Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lightning strikes reach the ground on Earth as much as 8 million times per day or 100 times per second, according to the National Severe Storms Laboratory
I would say that qualifies as continuous.

That is happening continuously from the deserts to the arctic circle?

Not necessary...tell me, where do you suppose the atmosphere remains still for any appreciable amount of time? Denial of reality won't make the greenhouse effect real...it is flawed from its foundations...

Yesterday I spotted a bunch of posts where the same idiots that keep defending that idiotic U of brainWashington greenhouse gas radiation diagram were using an easy bake oven as an example to prove the concept of back-radiation.
I don`t even want to bother looking for it but it was hilarious because for some strange reason the whole lot brandished it with glee that you can cook batter in it by powering it with a 100 watt light bulb. Yet none of them would have even the slightest idea why that is so, because there is no way to use the StB equation in order to be able to explain how that oven would get to over 250 deg F past room temperature.
I looked up the dimensions for one of these that use 100 watt incandescent light bulbs at Amazon.com. It has a surface area of 4.75 ft^2.
If you do the StB math in metric then the 100 watts get spread out over 0.442 m^2 and the oven would radiate out as much power as it gets from the 100 watt bulb at -22 C .
But just like in the U of W radiation energy balance that`s no problem.All you have to do is add enough GHG back radiation till you can bake a cookie.
No wonder none of these idiots can get a real life engineering job.
Most of the R-value tables for insulating walls are in btu per hour and for an oven like that 4 is a good enough number. It will then dissipate the same number of watts or btu per hour as it gets heated by the light bulb....100 watts=341.3 btu/hr when it is 287 F warmer than it was before it`s been turned on.
delta T [F] = 341.3 x 4[R] / 4.75[ft^2] = 287 [deg F] warmer than ambient...
F--k these idiots are too stupid to figure out which equation they should apply to what and would not even qualify to work for a toy company.

as an example to prove the concept of back-radiation.

There is no back radiation?

 

[IanC]

Lightning strikes reach the ground on Earth as much as 8 million times per day or 100 times per second, according to the National Severe Storms Laboratory
I would say that qualifies as continuous.

That is happening continuously from the deserts to the arctic circle?

Not necessary...tell me, where do you suppose the atmosphere remains still for any appreciable amount of time? Denial of reality won't make the greenhouse effect real...it is flawed from its foundations...

Yesterday I spotted a bunch of posts where the same idiots that keep defending that idiotic U of brainWashington greenhouse gas radiation diagram were using an easy bake oven as an example to prove the concept of back-radiation.
I don`t even want to bother looking for it but it was hilarious because for some strange reason the whole lot brandished it with glee that you can cook batter in it by powering it with a 100 watt light bulb. Yet none of them would have even the slightest idea why that is so, because there is no way to use the StB equation in order to be able to explain how that oven would get to over 250 deg F past room temperature.
I looked up the dimensions for one of these that use 100 watt incandescent light bulbs at Amazon.com. It has a surface area of 4.75 ft^2.
If you do the StB math in metric then the 100 watts get spread out over 0.442 m^2 and the oven would radiate out as much power as it gets from the 100 watt bulb at -22 C .
But just like in the U of W radiation energy balance that`s no problem.All you have to do is add enough GHG back radiation till you can bake a cookie.
No wonder none of these idiots can get a real life engineering job.
Most of the R-value tables for insulating walls are in btu per hour and for an oven like that 4 is a good enough number. It will then dissipate the same number of watts or btu per hour as it gets heated by the light bulb....100 watts=341.3 btu/hr when it is 287 F warmer than it was before it`s been turned on.
delta T [F] = 341.3 x 4[R] / 4.75[ft^2] = 287 [deg F] warmer than ambient...
F--k these idiots are too stupid to figure out which equation they should apply to what and would not even qualify to work for a toy company.

Ian the one who brought up Easy Bake ovens. Am I one of the idiots? Hahahaha

It was to prove a point. Objects in thermal equilibrium, such as a room and it's contents are simply moving existing radiation back and forth.

Adding a light source is adding energy to the room by extracting it from elsewhere.

