Awesome

War was not over Oil

2014-07-05T02:27:00.005-07:00

War was not over Oil

More specifically I suppose it would be accurate to say that the Iraq war was not fought over oil, although both wars were not fought over oil. It would be difficult, at best, to assess the true motives of any leader in power at the time, or to prove the existence of a highly secretive shadow government controlling the U.S. and other world governments, manipulating each individual like puppets for some larger, grander nefarious scheme, particularly since such organizations would have remained so well hidden from the public, however, it would be possible to ascertain whether or not there was a reasonable pretext for an invasion on the grounds of acquiring a particular resource. The presence of said resource in the region, it's relative price or quality, where those resources were going after the war took place, the cost to gain ratio of the war to said resource, and many other factors could help display whether or not a country, and in this case more specifically the U.S., would have gotten involved for a resource, or oil.

While all I can prove is a distinct likelihood of the war not being over oil, the war most likely, had little to do with oil.

The Oil is not going to the U.S.
The oil not going to the U.S., it is going to France and China, two country's of whom actually initially opposed the war. [1][2][3][4] The United State's military along with civilian contractors set up oil rigs worth 9 billion dollars in the country, which are now under U.S. and Iraq military control. [1][2][3][4] The oil supplies are strictly under control of the government, and yet none of it is going to the U.S., which suggests that the U.S. has control of the oil, but is receiving none of it. However, a handful of U.S. companies may some meager profits, close to 490 million for Halliburton, which in comparison to the billions of dollars worth of the total oil supplies is a relatively small amount (and these were chosen in open bid contracts, meaning they weren't guaranteed profits as a result of the war).

Not surprisingly, the U.S. seemed to possess little interest in the Iraq oil. Inherently expensive, difficult to obtain and in relatively small volumes, Iraq oil would likely not be beneficial to the U.S., at least at our current point. Iraq currently produces approximately 2 million barrels of oil per day; as it's peak, Iraq produced 2.6 million barrels of oil per day. The U.S. consumed approximately 19 million barrels in 2013 [1]; Iraq oil could have, at best, contributed to approximately 14% of our oil supply, or X dollars, and as a result likely would not be of much interest. The U.S. has in comparison spent nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on the war; in the same time, X amount of money could have been made, merely a fraction of the money in return. In fact, the U.S. put many trade restrictions and Embargos on the oil coming from Iraq, and Iraq even claimed Kuwait was waging "economic warfare" by selling oil at cheaper prices than Iraq. At no point in the past or present has the U.S. truly expressed interest in Iraq's expensive, unstable oil reserves. It is difficult then to assert that the U.S. wanted to obtain the oil or would allow 800 billion dollars in assets put towards the Iraq war, and thousands of soldier's lives, to go to waste and not obtain the oil if they so desired, when practically nothing and no-one could stop them and it would be, on top of this, a complete waste of resources (as in, the cost would far exceed the potential rewards).

If the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil, one would assume, at least initially, that the U.S. would then seek to acquire this resource. They of course, have not. As, arguably, the single most powerful force in the entire world, with a Navy 14 times larger than the next largest navies in the world, the only country with multiple super carriers, that can launch full sized aircraft and serves as an unmatched force of power projection in the world, with tanks that possess armor which cannot be pierced by any other tank in the world, with the only country to have true stealth aircraft that are virtually invincible to enemy anti-aircraft weapons based on radar (except under extreme conditions), and nearly 50% of the world's military spending, as well as some of the most advanced technology in the world (the first to go to the moon, create computers, nuclear power, vaccines, a leader in technological innovations in general), America is the only true super power in the world. X amount of money per country. One would assume that it would be quite easy for the U.S. to invade a country and maintain control of it by nothing other than military force alone, and it's likely that no country would even begin to challenge the U.S.'s economic or military power, even if they were capable of it (being the single richest country in the world as well, nearly equal to the entire EU, and a major drive for international technological creation and economic benefit). Therefore the assumption that we would invade a country for oil we never obtained and expend and inaexordiant amount of resources on what could have been, at best, a fraction of our total oil consumption, seems to be predicated on a number of false assumptions, chiefly that the U.S. is getting oil from Iraq, and that Iraq had a large volume of cheap oil to obtain.

While one would believe that a quick google search could help alleviate the concerns regarding the U.S.'s interest in Iraqi oil, a common myth still perpetuated today is that the war was fought over, or for, oil. It would take a relative understanding of global economic, political, and scientific understanding of the importance of oil to truly grasp why such motivations were extremely unlikely to begin with, although, this can be somewhat easily explained.

Relative Amounts of oil

It would be an inefficient strategy to invade a country for a single Resource

Before simply explaining that Iraq has very little oil to begin with, it would be prudent to illustrate why such an idea would be illogical in it's own right. Initially, one must consider the impact that robbing an entire of a single, important resource would be devastating to that country, as a result, to obtaining that resource. While Iraq is far from as industrially developed as the U.S., roughly X percent of the population still have electricity, and large portions still use cars, and thus use oil. If one were to remove such a vital resource from their country, that is to cut off electricity or transportation, much of Iraqi urban society would come to a halt, causing a substantial amount of problems, including food shortages and in general a stand still of the economy, hampering the ability for the society to function. Large death tolls would begin to occur, and likely mass riots or protests to the oil confiscation would occur, destabilizing the region, and increasing the price of the oil as the U.S. would need to seek to defend it from, perhaps practically the entire country. Creating new enemy's, it's likely the U.S. would not only draw condemnation from the country, but potentially the rest of the world as well, and as a result could easily lose the resource.

