Give him a green thumb.

decrepit said..







Just somebody that's been playing with feedback for the past 60years.

Yes I put it in electronic terms because that's my background. But feedback is feedback regardless, if the output affects the input you have feedback. I'm not big one remembering official definitions, and not interested in semantics, it's how stuff works that counts.

Just out of interest I checked what wikipedia has to say.

"Mathematically, positive feedback is defined as a positive loop gain around a closed loop of cause and effect.[1][3] That is, positive feedback is in phase with the input, in the sense that it adds to make the input larger.[4][5] Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations, chaotic behavior or other divergences from equilibrium.[3] System parameters will typically accelerate towards extreme values, which may damage or destroy the system, or may end with the system latched into a new stable state. Positive feedback may be controlled by signals in the system being filtered, damped, or limited, or it can be cancelled or reduced by adding negative feedback. "

Which basically says the same as I was saying only more succinctly.
For it to be runaway the gain has to exceed 1.
And adds in the chaos theory of strange attractors, that I mentioned earlier.

So Kilo, where did you get your definition from, out of your head presumably.

decrepit said..








I'm no scientist, but it looks cyclic to me, probably those terrible twins, el nino and la nina

kilo54 said..








I agree with you. But it is more that the media makes money from disasters/terror/FEAR. These sons of bitches are making us WASTE trillions JUST so they can make cash. **** them! Time for some SCHOOLING for them!

Off topic, here, a long piece. The alarmists have a wishy washy vision but do not bother running the numbers. This article DOES! The Loonies are driving the bus - they are lazy, poorly educated, not very bright, regurgitating the pap the media feeds them.

Want California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona completely COVERED in solar cells?

WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050

Contributed by Robert Lyman ? May 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Robert Lyman is an energy economist with 27 years' experience and was also a public servant and diplomat.

A number of environmental groups in Canada and other countries have recently endorsed the "100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS)" vision articulated in reports written by Mark Jacobson, Mark Delucci and others. This vision seeks to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) in the world by 2050. Jacobson, Delucci et. al. have published "all-sector energy roadmaps" in which they purport to show how each of 139 countries could attain the WWS goal. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the 100% goal is feasible. While a range of renewable energy technologies (e.g. geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, and wave energy) could play a role in the global transformation, the world foreseen in the WWS vision would be dominated by wind and solar energy.

Of 53,535 gigawatts (GW) of new electrical energy generation sources to be built, onshore and offshore wind turbines would supply 19,000 GW (35.4%), solar photovoltaic (PV) plants would supply 17,100 GW (32%) and Concentrated Solar Power plants (CSP) would supply 14,700 GW (27.5%). This would cost $100 trillion, or $3,571 for every household on the planet.

Western Europe has extensive experience with investments in renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. By the end of 2014, the generating capacity of renewable energy plants there was about 216 GW, 22% of Europe's capacity, but because of the intermittent nature of renewable energy production, the actual output was only 3.8% of Europe's requirements. The capital costs of renewable energy plants are almost 30 times as high as those of the natural gas plants that could have been built instead; when operating costs are also taken into account, onshore wind plants are 4.6 times as expensive as gas plants and large-scale PV plants are 14.1 times as expensive as gas plants. Wind and solar energy is not "dispatchable" (i.e. capable of varying production quickly to meet changing demand), which results in serious problems - the need to backup renewables with conventional generation plants to avoid shortfalls in supply, and the frequent need to dump surplus generation on the export market at a loss.

The current energy system in the United States, Canada and globally is heavily dependent on fossil fuels - they generally supply over 80% of existing energy needs in developed countries and over 87% in the world as a whole. Currently, wind and solar energy sources constitute only one-third of one per cent of global energy supply. The financial costs of building the 100% renewable energy world are enormous, but the land area needed to accommodate such diffuse sources of energy supply is just as daunting.

Accommodating the 46,480 solar PV plants envisioned for the U.S. in the WWS vision would take up 650,720 square miles, almost 20% of the lower 48 states. This is close in size to the combined areas of Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada. A 1000-megawatt (MV) wind farm would use up to 360 square miles of land to produce the same amount of energy as a 1000-MV nuclear plant. To meet 8% of the U.K.'s energy needs, one would have to build 44,000 offshore wind turbines; these would have an area of 13,000 square miles, which would fill the entire 3000 km coastline of the U.K. with a strip 4 km wide.

To replace the 440 MW of U.S. generation expected to be retired over the next 25 years, it would take 29.3 billion solar PV panels and 4.4 million battery modules. The area covered by these panels would be equal to that of the state of New Jersey. To produce this many panels, it would take 929 years, assuming they could be built at the pace of one per second. The WWS roadmap for the U.S. calls for 3,637 CSP plants to be built. It would be extremely difficult to find that many sites suitable for a CSP plant. Packed together, they would fill an area of 8,439 square miles, about the area of Metropolitan New York. They would require the manufacture of 63,647,500 mirrors; if they could be manufactured one every ten seconds, it would take 21 years to build that many mirrors.

The proponents of WWS grossly under-estimate the costs of integrating renewable energy sources into the electricity system. The additional costs of backup generation, storage, load balancing and transmission would be enormous. The WWS scenario calls for 39,263 5-MW wind installations in Canada at a cost of $273 billion for the onshore wind generation alone. Building a national backbone of 735 kV transmission lines would cost at least CDN $104 billion and take 20 years to complete.

The WWS includes a call to shut down all coal, oil and natural gas production. It implies the closing of all emissions intensive industries, such as mining, petrochemicals, refining, cement, and auto and parts manufacturing. The political and regional backlash against such policies in a country like Canada would threaten Confederation. In short, the WWS vision is based on an unrealistic assessment of the market readiness of a wide range of key technologies. Attaining the vision is not feasible today in technological, economic or political terms.
QED.








What do you mean about the definition of Positive Feedback?
Who the hell are you to make your own definition? Electronic feedback NOT what we are talking about at all!
The output exceeds the input making a new larger input with an even LARGER output et seq. . Burning might appear to be PF but is NOT because a chemical reaction taking place.
It appears you may be a musician. Leave the science stuff to scientists.

Even Google (operated by grade 10 students it seems!), when asked for examples of PF comes up with, "Giving oxytocin to women in labour."
Talk about fartless, useless. (If you give rag soaked in oxytocin to a woman to sniff, supposedly they have a series of violent orgasms! Would like to check it out. Is available at Pharmacies.)

Want interesting stuff? Entropy - "The tendency to disorder".........The energy of the Universe is a constant; the Entropy of it is increasing.

And Feynman's double slit experiment - "The most beautiful Physics experiment"...........if a HUMAN looks at which slit used, the interference pattern disappears (4 times FASTER than light!!!), BUT if a dog looks, the pattern stays!!!

Mr Milk said..
I thought that kilo54 must have been a username coming from an old sail number, but it seems I am wrong. Since you "know nothing about sailing", which implies that you aren't a kitesurfer or windsurfer and probably not a hangglider or paraglider, just why have you chosen a windsports website for your geriatric rants?

nebbian said..
Also the global climate system has millions of positive and negative feedback loops, but again if you haven't spent years studying them then they won't make sense to you. You don't need to understand them either. All you need to know is that the people who have really studied them, are telling us that we need to make some drastic changes, and stop ****ting in the bed we sleep in. That makes sense to me.

kilo54 said..>>The electronic thing is FEEDBACK, NOT PF. F-ck!