The radiation we receive from the Sun is attenuated by the inverse square law. We are not in thermal equilibrium with the 294w, it is an addition. Plus it is in the form of a 5500C radiator. Applying the S-B laws without taking the additional calculations for angle and area is incorrect, as is ignoring the power source within the Sun.

 

[Wuwei]

You guys are arguing with SSDD (and me to a certain extent) because you think everything he says is wrong.

He is saying you can derive the temperature at a certain pressure of an existing atmosphere by examining it. I concur with the minor improvement of using density as a universal quality rather than the local quality of volume, because my method picks up GHG composition as well.

I think you guys who disagree should put forth your own explanation of how an atmosphere stays in place. You cannot have mass suspended in the gravity field without stored energy, and that stored energy is proportional to the temperature.

Many things he says are just plain wrong. The rest are non sequitars. Yes the ideal gas law can give you temperature if you know all the other variables in the IGL as they change. His problem is that you don't know all the other variables.

Of course there is stored energy, and it is proportional to temperature along with density and other things. But you still can't calculate things like lapse rate with just the IGL alone. Yet that is all he has. He avoids the question of how the IGL can compute the temperature and how the computation differs from the desert to the arctic circle. Obviously because he can't. He ignores the sun energy input and the fact that the surface is radiating close to 400 W/m2.

.

 

[IanC]

You guys are arguing with SSDD (and me to a certain extent) because you think everything he says is wrong.

He is saying you can derive the temperature at a certain pressure of an existing atmosphere by examining it. I concur with the minor improvement of using density as a universal quality rather than the local quality of volume, because my method picks up GHG composition as well.

I think you guys who disagree should put forth your own explanation of how an atmosphere stays in place. You cannot have mass suspended in the gravity field without stored energy, and that stored energy is proportional to the temperature.

Many things he says are just plain wrong. The rest are non sequitars. Yes the ideal gas law can give you temperature if you know all the other variables in the IGL as they change. His problem is that you don't know all the other variables.

Of course there is stored energy, and it is proportional to temperature along with density and other things. But you still can't calculate things like lapse rate with just the IGL alone. Yet that is all he has. He avoids the question of how the IGL can compute the temperature and how the computation differs from the desert to the arctic circle. Obviously because he can't. He ignores the sun energy input and the fact that the surface is radiating close to 400 W/m2.

.

You are pointing out local variation as if it disproves universal qualities.

We make numerous assumptions when we talk about planets and atmospheres.

For example, we assume the axis of the planet is roughly perpendicular to the orbit. Days and years would take on a different aspect if it was parellel.

 

[IanC]

You guys are arguing with SSDD (and me to a certain extent) because you think everything he says is wrong.

He is saying you can derive the temperature at a certain pressure of an existing atmosphere by examining it. I concur with the minor improvement of using density as a universal quality rather than the local quality of volume, because my method picks up GHG composition as well.

I think you guys who disagree should put forth your own explanation of how an atmosphere stays in place. You cannot have mass suspended in the gravity field without stored energy, and that stored energy is proportional to the temperature.

Many things he says are just plain wrong. The rest are non sequitars. Yes the ideal gas law can give you temperature if you know all the other variables in the IGL as they change. His problem is that you don't know all the other variables.

Of course there is stored energy, and it is proportional to temperature along with density and other things. But you still can't calculate things like lapse rate with just the IGL alone. Yet that is all he has. He avoids the question of how the IGL can compute the temperature and how the computation differs from the desert to the arctic circle. Obviously because he can't. He ignores the sun energy input and the fact that the surface is radiating close to 400 W/m2.

.

I agree that SSDD is wrong on many things. But you have to look at everything he says with fresh eyes every time. You cannot assume he is wrong just because he has usually been wrong in the past.

 

[Olde Europe]

You are pointing out local variation as if it disproves universal qualities.

Nope. Wuwei points out that SSDD's "theory" describes the atmosphere's temperature as (nearly) universal (a function of pressure at the surface), and for that reason can't explain local variations. That's a way of proving that a "theory" is found lacking.

I agree that SSDD is wrong on many things. But you have to look at everything he says with fresh eyes every time. You cannot assume he is wrong just because he has usually been wrong in the past.