Currently, the oil makes up approximately 1% (adfa) of the U.S.'s GDP. In most country, oil makes up a sizeable, but still relatively small part of the GDP. Even all the fossil fuels make up X percent of the GDP; invading a country for but a small fraction, despite all the cost for it, might then seem like a somewhat estranged idea. The strangeness of the action and it's ignorance of reality is likely more so the result of the convoluted nature of the conspiracy theorists ideas, and less so the supposed conspirators. Nevertheless, once the resource is obtained, it runs out, and becomes a finite resource, making it additionally difficult to justify such grievous costs for such a paltry resource (in the case of Iraq, x money, or x a year). What might be more reasonable would be to take a small portion of all the resources of the GDP; such as, 10% of the entire GDP. While it could anger the citizens, more likely a small figure such as this would be manageable, and the people would find it small enough to allow them continue. Furthermore, if a portion of the resources collected were given back to the people in the form of social welfare, such as healthcare, military or police systems, their concerns could be alleviated, and they may actually learn to like the individuals who provide them with such organized social welfare programs.

In fact, it wouldn't be all that dissimilar to the current tax system in the U.S. and other country's. If one were to invade a country, it would be best to preserve their over-all well being and try to win their hearts and minds, so as to provide more resources to yourself. You would likely meet little resistance if you appeared as if a liberator or at least benevolent. While some could now try to argue this is the case, it would at least not be for oil, and since the U.S. is receiving no Taxes from Iraq or any monetary benefit (actually donating money to Iraq, x billion dollars a year), this too is extremely unlikely. It does however, at least make more sense.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
There is a somewhat smarter argument that the U.S. felt their oil supply was threatened by potential damage to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, allied countries with large oil supplies, and attempted to rescue them, then (potentially threatens by Iraq), almost entirely for oil. As stated previously, the actual volume of input or necessary production of oil from any foreign country's is rather low if not simply non-existent, however, there are additional reasons why we likely would not have invaded just to protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait's oil supply. While such an argument would be one for a somewhat ambiguous side, now grasping at straws, supposing and assuming that the worst case scenario was true (in essence, a logical fallacy essentially pertaining to the "God of the gaps", in that there might be one possible scenario left where the U.S. might have invaded for oil, and thus it must be the case that they did), and there is the potential that it's true, there's no clear motivation or sane, logical coherent reason as to why the U.S., now motivated by nothing but pure greed, lacking a good will for man and altruism, or just a sense of common human decency, would have partaken in such an action.

Global Warming and it's Assumptions

2013-08-22T15:26:00.001-07:00

Global Warming and it's Assumptions

There are six main assumptions about anthropomorphic carbon dioxide driven greenhouse global warming. The first is that simply increasing carbon dioxide means the earth will be warmer, regardless of it's role or importance in the greenhouse cycle. The second assumption is that carbon dioxide is evenly spread throughout the atmosphere; more carbon dioxide implying more carbon dioxide spread evenly throughout the atmosphere, and thus a higher global average. The third is that humans are playing a predominant or majority role in the production of the carbon dioxide, and thus it's effects. Three more common assumptions are that there is a unanimous agreements within the scientific community that it definitively is a problem, the effects will be disastrous, and fossil fuels are the primary cause.

There are a number of reasons why these assumptions are wrong.

Unanimous Support
There is a tendency among global warming advocates to claim near unanimous support for global warming. Figures ranging from 75 to 97, to 98% are not uncommon among many media sources.[1][2][3][8]

The very concept of 98 or 97% of all scientists agreeing on something seems questionable from beginning. Surely they could only poll 98% of all scientists, and could not have polled all of them. What question was asked, specifically; climate change, global warming, anthropomorphic global warming, anthropomorphic climate change, whether or not it should be immediately dealt with, whether or not the effects will be severe, carbon dioxide driven global warming? Is it a big enough issue to be dealt with, are fossil fuels the primary cause, is it simply changing things slightly? How big is the impact, does it warrant immediate attention? Which theory do they believe in specifically? These questions are all important to determining the ramifications of the effects.

How do we determine what is a "scientist"? Is it someone who studies science; by the vagueness of these and the impact science has on the world, do we mean science as the body of knowledge humans have collected, or the more archaic science as the actual world itself? Either way, this means that practically the entire population could count as a scientist; is it someone who uses the scientific method? Anyone with a science degree; what about students, getting a degree? Who counts as a scientist; do we mean, climatologists? Climatologists specifically studying global warming; and if so, shouldn't we look at the scientific data instead of asking a very vague question? Was it anyone who attended a particular science convention during a particular time frame?

The notion itself is quite skeptical to begin with, regardless of whether or not we seek the basis of it; by which poll did they did, how did they do it? The nature of their decisions on how they decided provides broader implications than the answers themselves, since this ultimately determines what they mean. A unanimous acceptance of man made global warming also doesn't determine the impacts or if we should support politically charged doctrines like the Koyoto protocol.

The actual Study
The legitimately of unanimous support boils down to the actual study or polling done to determine whether or not 98%, or 97% of scientists legitimately support climate change. Skeptical science [2], The Guardian [3], the New York times [1], and even CNN [7] utilized the same study in their report. The study does not try to confirm a global consensus on anthropomorphic climate change, it's impacts, or the actual science behind them. It merely attempts to assert that a percentage of scientists agree that humans are having some impact on climate change, or more specifically global warming.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

The actual study did an "analysis to 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals", all particularly chosen. Out of this, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 97.2% of the authors endorsed the position. I don't find this to be particularly surprising, but I don't think it proves a global consensus on global warming. " A team of 12 individuals completed 97.4% (23 061) of the ratings; an additional 12 contributed the remaining 2.6% (607)." A team of 12 which apparently believes AGW is significant, no doubt?

Political action

Carbon dioxide greenhouse effect

Carbon dioxide not evenly spread

Human Carbon Dioxide Contribution

Effects According to IPCC

Aquaponics Benefits

2013-06-05T16:27:00.001-07:00

Aquaponics Benefits

An aquaponics growing system could provide a variety of agricultural benefits compared to traditional growing systems, ranging from higher energy and water efficiencies, to increased yields in terms of growing space, to the locations of which food can be grown, to the general reduced need or even removal of pesticides or powerful pesticides. These benefits, even compared to current U.S. agricultural systems can be obviously apparent, although it would take restructuring of the current infrastructure to implement these methods, or the introduction of new systems.

