Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 - Home experiment to illustrate the cooling power of latent heat.
#21
Thanks Richard111, yes they are fun gadgets....LOL. I think I have become an experiment geek....LOL.

Anyways, reading through the instructions it says you can choose which sensor to record from....So, that is only one per computer at one time. Dam, I want 4 or 8 per computer at one time, all recording separately.
BUT, I think I have the answer....I should know in a couple of weeks....

I agree in regards of wind and relative humidity, the oily tray experiment showed that extremely clearly. In point of fact, as shown in the excel sheet on this thread, no one seems to have noticed the most surprising thing that experiment showed. No wind open water ended up 0.3C cooler than ambient, and with wind open water ended up 1.5C cooler than ambient. The oily tray did not get down to ambient.......

Given what the two experiments so far show, I will be repeating them with the new fangled set up that records directly to the computer.
I hope the mk3 will also show something equally surprising as the oily tray experiment does.

It is just a shame I do not have the skills to write all this up properly. Ho-hum, my postings here and the excel sheets will have to do.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#22
On the below thread, I posted in post 22 what follows below.
THE 3 forms of heat loss from an object or surface at earth's surface are...
I hope it will become obvious on this thread why this is relevant to the experiments I will soon be doing.

In a private email chain / communication Doug Cotton put forward a radiative explanation of what a failed double glazing unit shows.
I have to say I am not too sure of his explanation, and that
I hope the mk3 version will be a direct test of his and my explanations differences.

As Doug Cotton is a member of this forum I hope that he posts the explanation he offered in the email chain, as a reply to this post.


What does "failed" double glazing show???

Double glazing works by confining an amount of air between two panes of glass as a sealed unit. The trapped gas is dry air. (We discussed this on the forum some time back, if anyone can remember the thread, please, please post a link.) Dry air, as Climate Realist has already stated in this thread is a very poor conductor of heat. The heat of the house interior where double glazing is fitted escapes very slowly to the comparative sensible cold outside of the house.

Double glazing (DG) is said, quite accurately, to have "failed" when the seal between the two panes develops a leak. A leak by which moist air can enter the DG unit as temperature varies over the course of a day and night. This failure is very obvious as condensation appears between the glass panes of the DG unit. The now not sealed unit no longer "works". Heat easily escapes from inside to outside of the house. WHY? What changed? The only visible difference is that a failed DG unit has a little water condensation inside of it. Surely that alone can not make much of a difference??? Yes, it can and does.

Let us consider this by taking a step backwards, back to when a DG unit worked, ie before it failed.

In a working DG unit the dry air is warmed by one pane of glass, and so the heated air expands and convects within the confines of the DG unit. When this air reaches the cooler (outer) pane it's sensible heat is conducted to the cooler pane of glass. This warms the the second pane of glass with heat transferred by conduction of the hot air from the first (inner) warmed pane of glass. The second (outer) pane is now warmed and conducts and convects the heat away to the colder outside air. Because heat transfer from inside to the outside happens at a far slower rate than for a single pane of glass window then rooms with DG units stay warmer for far, far longer. This is because of the the very poor conduction by dry air of sensible heat, which reduces the rate of heat loss from the room.

Figure 1 to be added - a "dry" heat pipe....
Yes, I know such a thing does not exist, but it is how DG works.

In a failed DG unit Figure 1 is little altered, as shown below in Figure 2

Figure 2 to be added. A "wet" heat pipe.
Yes, I know it ain't a heat pipe unless it uses latent heat.....

A heat pipe is,
Figure 3
[Image: Slide13.jpg]

Some examples of heat pipes.
Figure 4.
[Image: Slide14.jpg]

If you look at Figure 3 it is quite apparent that it is actually just turned on it's side for Figure 2. In other words,a failed DG unit does not work, it does not slow heat transfer, it dramatically increases heat transfer. Just by the leaking seal of the DG unit turning it from a "dry" to a "wet" heat pipe.

Given the above it is now reasonable that we can answer the question "What does "failed" double glazing show???"

1) It shows that a DG unit works because it contains dry air. It is in effect a "dry" heat pipe. This isa very effect way of reducing heat loss from a heated room because dry air is a very poor conductor of sensible heat. In other words, in air conduction and convection are very weak heat loss and transfer processes, and mechanisms.

2) A failed DG unit shows that a "wet" heat pipe can transfer / transport large amounts of heat very quickly from one place (of evaporation) to another place (where condensation is occurring). This is due to the energies required by the changes of state from liquid to gas, and back to liquid again, and again, and again.
In other words latent heat transfered by the change of states of water are of vastly greater power and conduction of heat by dry air.