I've seen no one on here who would look at SSDD's "theories" with such fresh eyes, and devote as much energy and good will, not to mention wit and research, to explain why they are nonsense as does Wuwei.

 

[SSDD]

You are pointing out local variation as if it disproves universal qualities.

Nope. Wuwei points out that SSDD's "theory" describes the atmosphere's temperature as (nearly) universal (a function of pressure at the surface), and for that reason can't explain local variations. That's a way of proving that a "theory" is found lacking.

In real science, a single predictive failure is enough to result in a hypothesis being tossed out and research begun anew seeking a more viable hypothesis...the greenhouse effect, and its bastard child AGW have left a string of predictive failures stretching out over nearly 3 decades now...how many failures do you think it should get before it is tossed to the trash where it belongs?

 

[RollingThunder]

In real science, a single predictive failure is enough to result in a hypothesis being tossed out and research begun anew seeking a more viable hypothesis...the greenhouse effect, and its bastard child AGW have left a string of predictive failures stretching out over nearly 3 decades now...how many failures do you think it should get before it is tossed to the trash where it belongs?

Just more lies, ignorance and denier cult insanities.

 

[Wuwei]

I agree that SSDD is wrong on many things. But you have to look at everything he says with fresh eyes every time. You cannot assume he is wrong just because he has usually been wrong in the past.

I think we can agree on some of the worst of SSDD. But what has he said that you think has some merit? I'm willing to listen objectively.

 

[IanC]

I agree that SSDD is wrong on many things. But you have to look at everything he says with fresh eyes every time. You cannot assume he is wrong just because he has usually been wrong in the past.

I think we can agree on some of the worst of SSDD. But what has he said that you think has some merit? I'm willing to listen objectively.

OK. He posted some facts and figures on various planets and shoes that the IGL makes a reasonable estimate of surface temp. Coincidence? Circular reasoning?

What parts have merit, which parts can be improved? What variables are local, which are universal. What happens when you average them over the whole globe?

I instinctively disagreed that mass was the only factor because composition seems to also be a factor in increasing the stored energy. After giving it some thought I came to the conclusion that using density would convert the local property of volume at the surface to a universal quality of the whole atmosphere. Interesting. But it gives a good answer when different compositions affect the surface temperature due to the greenhouse effect. Still coincidence or circular reasoning? Maybe. But I understand the atmosphere and IGL a lot better from thinking about it.

There are lots of topics I have learned more about simply because SSDD made a seemingly outrageous statement about it.

 

[Wuwei]

OK. He posted some facts and figures on various planets and shoes that the IGL makes a reasonable estimate of surface temp. Coincidence? Circular reasoning?

I don't think it's either a coincidence nor circular reasoning. When SSDD first came up with the IGL (from some blog I presume), I looked at the NASA site where the numbers originated. There was no explanation of how the temperature and pressure were measured or computed. But accepting that they somehow more or less accurately got those numbers, my first reaction was that, of course the ideal gas law would fit those numbers. If it didn't, something would be wrong with the numbers (or the IGL).

To me those numbers were more of a wide test of the IGL
For example, consider ohm's law: V=IR. or voltage = current x resistance.
If you get a voltmeter and ampmeter and a pile of resistors. You can test different voltages on the same resistor and check what the current is. Or you could try different resistors and see if you get the right current, etc.

You may find that V=IR is a little off, perhaps the resistor tolerance is too wide, or your meters are slightly off calibration. But in the end you are only testing Ohm's law, and not discovering anything exciting like how a TV works.

That is similar to thinking the IGL can predict the climate.

Next he made a reference to International Standard Atmosphere. This is my reply.

The International Standard Atmosphere model is definitely not derived from the ideal gas law (IGL). The IGL is useful as a lemma in the complex equations that derive the air density as a function of altitude, but you simply can't derive the ISA from the IGL alone.

It is similar to saying you can derive the orbit of Jupiter from the relation xy=1 implies x=1/y. That relation may be useful or necessary, but it does not solve the problem.

So, I don't see any merit to saying the ideal gas law has any predictive power of the atmosphere. I think I beat this subject to death. Sorry.

.