An aquaponics gardening system more or less is a hydroponics growing system,

Energy

Fertilizer and Fish Food*

Water

Space

Pesticides

Can Grow almost anywhere

Global Warming Mk. II

2013-04-11T20:06:00.000-07:00

Global Warming
So far, there is little concrete proof that global warming is being caused by a predominately man made carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect as presented by the IPCC and a few other organizations (although in the case of NASA and the EPA, not all members of the organization necessarily agree).[1][2][3]? While carbon dioxide may be having some effect, there is little evidence to indicate that it's a significant issue, or predominately responsible for any of the arbitrary warming that may theoretically be occurring. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the primary reason for this is the questionable aspects of carbon dioxide even causing warming itself.

Global warming works in many ways, but the predominate effect is through infrared radiation absorption. The Ozone layer blocks much of the UV that comes to earth. Visible radiation going through the earth's atmosphere, and a small amount of low frequency UV, is absorbed and then reflected back up into the Atmosphere at much lower frequencies, or in the infrared zones, which is opaque to various greenhouse gases, including water vapor. Greenhouse gases absorb and then reflect or re-radiate the infrared radiation, which is produced by the earth from visible light and other forms of radiation, in nearly all directions, some of it down, back towards earth which prolongs it's time in the atmosphere and warms up the earth.[1][2][3]

Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, with roughly 20,000 parts per million in the atmosphere, compared to about 400 ppm for carbon dioxide, or is 50 times more voluminous than carbon dioxide. This makes the effect of carbon dioxide relatively minor in comparison to the effect of water vapor and other more powerful greenhouse gases, near the surface.[1][2][3][4][5]

According the IPCC, the global warming potential of a greenhouse gas (GWP) is measured in it's carbon dioxide equivalency. Natural gas, or methane, is about 72 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, Nitrous Oxide 289, and Sulfur hexafluoride 16,300 times more powerful; according the IPCC, water had too short of an life in the atmosphere and fluctuated too much with temperatures to get an accurate reading on.

However, ozone is around 1000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, and most ozone only persists in the atmosphere for about 30 minutes.[1][2][3] Water vapor, which lasts for 9 days and is fairly consistent in the atmosphere, wasn't included. Thus determining it's relative importance to carbon dioxide in terms of warming at the surface was conveniently left out. Despite the fact that water vapor is often cited as a powerful "feedback" mechanism for increasing temperatures; the predominate effect of carbon dioxide is thought to be the resulting increase in water vapor.[1][2][3]

And yet apparently it's impact wasn't calculated. However, the IPCC states that if the carbon dioxide levels increase from 280 ppm to 560 ppm (double) that temperatures will stably increase by 1 degree Celsius. This resulting temperature increase would theoretically increase the water vapor in the atmosphere by approximately 7%, thus warming up the planet another 2 degrees Celsius; the water vapor would not create more water vapor, supposedly, because the CO2 levels would be stable while the water vapor wouldn't be. A 7% increase in water vapor with a relative average of about 20,000 ppm would be a 1,400 ppm increase. 1400 /280 is exactly 5. Since water vapor would have roughly double the effect of carbon dioxide, water vapor should theoretically in turn increase the earth's temperature 1/2.5 times as much as carbon dioxide, or 40% as much as carbon dioxide. Since there is 50 times as much carbon dioxide as water vapor, this should put the effect of water vapor at roughly 95% of the effect of greenhouse gases, excluding the minor amounts generated by trace greenhouse gases. Thus it's total impact would still be minor.

Infrared absorption seems to be the key factor in determining relative strength.

However, the reality is somewhat more complex for the carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect. The atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal or infrared radiation (with exceptions for "window" bands which let some of the heat through), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport, or more or less direct heat transfer. [1][2][3] Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the most powerful greenhouse effect, with carbon dioxide, as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate. This particular area of carbon dioxide is far more important on the warming effect of the earth than it otherwise would be as a greenhouse gas due it's increased concentration and the lack of interaction from the water reflecting most of the infrared back down. [1][2][3][4][5][6]

If carbon dioxide does not reach this layer, which carbon dioxide produced from the surface, such as with cars and animals, rarely does, since it is denser than air and clumps at the surface and even in the mid troposphere,[1][2][3][4] it has little effect on this form of the greenhouse effect, making it relatively unimportant, which due to it's small amount in comparison, makes it relatively negligible. Unless the carbon dioxide reaches this layer in the mid troposphere, which being heavier than the atmosphere and clumping mostly to the surface due to the fact it does not diffuse through it, let alone uniformly, it's effect is relatively negligible. Due to the manner in which it reflects radiation back down, this surface in the mid troposphere is much thicker than is required to warm the earth; because so little gets past the surface of this band of carbon dioxide, increasing the thickness of this layer would also be mostly negligible in warming the surface. It's as a result of this that increasing carbon dioxide levels, produced from cars, fires, and other man made objects, are relatively insignificant.