3) The water cycle in earth's climate is a "wet" heat pipe.
Figure 5.
[Image: Slide15.jpg]

4) The vast difference in the capability to move heat betwwen a "dry" and a "wet" heat pipe, as I have descried them here, also strongly suggests, if not proves that water in it's various states must be the dominant force within earth's climate system. This is because the water cycle is a "wet" heat pipe, which is the strongest, most powerful, and of greatest importance overall cooling mechanism on earths surface.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#23
Hi All,
I have now rerun the oily tray home experiment.

Background.
Climate science should really and quite obviously relate to the real world we live in and experience everyday. Yet at present it does not seem to.
In Deceber 2011 I produced my "traditional" Xmas pdf, titled, In = Out, or else BOOOM.
As a result of some discussions arising from that pdf, and other discussions I recently wrote,
THE 3 forms of heat loss from an object or surface at earth's surface are...

We live on a planet that is 71% covered in ocean. We know that plants transpire to keep cool, dogs pant to keep cool, we sweat to keep cool, that our washing always dries on the clothes line, and that most of earth's land surface is either wet or damp. Any consideration or realistic representation of this seems totally absent in present climatology. Global energy budgets in particular seem to highlight this.
It is as if they describe an alternative reality, based or rather starting from P/4.
[Image: global_energy_budget_components.png]

We all know shooting the messenger is wrong, so please, do not shoot the messenger. At least not just yet.
He or she may have experiments that will interest you, and maybe they could even help to improve your understanding.
Some experiments we all know have been seemingly deliberately misreported.
We all have to follow the scientific method for oursleves and make our own minds up as to what is the best understanding at present.
Please always be sceptical, do not simply just accept and / or believe.

Hunch
The latent heat of water vapourisation is the most powerful cooling mechanism at earth's surface. This should be able to be shown by comparing two bodies of heated water. One body of heated water that is allowed to cool by radiative losses, and conduction and convection of sensible (actual) heat only. The water can be stopped from evapourating by a thin film of oil on it's surface, an oily tray as such. The oil film stops competey any latent heat losses. Another similar sized body of heated water only that is also allowed to cool by latent heat losses as well. My hunch is that the body of heated water that is allowed to cool by latent heat losses as well will cool much faster. If this experiment is repeated in calm and windy conditions then a similar effect to that of increased convection, which I have suggested is a positive catalyst for latent heat and conduction losses can be compared to see how it effects the bodies of water cooling rates. I expect both water only and oily trays will both cool considerably faster in windy conditions.

I suspect from my own experiences of everyday life that the water only trays will cool far faster than the oily trays in both calm and windy conditions. How much faster I do not know. In other words I do not know how strong the signal this experiment is to show is. However, from the earlier oily mug home experiment I suspect the signal will be quite strong.

The rate of cooling for the oily trays also includes radiative losses, which will not be effected by a change from calm to windy conditions. Will this indicate how much of the rate of cooling for the oily trays is by radiative and conduction losses, maybe, maybe not.

This is intended as a home experiment anyone can reproduce for themselves.

Equipment used, and experiment set up.

I have tried to keep this home experiment as easy and as cheap as I can.
I used 1 litre pastic food containers from Asda.
http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estore/se...stid=11614
and 1 liter of Asda's sunflower oil.
http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estore/ca...4921923813

I also used this really rather cheap and quite clever temperature measuring set up.
In use this has proven to be easy to use, robust, and reliable. The software takes a little getting used to though.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/USB-Thermomete...3378da2558
Which needed extra sensors.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1wire-series-D...337879d039
I have to say, isn't ebay brill, and China makes ridiculously cheap technology.
To get myself a little more familiar with this set up I reran the oily mug experients.
[Image: Picture109.jpg]

To cut the polystyrene sheets I used,
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HOT-WIRE-POLYS...6rk%3D1%26
Which I adapted as shown in the below photo.
[Image: Picture100.jpg]

I have uploaded some photos of this experiment to a public photobucket folder.
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...1QQtppZZ32

First I made some polystyrene insulating containers.
[Image: Picture115.jpg]

In each plastic container I placed a temperature sensor, and held it in place using some sealant.
[Image: Picture126.jpg]

Then, about 80ml of sunflower oil was poured into the container for the oily tray. The container was then filled up with a freshly boiled kettle of water.
In this photo the water only tray is on the right. Err, quite obviously really....
[Image: Picture146.jpg]

On average there was roughly 900ml of water in the water only containers, and about 80ml of sunflower oil and 820ml of water in the oily trays.
By the end of the experiment runs the oily trays had not lost any fluid, but the water only trays usually had reduced to about 780ml of water.