 

[IanC]

As you wish. I'm sure curiosity simply carries you in different directions.

 

[Olde Europe]

I don't think it's either a coincidence nor circular reasoning. When SSDD first came up with the IGL (from some blog I presume), I looked at the NASA site where the numbers originated. There was no explanation of how the temperature and pressure were measured or computed. But accepting that they somehow more or less accurately got those numbers, my first reaction was that, of course the ideal gas law would fit those numbers. If it didn't, something would be wrong with the numbers (or the IGL).

Let us try to understand what the IGL actually does, and does not do. If you subject a fixed amount of gas at a known temperature to increased pressure, the IGL allows you to calculate the reduction in volume. If you heat a fixed amount of gas and keep the pressure constant, the IGL calculates the resulting increase in volume. The IGL itself does not calculate the temperature of a gas subject to radiative heating, particularly if the energy input isn't showing up anywhere in the calculations. I really don't know how to explain it any better. The whole exercise is about as ridiculous as the attempt at calculating relative humidity based on a temperature reading. Yes, you might occasionally hit the mark, and yes, the concepts are somewhat related, but the determinant aspect (energy input / water content) is missing in either case.

Let's also note that the "calculation" of the earth's average temperature is off by 6°K. +/- 6°K is, of course, the difference between an ice age (most of the U.S. under a thick layer of ice) and the worst-case scenario of global warming, with temperatures not seen since the Eocene, consistent with an ice-free world, that is to say, in the longer term an end to the world as we know it.

Yes, the calculations arriving at results somewhat similar to reality is a mere fluke, particularly given the vast, enormous differences between GHG-driven temperatures on Earth and Venus, and mostly internal-heating driven temperatures on, say, Neptune (radiating out more than twice the energy it receives). Yes, there is a faint, merely indirect relation, as GHGs under high pressure are far more effective at heat trapping than they are at lower pressure. But that indirect relation works out to a valid temperature prediction only if you include energy transferred / trapped.

What then is the "merit" of the whole exercise, which amounts to little more than curve-fitting and happenstance? I see two things. First, of course, there's nothing more "compelling" than an "alternative" theory to explain the Earth's temperature, as it assures the denialings that it's all about pressure, and, as we all know, there's nothing we can do about that. Secondly, it is yet another distraction, for, as long as folks discuss yet another denialing hoax, we're not paying attention to reality. For if reality sank in, folks might get serious about climate change, and that threatens a lot of very well-filled rice bowls.

Yes, as Ian rightly remarked, there are things to learn even while dealing with SSDD's denialist humbug, even though it would be a catastrophic mistake to learn anything from the stooge.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you meant to say, the overwhelming part of the extra energy trapped in the earth's system due to the rising CO2 concentration is stored away in the oceans, we're on the same page.

CO2 could only affect the oceans IF its wavelength of absorption was greater at night from black body sources. We know this is not the case as all LWIR from CO2 is above 15um and thus using StB its radiative temperature is below -80 deg C. Again this should cause an atmospheric hot spot, which has been shown not to exist. We also know that this wave length is incapable of oceans penetration of more than 10um or skin surface.

 

[Olde Europe]

CO2 could only affect the oceans IF its wavelength of absorption was greater at night from black body sources. We know this is not the case as all LWIR from CO2 is above 15um and thus using StB its radiative temperature is below -80 deg C. Again this should cause an atmospheric hot spot, which has been shown not to exist.

I fear, I cannot find my way through the above, as it consists of largely unrelated assertions, some of which seem to be wrong.

Of course, rising CO2 concentrations cause higher temperatures, which entail more evaporation, which entail, in moist regions, a tropical tropospheric hot spot due to the change in the lapse rate, which, while inconclusive over longer timescales, has been shown to exist over monthly timescales.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 could only affect the oceans IF its wavelength of absorption was greater at night from black body sources. We know this is not the case as all LWIR from CO2 is above 15um and thus using StB its radiative temperature is below -80 deg C. Again this should cause an atmospheric hot spot, which has been shown not to exist.

I fear, I cannot find my way through the above, as it consists of largely unrelated assertions, some of which seem to be wrong.