In other words, the total volume of carbon dioxide is not the worry, but it's distribution. Since it does coat practically all of the mid troposphere, albeit unevenly, and with important exceptions for window bands considered, it reflects nearly all of the of radiation that can be reflected (predominately in the infrared spectrum) back down. This suggests that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will have a negligible impact; as long as there is a near complete cover of the earth's mid-tropospheric Atmosphere, even unevenly, forming a virtual wall, it will reflect most of the infrared back down; increasing levels do not change it's effects, as evidenced by how it operates and satellites which have proven no increase of temperatures over areas with higher carbon dioxide levels in their specific mid-tropospheric regions. In other words, while some areas have increased and decreased carbon dioxide levels, the levels do not seem to be affecting temperatures specifically nearly at all. [1][2][3][4]

Indeed, it was originally assumed carbon dioxide had a near even spread partially as a result of this near even infrared reflection. Areas with higher carbon dioxide levels do not tend to necessarily produce more heat. Areas over the equator tend to have less carbon dioxide than areas in temperate zones, yet their temperatures are often higher[1]. While important to the global warming cycle, relative power cannot be measured on a unit to unit basis; indeed, the carbon dioxide in the ocean and near the surface is considered less important than that of which is higher up in the atmosphere and that of which is in the mid troposphere. The importance of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse cycle is not dependent on amount, but distribution in the atmosphere; this also means that increasing the amount in important areas of distribution will likely have a negligible effect on warming. This means increasing levels, if they do increase, will likely have negligible effects except for surface increases, of which carbon dioxide is one of the weakest greenhouse gases in comparison to natural gas, nitrous oxide, and even water vapor in this form.

This can be explained somewhat by how carbon dioxide works. It absorbs infrared radiation, and then expels it in nearly every direction; a small portion of this goes back down. Assuming this holds true for every atom, than a virtual wall, 30 atoms thick, would eventually reflect (1/2(1/2 + 1/

The amount we do produce is also being rapidly absorbed by trees, the ocean, and other waterborne carbon dioxide consuming creatures such as algae. NASA individuals, using the amount of carbon dioxide that is predicted to be produced by the IPCC, proved that it would at least have to be much cooler in the same given time frame, given how much carbon dioxide is likely to be absorbed by these sinks, even assuming it made it to the mid troposphere and amplified it's effects, which is unlikely. In a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters, NASA scientists estimate that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide will result in 1.64 degrees Celsius of warming over the next 200 years, max. As stated by NASA the IPCC Did not allow the vegetation to increase its leaf density as a response to the physiological effects of increased CO2 and consequent changes in climate. Other assessments included these interactions but did not account for the vegetation down regulation to reduce plant’s photosynthetic activity and as such resulted in a weak vegetation negative response. According to NASA; "When we combine these interactions in climate simulations with 2 × CO2, the associated increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2." [1][2][3][4][5][6]

There are also a lot more radiative energy losses in this carbon dioxide zone than has been suggested by the IPCC, as well. According to some individuals at NASA, it's significantly less. While the carbon dioxide reflects virtually all the infrared back down to earth, only about 50% of the radiation produced by the earth is infrared and a certain percentage of the energy is lost as latent and sensible heat, reducing it's effects, in addition to the fact that heat is absorbed by the atmosphere, which is then lost by it's expulsion. Even assuming an increase would have a significant effect, it would be much, much less, as a result. Even while NASA proclaims the importance of carbon dioxide in the warming cycle, it does not state that increasing it will have a significant effect. -??[1][Remote Sensing PDF]

Carbon dioxide levels taken from ice core drilling are routinely used to measure temperatures of previous ages. There is a connection between warm weather and carbon dioxide, but it is not the carbon dioxide causing the warming. When the oceans warm, the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved into them decreases, due to the fact that warmer waters cannot store as much carbon dioxide in them, much like how colder carbon dioxide drinks stay fizzier longer (warm drinks can, but they have to be held under pressure, which is why warm soft drinks often explode in the heat). As a result, carbon dioxide is released as a result of the oceans warming, which serves as a good measurement when relative measures are taken from ice core drilling to figure out carbon dioxide levels, influence by the ocean, since over 70% of the carbon dioxide released is from the ocean.[1][2][3][4][5][6] It should be noted that since carbon dioxide increases when it's warm, and not the other way around, that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere does not exponentially warm the earth or else no cooling events would happen; if anything, the carbon dioxide release from the oceans after a warming event would seem to cool it down, since it has cooled since these times, compounding the issue of carbon dioxide being predominately responsible for the warming. If carbon dioxide did result in change, and the majority of it comes from the oceans based on their current temperatures, then where did the rest of the carbon dioxide come from? ...?

The oceans rising due to thermal expansion and the melting of the ice caps is also silly. Most ice in the oceans are stored under water[1][2][3], and water expands when frozen, suggesting that the ice melting under water, if anything, should decrease the ocean's levels. As well, the maximum density of water occurs at 3.98 °C (39.16 °F), while it expands while under 0 degrees Celsius, or while frozen. While the surface temperature is often some 60 degrees, the water beneath the surface makes up the most significant portion of water, and on average is some 0 °C (32 °F) to 3 °C (37 °F). This means that unless we have a sudden, extremely sharp change or increase in temperature, the ocean levels should actually decrease slightly from slightly increase heat, and not rise, if a significant change will occur at all, simply due to the vastness of the ocean and the somewhat irrelevant nature of atmospheric temperatures in relation. [1][2][3]

We do not have as many carbon dioxide producing chemicals as the IPCC States. Consumption, and therefore production of carbon dioxide, is expected to increase over 200 years. [1]

The world has roughly, in proven reserves, 1,324 billion barrels of oil, 300 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and 860 billion tons of coal.[1][2][3] The worldwide consumption of oil is roughly some 31.4 billion barrels per year, while worldwide consumption of natural gas is roughly 3.2 trillion cubic meters a year, and the worldwide consumption of coal is roughly 7.25 billion tonnes. At the current rate of consumption, this would mean running out of gasoline in 42 years, natural gas in 93.75, and coal in roughly 118 years. Gasoline represents some 40% of total fossil fuel consumption, and in 2008 energy by supply was oil 33.5%, coal 26.8%, gas 20.8%, out of the total energy consumption. [1]

The idea that we're going to increase temperatures substantially despite our lack of these primary carbon dioxide producing materials is mostly unfounded. If our consumption increased, by finding new forms of fossil fuels (which is possible, such as natural gas at the bottom of the ocean and other potential unfound or untapped reserves) perhaps it would be possible to extend this figure, but considering that global usage is expected to go down with a rationing of resources and improvements in fuel efficiency it's even further, less likely.