For the calm version of this experiment I simply shut the door, and the windows in the room were closed.
For the windy versions I placed a fan at one end of the room and left it on it's lowest setting for the duration of the experiment run.
The door and windows remaining shut for the full duration of all experiment runs.
[Image: Picture148.jpg]

I ran the experiment at least four times in both calm and windy versions.
The raw data of all these runs is attached in the excel sheets attached to this post.


Attached Files
.xlsx   Calm Oily Tray EXCEL MASTER complete and sorted data sets..xlsx (Size: 2.54 MB / Downloads: 306)
.xlsx   Windy Oily Tray EXCEL MASTER all data.xlsx (Size: 3.43 MB / Downloads: 390)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#24
Results
Preliminary results = [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

I have altered some plots, and added an "explanatory"plot. So I have uploaded a "new" version.


Attached Files
.xlsx   Oily Tray home experiment all data EXCEL MASTER workings and plots.xlsx (Size: 2.33 MB / Downloads: 250)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#25
From this (public) photobucket album.
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...y%20rerun/

[Image: Slide14.jpg]
direct link
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...lide14.jpg

[Image: Slide15.jpg]
direct link
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...lide15.jpg

[Image: Slide16.jpg]
direct link
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...lide16.jpg

[Image: Slide17.jpg]
direct link
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...lide17.jpg

Add to the above that the water only trays, whether calm or windy ALWAYS cooled to below ambient (room) temperature.
The oily trays whether calm or windy DID NOT get down to ambient (room) temperature, NOT ONCE.

I have altered some of the plots, and added one plot, so I thought it best to upload the excel sheet again in post 24.


Attached Files
.xlsx   Oily Tray home experiment all data EXCEL MASTER workings and plots.xlsx (Size: 2.33 MB / Downloads: 256)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#26
Hi All,
I recently sent the below out within a group I have been associated with to no reply to date. Any help from here would be GREATLY appreciated.

Hello All,

WHY.
Can I ask you all for help with what I hope is actually a simple calculation. It is a sum I want to use with the results of my oily tray experiments.
Link to this thread.
Quite simply I have two sets of results, one (water only) for losses from a tray that is cooled by radiative losses, conduction of sensible heat losses and latent heat losses. There is also another set of results for a (oily) tray cooled by radiative and conduction losses only. This calculation would be for an idealised tray that cools only by radiative losses. Then I could compare radiative to conduction to latent heat losses, in both calm and windy conditions.
WHAT.
Amount of water = 900cc.
Surface area (197.53) 200 cm2 (all other sides of "container" considered as perfectly insulated.)
Is it possible to work out what the energy content of the water is for a given temperature? Then how much energy is radiated by the available surface area in a second. So, after a second the water will have less energy, and this can be converted into a new (lower) temperature. If this is possible in a simple equation I can put it into an excel sheet and workout a per second cooling rate, this I can then convert to 30 second and 5 minute cooling rates, I can then compare this to my oily tray results.

ERRRR, ooooops...
Obviously the experiment results already show (well it must be below the oily tray curves) what the possible maximum cooling can be for radiative losses alone, but I suspect that the rate that will be calculated will be very much in excess of this. This would show power = amount is a gross exageration, I suggest because it is a black body assumption that should not be applied to a gray body.

However, if the calculated curve does come in below the oily tray curve, then I can use it to convert the other cooling rates into amount of energy for comparison. This would presumably show that radiative is the lowest, conduction is similar, but latent heat is by far and a way the largest.

Either way my point is proven, it is a catch 22 for the "consensus".
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#27
Hi All,
This all started so simply..BUT IT AIN'T....:nod_no:

The attached is a reduced excel sheet of my attempts to calculate the IR losses only from an oily tray. This it would seem is a sensible addition to the oily tray experiment results, so that the 3 forms of heat loss of an object or surface at earth's surface can be compared. To me it is obvious that latent heat, or rather water vapourisation losses are the main cooling factor, then it appears that conduction and IR losses come a distant 2nd and 3rd. Ideallly one (I think) could use a vacuum flask or similar to actually produce the IR losses only result, but that is beyond the expense I can afford. I am left trying to calculate, what should be a simple sum.......