Of course, rising CO2 concentrations cause higher temperatures, which entail more evaporation, which entail, in moist regions, a tropical tropospheric hot spot due to the change in the lapse rate, which, while inconclusive over longer timescales, has been shown to exist over monthly timescales.

Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?

Thank you

 

[polarbear]

Lightning strikes reach the ground on Earth as much as 8 million times per day or 100 times per second, according to the National Severe Storms Laboratory
I would say that qualifies as continuous.

That is happening continuously from the deserts to the arctic circle?

Not necessary...tell me, where do you suppose the atmosphere remains still for any appreciable amount of time? Denial of reality won't make the greenhouse effect real...it is flawed from its foundations...

Yesterday I spotted a bunch of posts where the same idiots that keep defending that idiotic U of brainWashington greenhouse gas radiation diagram were using an easy bake oven as an example to prove the concept of back-radiation.
I don`t even want to bother looking for it but it was hilarious because for some strange reason the whole lot brandished it with glee that you can cook batter in it by powering it with a 100 watt light bulb. Yet none of them would have even the slightest idea why that is so, because there is no way to use the StB equation in order to be able to explain how that oven would get to over 250 deg F past room temperature.
I looked up the dimensions for one of these that use 100 watt incandescent light bulbs at Amazon.com. It has a surface area of 4.75 ft^2.
If you do the StB math in metric then the 100 watts get spread out over 0.442 m^2 and the oven would radiate out as much power as it gets from the 100 watt bulb at -22 C .
But just like in the U of W radiation energy balance that`s no problem.All you have to do is add enough GHG back radiation till you can bake a cookie.
No wonder none of these idiots can get a real life engineering job.
Most of the R-value tables for insulating walls are in btu per hour and for an oven like that 4 is a good enough number. It will then dissipate the same number of watts or btu per hour as it gets heated by the light bulb....100 watts=341.3 btu/hr when it is 287 F warmer than it was before it`s been turned on.
delta T [F] = 341.3 x 4[R] / 4.75[ft^2] = 287 [deg F] warmer than ambient...
F--k these idiots are too stupid to figure out which equation they should apply to what and would not even qualify to work for a toy company.

Ian the one who brought up Easy Bake ovens. Am I one of the idiots? Hahahaha

It was to prove a point. Objects in thermal equilibrium, such as a room and it's contents are simply moving existing radiation back and forth.

Adding a light source is adding energy to the room by extracting it from elsewhere.

The radiation we receive from the Sun is attenuated by the inverse square law. We are not in thermal equilibrium with the 294w, it is an addition. Plus it is in the form of a 5500C radiator. Applying the S-B laws without taking the additional calculations for angle and area is incorrect, as is ignoring the power source within the Sun.

No you are certainly not one of the idiots I was referring to. I know it was you that brought up the easy bake oven and I am glad you did. Because it serves as a good example which of the heat transfer concepts are significant and which one has a negligible impact.
An easy bake oven is just one of the examples which contrasts heat conduction and heat radiation.
Right away one of the idiots I was referring to squealed "so you say there is no back radiation" with that easy bake oven. He did even though it is abundantly clear that the heating process had been accounted for solely using the equations that apply for heat conduction and without applying radiative heat transfer. Right away some Bozos try $ twist that into a "denial of established science" because I did not give a shit about any photons that bounce around inside that oven.
That`s not what powered it up to the temperature it can achieve with 100 watts from an incandescent light bulb. Of course there are photons being radiated & absorbed.
So what? A car doing 70 mph makes noise but only an idiot would say that the car is powered by sound.
When you are considering various concepts how to overcome a heat transfer problem any engineer worth his salt would look at heat conduction and convection.
You won`t even get off the mark using heat radiation alone. Try and heat a bulb thermometer to 100 C by holding it 6 inches off the side of a BIC lighter flame.
The lighter will run out of fuel long before that thermometer registers a significant rise in temperature. If you hold it 6 inches above the flame the temperature will go past 100 C faster than you can say one Mississippi. If radiative transfer were the avenue that really mattered then it should not matter much where you position that thermometer.
You can verify that if you look at the lighter flame with an IR (optic) thermometer which registers W/m^2. Only then it does not make much of a difference if you aim it at the flame from above or from the side. Reading todays posts here I can see the same idiotic statements the same idiots make now about pressure & temperature. But I`ll wait a while till they maxed out on the bullshit meter.