It should also be noted that warming is only occurring in key, isolated places, such as parts of Africa, Australia, and Alaska. Specific areas of the earth warming does not mean that the entire earth will warm, and effects over the whole earth from say, an area of 32 degrees suddenly turning to 34, are unlikely, since these areas will likely remain unaffected, since a total global average is increasing, but the entire earth is not warming equally.

Some Satellite Data
So, increasing surface carbon dioxide levels will have a negligible effect in warming the surface. Definitely not anything as high as a degree or so even if the next 100 years. However, if it were a result of a carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect, we'd see a rise of temperature in the mid troposphere proportional to that on the surface. Do we?

Well, no. Satellites and weather balloons have documented little if any change[1][2][3][4]; even the IPCC's satellite documented little change[1][2]. The IPCC's official stance on the situation is there is "net spurious cooling". However, looking at the satellite data, it was possible to come up with a possible conclusion for why there seemed to be little if any change. It was possible that the orbital decay calculations on the satellite were off as it got closer to the atmosphere and eventually fall back through due to the earth's gravity increasing exponentially as it neared and due to atmospheric distortions from increased solar periods increasing UV and effects on the atmosphere. The problem with these calculations are, that orbital decay was already calculated for; assuming we were to recalculate this, the belief was that, as the satellite got closer to earth, the view of the satellite would be off due to the curvature of the earth. However, Microwave Sounding Unit data doesn't necessarily change with the angle of incidence to the earth, since there is a varied gigahert and aperture range. It's possible there would be less coverage of the earth, although this would simply present less data, and not necessarily a more negative trend (unless a series of coincidences were to occur). For all intents and purposes, if it did, it would suggest that the mid troposphere was warming more than it should have. As the angle of incidence increases with the earth, this would take the microwave sounding data longer to get to get from the satellite to the earth and back, given that the angle from the satellite to the ground would increase, hence increasing the length of the virtual hypotenuse. As a result, microwave data would take longer to get to the satellite, indicating what could be perceived as a longer hertz range, or a decrease in air pressure, which could be perceived the result of warming, and air expanding. (This impact would likely be negligible, however). In any case, this would require the orbital decay of the satellite to nearly have exactly matched the temperature change on the surface of the earth, proportionally, which has not been recorded by any other satellite, weather balloon, and would be increasingly improbable. Even if somehow it was slightly off in a perfect direction, with every satellite and weather balloon's temperature gauges perfectly slightly off to measure virtually the same temperature for random and various reasons, all evidence gathered to come to this conclusion would be scientifically and mathematically unfounded, suggesting a still unexplained cause for something that happened to effect every satellite and weather balloon equally, suggesting a far larger issue with a lack of the fundamental understanding of specific sciences that would compound the issue far beyond the scope of global warming, meaning global warming would be the least of our worries.

To directly compare MSU2R with radiosondes, a surface temperature layer is added to the radiosonde layers, and a vertical integration over all layers is done to compute and effective MUS2R trend of -0.02K per decade, instead of -0.05K, which is closer agreement with the observed +.07K per decade trend. Even so it still displays a negative trend; decreasing or not, essentially the aspect is, the mid tropospheric data is not complete nor indicative of being where global warming would suggest even over compensating for heat, which gives a much higher heat increase than would be expected, as well. Basically, the data does not suggest an increase in global warming as a result of the carbon dioxide in the mid troposphere, and potentially even records the opposite effect. [1][2][3]

While orbital decay could theoretically be compensated for, it does not negate the satellite data, as at best it is still cooling -.02K per decade, according to that data.

Even if the changes are "spurious", they could still exist, so the data should not be construed to reflect a predicted model, in any case.

The fallibility of Temperature Measurements

Correlation Between carbon dioxide and temperature; heat is going up, carbon dioxide is going up, therefore there must be a connection? While there might be, it seems to be rather inconsistent. Should it be atmospheric warming, it should be even and a direct result of increased carbon dioxide, but the figures are relatively random. [1][2][3] While many "positive" links have been asserted, they have not in fact, proven a direct correlation with carbon dioxide, which if it is carbon dioxide, there theoretically should be. Carbon dioxide increases, earth heats up X amount; supposedly. But what the data shows, more or less, is no direct connection between heat and carbon dioxide. There are wild and variable temperature changes, even over long periods of time, but carbon dioxide has increased steadily, without a steady increase in temperature, even if it can be average. If climatologists know what they are talking about, then on another planet, like earth, say some 10 degrees cooler, how much would X degree of carbon dioxide increase that planet's temperature? The fact of the matter is, all that's been measured is an increase in temperature, and a theoretical increase in carbon dioxide, and if those two correlate the same, then X amount of temperature increase could be expected. However, the temperature may have increased regardless of carbon dioxide, due to other factors, other greenhouse gases and may even simply have been arbitrary or a slow warming as getting out of the ice age.

It should also be noted that most warming has occurred in the last 20 years, that is calculated within the 100 year data. This has also been surface temperature increases, and not necessarily atmospheric increases. While the data presents various ups and downs that easily factor out, it is only a result of these last 20 years that we see massive increases in temperatures. It may simply be that the last 20 years have been unusually warm, with no real direction connection to human activities. Measuring the earth's average temperature when it's been the hottest it has been in the last 1300 years, as a baseline for global warming, may indeed produce a biased result.

Additionally, we are just out of a "little ice age". [1][2][3] Temperatures, from roughly 1300-1850 A.D., were around 1°C cooler. If the earth was warming, this would be consistent with re-normalizing to regular trends, and wouldn't denote any significant increase afterwards. Many theories exist as to why this occurred, many more suggest it was potentially localized in specific areas, but possibly the one that ought to be considered the most is the arbitrary variability and fluctuations of weather. Even according to the IPCC, the 1 degree difference was rather "modest" and probably was ineffectual, suggesting a recent warming may be just the same, as well.