The initial sheet and calculation was a lot simpler than the attached version, it "merely" uses the Stefan Boltzman equation, BUT the water body cooled way too quickly. If the variables are set at 1.0 for amount, 0.995 for emission, and 0 for absorption the result can be produced by the present form of the sheet / calculator. So, I added variables, namely, absorption % of back (or ambient) radiation, emission % of the water body itself. Even a few goes with these variables left me stumped.

I do not believe back (or ambient) radiation would have a warming effect upon the water body. This left me with a problem, how to get the water to cool slower, whilst not employing back (or ambient) radiation?

So, I have added another variable that is somewhat contraversial, namely the amount of IR emitted as a percentage of the temperature determined power of emission of the water body. My own hunch is that this figure should be about 0.25, but it could be 0.10, 0.15, or more than 0.25, I simply do not know.

Maybe all the calculator does is show there are many ways to get the same answer. It does not prove any idea or suggestion. To my mind it does however show that at present gray body calculations are not possible, or at least beyond my understanding and abilities.



Attached Files
.xlsx   Derek- Putting a grey body into an IR losses only calculation REDUCED version.xlsx (Size: 1.17 MB / Downloads: 288)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#28
Hi All,
How to use the above reduced excel sheet IR losses from a grey body calculator.
BTW - Cell C5 should be square meter/s not centimeters - oops..Blush

1) Download and save as is to your desktop.

2) Open saved excel sheet, which should be 1.16Mb in size.

3) Scroll down to cell D35O. Left click and hold on this cell, without releasing move the cursor over to cell Q358, and then release left click. This should highlight a rectangle of cells. In the bottom right hand corner you will see a small black square, double left click on this square. This will send the calculations right down to the bottom of the sheet.

4) Save as the excel sheet again, but this time change the name by replacing REDUCED with 12 hour.
This excel sheet will be about 9.26Mb in size. To avoid confusion about which sheet you are using, it is a good idea to close both excel sheets at this point, and then reopen the 12 hour version.

5) You can alter the number pattern in column B to whatever pattern you want, but I have put in a 30 second repeating pattern.
For example, Left click and hold cell B8 and drag the cursor across to Q8.
This highlights a rectangle, now click on the Sort and Filter button in the top ribban.
From the drop down list that appears click on filter.
In each of the highlighted cells a smaller rounded box has appeared. Click on this box in cell B8.
From the dropdown list that appears, uncheck the select all box, and then scroll down and check the 30 box.
Now you have a list of 30 second apart calculations for IR losses only.
You can copy and paste the resulting table (preferably in a new sheet within the workbook), but remember to do this as a paste special, and paste as values only.
Also remember to now go back to B8 reclick the rounded box and recheck the select all box.
Repeat process for whatever time intervals you want to put into column B.

I hope this helps to understand what the excel sheet does.

I have changed cells
G9 TO 27, ie as hot as tropical sea water ever gets from solar insolation.
B4 to 1,000,000, ie, 1 million cubic centimeters in a cubic meter.
B5 to 1, ie, 1 square meter emitting IR, and
L2 to 0.0 ie, no back radiation input, this is a IR losses only calculation,
to see how much a cubic meter of water at an initial temperature of 27C cools over 12 hours by IR losses alone.
I got the answer, using the sheet, to be,
a cubic meter of water at 27C cools by 4.584C over 12 hours by IR losses alone.
So, is IR really that important overall, or is it a, and in point of fact, THE minor process by which an object at earth's surface can cool?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#29
Hi All,
Using the oily tray experiment results, and the excel IR losses calculator I have compiled the below table.
[Image: Tableoflosses_zpsdc95a4e8.jpg]

The table figures plotted....
[Image: Plotof100losses_zps387a2e30.jpg]

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#30
Hi All,
The above table and plot are to my mind what this thread has been trying to illustrate.
AGW pseudo science is depicted by K&T type plots.
[Image: radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_20.jpg]
This depicts that 161W/m2 (solar input) and 333W/m2 (atmospheric "back radiation"), a total of 494W/m2, are recieved constantly all over at earth's surface.
This is impossible.
K&T clearly depicts that 39W6/m2 of IR is emitted by earth's surface, and that earth's surface is further cooled by 80W/m2 of "evapouration", and another 17W/m2 by "thermals". 0.9W/m2 is depicted as being absorbed by earth's surface. These are the total cooling processes for earth's surface according to K&T and therefore AGW pseudo science.
This means AGW states that earth's surface is cooled by losses of,
IR = 396W/m2 = 80.1%
Latent heat (water vapourisation) = 80W/m2 = 16.2%
Thermals (conduction of sensible heat) = 17W/m2 = 3.5%
Absorbed (goodness knows...) = 0.9W/m2 = 0.2%


As far as I can see, and have tried to show on this thread, this is NOT what we can actually observe.
In point of fact K&T is as good a depiction that I am aware of, of the radiative obsession that is blinding so many at present.

