Ignoring the fact that no aerospike engine built to
date is close to as big as he proposes (his aerospike engine would be
10x bigger than the linear aerospikes which were under development for
X-33 and never actually flew). Liquid fueled rocket engine development
isn't cheap or easy, history has proven that. Mook chooses to ignore
history and insist that developing his new engine will be cheap and
easy. These things aren't as easy as slapping together Lego's.

And the engine is the next easiest part of his "design". Everything
else is harder. Don't get me started on all of his proposed
technologies which aren't even close to being ready for use on a
reusable launch vehicle that big. And then there is the Rube Goldberg
reentry and landing this thing makes. That's the really stupid part of
this whole "design".

Jeff
--
42