Weather balloons didn't begin to monitor weather until about 1896, by a single French Meteorologist,[1] and didn't become accurate, stable or consistent until the 1950's. The first satellite in space, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, first reached space in 1957. Weather monitoring did not occur until some time after this. The world meteorological society was not produced until the 1950's, The International Meteorological society, (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Antarctica, Alaska and other important places did not begin substantial weather monitoring until some time later. The notion that surface temperature measurements in the 1850's are a "good enough" measurement, when such information would be disregarded completely if taken today, without accurate atmospheric measures, different altitude measurements and a multitude of other factors, is silly.

While ice core drilling has shown correlations between carbon dioxide and temperature, this is most likely a lag in production. When the oceans, or pretty much any water warms, they release carbon dioxide; when they cool, they absorb more carbon dioxide. As the oceans warm, they will release more carbon dioxide, and vice versa; a little bit of this carbon dioxide is often trapped in ice, revealing relative carbon dioxide levels of a given timeframe. This means that, likely, most of the carbon dioxide found during warm temperatures is likely a result of warmer oceans, and not the other way around.[1][2] Compounding the issue, of carbon dioxide was the primary cause of an increase in global temperatures, than as they increased, increasing the carbon dioxide levels even further, the earth would have never cooled back down, which is has considerably since these times. It should also be noted that levels of carbon dioxide could also theoretically be times of great cold, in accordance with increased volcanic activity, which can cool down the earth.

This also means that the issue involving "the most carbon dioxide in 650,000 years"[1][2][3] could likely be explained by the fact the ice age began at the Pleistocene Epoch some 2.6 million years, and it has consistently gotten warmer and the carbon dioxide levels have risen from 10,000 years ago.

How even if true it's not the whole world evenly, so it's obviously not an equal effect from carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide levels are lower in the tropics and at the equator than in most temperate zones, yet it is substantially warmer in these areas. It's likely the amount of carbon dioxide has little if any variation on these temperatures. This is due to the band of carbon dioxide existing beyond a certain amount having the impact; the amount of carbon dioxide does not matter, but it's distribution, and if it coats the mid troposphere entirely, albeit unevenly, the same general greenhouse effect will occur equally by reflecting radiation back down towards the earth, but water vapor and other greenhouse gases will determine how much is absorbed.

But what of Venus?

Venus has some odd 96.5% of their atmosphere being carbon dioxide, while at max earth is some 0.038% carbon dioxide (or 380 ppm). This automatically produces a 2540 times difference of carbon dioxide between Earth and Venus; considering that it's atmosphere is some 91 times denser, this puts the carbon dioxide levels at roughly 228,552, or 230,000 times more than earth. Assuming Venus is 800 degrees warmer (which it is less than this), this would only mean a .00347 increase in temperature for doubling the earth's carbon dioxide.[1]

It should be noted however that Venus's carbon dioxide likely came after the warming effect, when the oceans evaporated and dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen due to solar radiation, and that very little light reaches Venus's surface since it is reflected, the atmosphere is incredibly thick, and the impact of carbon dioxide is minimal.

Not that Venus is necessarily a good analogue for earth.

What to take from This
Global warming, being a significant trend to worry about, may be false; it's likely the earth is warming due to arbitrary weather patterns that cycle without much impact from human activity, if it's warming much at all.

However, gasoline and other fossil fuels are expensive and increasingly harder to get ahold of. Mercury levels in the ocean, predominately a result of burning coal, are so high that the FDA recommends lowering the amount of fish people eat due to the fear of mercury poisoning and mercury build up. All the pollution and materials we create go into the atmosphere to be breathed in and rained back down and absorbed into drinking water and habitats of animals we consume, not only hurting our ecosystem but potentially ourselves, as well.

We have maybe 40-60 years worth of cheaply available gasoline left, and 120 years of coal, at the current rate of consumption, which our rate of consumption is set to increase in the future, to potentially double these levels by 2050, compounding what little fuel we may have left by this time. If we don't switch our fuel supplies over to cheaper, less polluting and more available options, such as Thorium or burning gasoline in steam turbines and then using algae to capture the exhaust, for improved efficiency and safety, we may all suffer, economically, strategically, and with our health.

Even if global warming is untrue there is no detriment to improving our current energy situation and potentially having energy independence, potentially in the U.S. or country of origin, to be self reliant and not rely on foreign intervention or resources.

If the globe is warming, whether arbitrarily or by a result of some other mechanism, it is still important to understand this so we can understand the effects.

Another important thing to consider is that the scientific institutions purporting global warming are not necessarily wrong. They may have proposed ideas, but it was only because of the evidence they provided that it was capable to potentially prove them wrong.The assessment of isolated individuals within these institutions going off of raw numbers is a potentially valid figure for what those figures would produce, however, when considering variables, such as the current temperatures of the oceans, their vastness, the method of carbon dioxide's warming, rather than equating an increase in heat or change based on a raw unit to unit variable, a more clear picture becomes available, and we advance our scientific understanding of the world.

It should also be noted that, not in fact "98% of scientists agree" with the assessment, so much as, according to individual assessments, there may be a 90% confidence rating (according to the IPCC), and that according to a American Geophysical Union (AGU) comprising two questions, basically do you think the temperatures have risen since the 1850's, and do you think human involvement was involved, which only some 80% responded with yes. However, climate change is not necessarily the same as global warming. A significant contribution, as compared to negligible, could be less than 1% considering what a massive impact it would be for humans to have affected the millions of years cycle. It should be noted that while humans have created roads, buildings, lights that practically blot out the earth when seen from space, turned land over into agriculture, wiped out, created and expanded multiple species, deforested, and created massive structures, this does not necessarily mean they have increased temperatures. In any case, "I heard that somebody heard that somebody heard" is not good evidence for scientific inquiries. 1000 years ago, many scientists "knew" the earth was flat, 500 years ago many people "knew" that the universe revolved around the earth, and 10 years ago we "knew" carbon dioxide was uniform throughout the atmosphere. Think of everything we'll know, tomorrow.