It would seem that a far more realistic representation of what and how cools an object at earth's surface is (roughly),
Water vapourisation losses = 75 to 85%
Conduction losses = 5 to 10%
IR losses 5 to 20%

What K&T depicts simply can not be true in the physical reality in which we live.
This is not surprising when one considers,
Post 6 - The (naked) cooling cannonball "thought experiment".

If one is still in any doubt to the totally false science that is present climate pseudo science orthodoxy then one should consider that both greenhouse effect "theory" and AGW "theory" both start with the P/4. ie, in above plot shows that the starting point is a solar input of 341W/m2, that is the power of sunlight recieved at the top of earth's atmosphere (1368W/m2) divided by 4 (P/4).
P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.
If one holds a torch in one hand and a football in the other, can one
illuminate all of the football evenly at one quarter of the torches power of emission of IR (light)?
No, not in this physical reality.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#31
Hi All,
As can be seen above K&T and therefore AGW "theory" depicts the relative proportions for the processes that an object cools at earth's surface to be,
IR losses = 80.1%, Latent heat losses = 16.2%, Conduction of sensible heat 3.5%, and that also 0.2% is absorbed by earth's surface / volume.

1) I would suggest that 16.2% for conduction from earth's surface of sensible heat to the air in direct contact with the surface is about correct. The oily trays appear to confirm this.
However, water vapourisation has a large sensible heat content, it is not just latent heat. This sensible heat content is easily demonstrated, steam is hot to the "touch".
Therefore the oily tray experiment needs to record weight, ie, weight loss per time period. Then the latent heat and sensible heat contents of the water vapour could be simply calculated. On most of the water only experiment runs the 900cc of water reduced to about 780cc over 12 hours. The oily trays lost no volume.
If this sensible heat content of the water vapour lost could be calculated, it should then be added to "thermals" in K&T, and added to sensible heat losses in my calculations.
In other words sensible heat is lost by two means, one by direct contact with the air, and two by the temperature at which the water vapourised. As the water vapour convects it then releases this heat by conduction to the air it is in. So, at present in K&T, and without weight loss recorded in the (water only) oily tray experiments sensible heat losses are considerably under represented.

In my experiment this could be largely corrected for by recording the weight loss from the water body. This would reduce the latent heat losses my experiment appears to show. But, that would give far more accurate loss figures for sensible and latent heat losses.

So, the results so far for the water only trays should be read as water vapourisation losses that are sensible and latent heat losses, not just latent heat losses.

2) IR losses, my gut feeling is that IR losses have been over exagerated in K&T by at least an order of magnitude. I would suggest that the figure given by K&T for "thermals" is actually far nearer the real figure for IR losses.

In the plots in the previous posts I depicted the relative loss % for a body of water that is absorbing back radition and emitting such that power = amount. I used the windy tray figures for the overal losses too.

I will do another compilation using the calm tray figures, and no back radiation with a power = amount figure of a more realistic figure in my opinion.
In the end I think it will indicate that K&T and therefore AGW merely flipped the figures about, IR losses are far nearer 3.5% than 80%.

If weight can be recorded then I suspect that conduction of sensible heat by two processes will be nearer 20 to 50% of heat loss overall. IR losses will be in the region of about 5% to 10%, maybe of occasion 15%. The remainder being latent heat losses (ie, 25% to 75%). This is a completely different picture as that that is presently dominant in pseudo climate science based upon greenhouse effect "theory" and the defence of it beyond reason and observation.

Unfortunately I can not work out the sensible heat losses in water vapour losses at present, because I do not know the temperature at which the amounts of water were lost from the body of water.
Access to a properly equipped lab would answer many questions...Ho-hum.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#32
Hi All,

[Image: theoryandobservations_zps84bb3929.jpg]
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  2 - Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis Derek 11 23,082 04-15-2012, 06:05 AM
Last Post: Derek
  3 - Home experiments to test the Woods experiment Derek 5 11,284 07-20-2011, 05:26 AM
Last Post: Richard111



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)