 

[Olde Europe]

Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?

Thank you

Glad to see your burning interest in climate change, and the intricate interactions of CO2 with the Earth's climate system. I have some reading material for you, and follow the embedded links, too:

To start in, for the scientific story, a good starting-point is the keystone essay on the basic discoveries about The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, followed perhaps by attempts to explain changes with Simple Models of Climate. If you are interested especially in the social connections of climate studies you could start, for example, with the facts of The Modern Temperature Trend and proceed to the long essay on U.S. Government: The View from Washington, followed by International Cooperation. For basic information and recent developments, see the page of links and bibliography.​

If you are done with that and still have questions:

Influences on climate
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Other Greenhouse Gases
Roger Revelle's Discovery
Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds
Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate
Changing Sun, Changing Climate?
Interview with Jack Eddy
Ocean Currents and Climate

Climate data
The Modern Temperature Trend
Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change
Uses of Radiocarbon Dating
Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth)
Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages
Temperatures from Fossil Shells

Theory
Simple Models of Climate Change
Chaos in the Atmosphere
Venus & Mars
General Circulation Models of Climate
Basic Radiation Calculations
Arakawa's Computation Device​

If you're finally through with that, you should be able to understand that the climate system with its feedback mechanisms, such as cloud formation and changing ocean currents, is way too complex to be replicated by any "lab work". That is to say, the "lab" is the earth itself, and the experiment we're conducting doesn't have a safety switch, but thousands of scientists and quite a few satellites are quite busy measuring the experiment's results - a.k.a. temperature records. See you in a few weeks when you're done, and you're able to answer your question yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?

Thank you

Glad to see your burning interest in climate change, and the intricate interactions of CO2 with the Earth's climate system. I have some reading material for you, and follow the embedded links, too:

To start in, for the scientific story, a good starting-point is the keystone essay on the basic discoveries about The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, followed perhaps by attempts to explain changes with Simple Models of Climate. If you are interested especially in the social connections of climate studies you could start, for example, with the facts of The Modern Temperature Trend and proceed to the long essay on U.S. Government: The View from Washington, followed by International Cooperation. For basic information and recent developments, see the page of links and bibliography.​

If you are done with that and still have questions:

Influences on climate
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Other Greenhouse Gases
Roger Revelle's Discovery
Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds
Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate
Changing Sun, Changing Climate?
Interview with Jack Eddy
Ocean Currents and Climate

Climate data
The Modern Temperature Trend
Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change
Uses of Radiocarbon Dating
Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth)
Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages
Temperatures from Fossil Shells

Theory
Simple Models of Climate Change
Chaos in the Atmosphere
Venus & Mars
General Circulation Models of Climate
Basic Radiation Calculations
Arakawa's Computation Device​

If you're finally through with that, you should be able to understand that the climate system with its feedback mechanisms, such as cloud formation and changing ocean currents, is way too complex to be replicated by any "lab work". That is to say, the "lab" is the earth itself, and the experiment we're conducting doesn't have a safety switch, but thousands of scientists and quite a few satellites are quite busy measuring the experiment's results - a.k.a. temperature records. See you in a few weeks when you're done, and you're able to answer your question yourself.

That's not what I asked. I had a very specific request that you seem to have either misunderstood or ignored.

Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?

Also, if "the climate system with its feedback mechanisms, such as cloud formation and changing ocean currents, is way too complex to be replicated by any "lab work", how can you say with any certainty that a hummingbird's farts worth of CO2, 200PPM, is changing Earth's climate. Seems like a rather large claim without any support whatsoever.

 

[Olde Europe]

That's not what I asked.

That's exactly what you've asked, and because you didn't read anything, you didn't understand anything, particularly not the part about the Earth being the lab, and the results being continuously measured and documented, accompanied with a load of links detailing the history of the experiment. Conversely, I have asked that you make an effort to understand why your question, as posed, doesn't make any sense. It almost seems as if you weren't quite up to that task.