Ways to improve the Standard U.S. firearm

2013-04-09T08:12:00.003-07:00

Ways to improve the Standard U.S. firearm

In August 2010 the Individual Carbine Competition was formed to help provide Infantry with a newer, more modern weapon, and was cancelled March 19 2013, due to budget concerns, of which were about 1.8 billion dollars. [1][2] While this is silly for many reasons, the general basis will be discussed below.

On the aspect of cost

Since budget constraints, or money, seems to be the primary concern, I personally think it's an easily resolvable issue. The current U.S. firearm costs about 1500 dollars per unit, including a replacement barrel; I'm not entirely sure how many of these types of weapons have been bought by the U.S. military, but I know that only around 8 million firearms, of the type the U.S. military uses, have ever been created. Thus, the amount of firearms in the U.S. armory is probably less than this, as many other countries by the same weapon. Assuming the U.S. bought 10 million of these firearms, just for good measure, it would cost roughly 15 billion dollars, or 350 million dollars per year over the 43 years it's technically been in service (although it saw use as early as 1963).

For a rough comparison, the SR-25, a sniper rifle, roughly the same weight and size as the M16, but with a more accurate and powerful sniper round, capable of getting out to ranges of 1000 yards, compared to 600 yards, and with .5 MOA, double the accuracy of an M40 bolt action sniper rifle and 6 times the accuracy of the M16, and being semi-automatic with a 20 round magazine (compared to most 5 round manually operated sniper rifles), is generally a superior firearm in nearly every way to the M16 and in general, even modern U.S. sniper rifles. The weapon itself is of high quality, but expensive, at approximately 4000 dollars per unit. Assuming we had been using this weapon instead of the M16 for the last 43 years, at the same price, this would have been 40 billion dollars, or less than a billion dollars per year. To arm every person in the military, 3 million people, with 3.3 firearms, with the equivalent accuracy and firepower of a sniper rifle in an M16 sized package, with the versatility and rapid fire capabilities of the assault rifle, and roughly the same recoil due to the recoil buffer. To arm people, medics, general, officers, soldiers, with a personal defense weapon intended to protect them from enemy threats, usable by the entire military, would have cost less than a billion dollars per year, out of the 700 billion dollar budget.

Considering the impact the primary weapon for the military can have, especially for our deployed troops, the relative cost compared to the entire military and what it could provide for the entire military renders the aspect of cost largely irrelevant, imo. However!

Even if cost was a significant factor, in general, more durable and reliable firearms tend to last longer than less durable and reliable firearms. Logistically, most firearms are replaced when they have fired a certain amount of rounds; since most rounds are fired outside of combat, it is easy to assume that firearms are generally replaced when they wear out, which usually occurs through practice and training. Thus, the replacement of a firearm largely depends on how many rounds are fired through it, which is generally fairly consistent. The M16 is replaced about every 10,000 rounds, while it's barrel is replaced every 5,000 rounds, thus creating a 1,500 dollar package per every 10,000 rounds fired.

More reliable. and generally higher performance weapons, such as the XM8, FN SCAR, or HK416 (which performed in X way), are around 2000 dollars per rifle, but generally tend to last for 20,000 rounds, the barrels included. Thus, the weapons are more durable than the comparable M16. However, if compared in terms of cost, for every 20,000 rounds fired, two M16's would be required compared to the more reliable weapon's one; creating a situation in which the costs were similiar. However, due to the need for frequent barrel replacements, the M16's price would be 3000 dollars per two weapons, while the HK416, XM8, FN SCAR, etc. would be 2000 dollars. Thus, the weapons would, in the long run, be cheaper than the M16, and also more reliable, generally more accurate, and over-all higher performance firearms.

Thus, any issue relating to the cost of the standard U.S. firearm is largely moot. Any number of replacements would clearly be better, and even a 3000 dollar gun would not be prohibitively expensive, despite it's probably increased quality. A better firearm would not only be insignificant in terms of cost, but potentially cheaper, as well, due to it's increased durability and less of a need to be replaced.

Some potential Designs

There are a wide variety of potential designs available for the replacement of the M16. The XM8, HK416, FN SCAR, all seem like suitable candidates; something interesting would be to take these designs and make them bullpup. While the M16 has a long buffer tube in the back, thus preventing a bullpup from shortening the weapon by no more than a few inches, the piston driven systems tend to have the capacity for a folding stock, or to remove the stock all together. Thus, the weapon can be shortened by 8-10 inches without losing functional capabilities; making the design bullpup could remedy any ergonomic issues, thus allowing for a full length barrel in a carbine sized weapon. Going by the length of the FN SCAR with a folded stock alone, you could shorten the over-all length of the weapon by 10 inches by making the weapon bullpup instead, which would help out in close quarters by being relatively small and easy to fit through openings or doors.

Regardless of the case, short stroke gas pistons tend to be the ideal design. Similar in recoil to the direct impingement system, currently in use by the M16, they are significantly more reliable, and generally possess a simpler operation. Rather than gas being filtered down the gas tube, the piston rod cycles back and forward in the same space, the gas acting on the piston, and acting on the rod. The advantage of this system compared to the Direct impingement system is that while the direct impingement system empties gases directly on the receiver, which fouls and heats up the receiver, which needs a high and low pressure system, that inevitable heats up faster than an ordinary rifle, the short stroke system empties the gas near the barrel and the gas exits the weapon relatively quickly, thus eliminating potential problems with recoil, including the gas tube or receiver being clogged with materials, such as water or sand.

The best barrels

Knight versus Samurai!

2013-04-03T09:20:00.002-07:00

Knight versus Samurai!

Samurais and Knights share many similarities; both had a strict moral code, developed during a time of feudalism, used similiar equipment and weaponry, from highly idolized swords and spears to full body armor, and fought both for honor and their commanders. The Knight with a strong Christian basis, and the Samurai with Bushido, both warriors had a strong sense of honor and duty. Both warriors usually came from relatively wealthy backgrounds, utilizing the best training, armor, and healthcare that was offered during the day, including being well fed and taken care of from a young age, providing both with general healthy backgrounds that allowed them to prosper as a high status warrior class. These elite warriors were at the forefront of their day, both revered and feared, as well as respected, even across multiple, even warring factions.

Both would have surely enjoyed the chance of glorious, single combat with each other, but who would have won?!

Aspects of their armor, weapons, gear, strategies, tactics, and philosophies will be analyzed to see who would most likely be victorious!

General Overview

Obviously, one has to consider the setting in which they fight to determine the outcome. The terrain, vegetation, general characteristics of the battleground, and under what conditions; multiple soldiers, single combat, a fight for a test, or to see who's the strongest and decide who is victorious; a fight for honor, land, or all honor? A fight to determine who's society is the greatest society, sending out their best warriors instead of risk total combat?

Or just for fun? Both warriors were well known for their skill on horseback, and utilizing other potential forms of transportation, and the fight could easily end there before they would engage in combat on foot, which they were also generally well versed in. The time period is also important; guns began to arrive in Japan by the 14th century, and by the 16th century their sword making skills were so legendary that most swords in China were imported from Japan. Additionally, Knights increasingly were weakened over time, with various rules and decelerations hindering their capabilities (such as the pope banning crossbows in X time period), until large mercenary armies took over, with Knights largely being phased out due to the growing middle and working class, and the ease of hiring large quantities of soldiers.

Since both Japan and Mid-Eval Europe had large, open grass fields, in which combat could take place, and both warriors frequently fought on horseback, the basic scenario will be divided into four groups, on horseback, horseback vs. foot, and foot attacks. The time period will be between the 11th-12th century, when the warriors were still iconic but perhaps more evenly matched. As well, the combat will be, in general, glorious, single, open, combat! The battle will largely be a fight to the death, but with the warriors themselves seeing it as a fun sparring competition.

Knights

Samurai

Metallurgy
The Japanese, in general, had better metallurgy than the Europeans, with higher strength multiple fold steels capable of providing a stronger, composite material, and

Armor

Comparatively, the

Weapons

Tactics and Strategies

Ultimate Conclusion

The cost of a Border Wall

2013-03-01T01:13:00.000-08:00

Border Wall

A theoretical U.S. border wall seems to be pretty expensive, with varying estimates for costs. Some border wall designs, from Boeing for instance, could range from around 2.4-3 million per mile[1][2], while other estimates predict that a border wall could be up to 25 million per mile[3][4]. This would be around 18-187.5 billion dollars total, for a 7500 mile U.S. border.

The costs would probably be a few million per mile for a decent border wall, and there are at least 7500 miles of U.S. border with Canada and Mexico, therefore meaning a border wall would be on the order of 10's of billions of dollars. However, over 20 years or so the cost of the wall may only be a few billion per year; at 3 million per mile, a border wall, to cover the entire U.S. including the Alaskan and Canadian border, would be approximately 22.5 billion dollars, or around a billion dollars per year. Rather than just accept a cost, I decided to go out and do the mathsz myself!

From calculations, I gathered it would take between 60-90 billion dollars to build a well defended fortification, depending predominately on the price of the building material, the value of building material, and the need to flatten out certain areas in order to place the wall (in some areas, geography could bump the price up to 21 million dollars per mile). The wall would be more of a combined arms defense fortification, the wall intended to slow people down and various weapons intended to engage the enemy, ranging from 155mm howitzers, 40mm anti-aircraft bofors guns, surveillance drones, machine guns, roads, military HUMVEE's for border patrol vehicles, and a host of other things. This equates to approximately 3-4.5 billion dollars per year over the next 20 years; it could potentially last longer if made from crack deflecting, potentially fiber glass infused concrete, although the downpayment would be higher.

The largest cost would come from border security and guards, in the guard towers, with their combined salaries, not even including their training, costing between 6.75 to 13.75 billion dollars per year, compared to the 3-6 billion, max dollars for the wall and it's protection, meaning the wall itself, even if at ludicrous prices, would be substantially cheaper than border patrol is even now.

To learn more about it, read below!

Border Length
Largely, the expense of a border wall depends on how well constructed the border wall is. In some areas, the cost will be higher due to unusual geography, sloped areas, or unstable ground. In some cases, according to the The Congressional Budget Office, This could be up to 21 million dollars per mile.[1][2][3][PDF] But since most of these specific geographic issues make up the minority of cases, I believe it would be relatively easy to get a rough baseline for the cost of a border wall, excluding potentially difficult areas, by getting a rough average on relatively stable ground.

The Border with Mexico is approximately 3,169 km (1,969 mi) [1] in length, while the Canadian U.S. Border 8,891 kilometers (5,525 mi) long, including 2,475 kilometers (1,538 mi) shared with Alaska [1].[2] Combined, the U.S. and Canadian border makes up approximately 7,494 miles, or around 7,500 miles.

Mathsz
Accepting 3 million dollars per mile, for a 7500 mile long border, to cover all of the U.S.'s border, including the Alaskan Canadian border, this would be approximately 22.5 billion dollars. Over 20 years, this would be a little under a billion per year; or, approximately, 1/3600th of the U.S.'s annual budget. Not so bad.

But this would be a wall largely like boeing's design. A dug trench, with a decently flat dirt road, some cameras, a few lights, razorwire and two relatively sturdy iron/steel fences. This could be theoretically moved by shifting mud, dirt, sand, and other things, as well as bad weather or heavy rains. It likely wouldn't stop rampaging vehicles or completely stop people from crossing and likely parts of it would fall over or be removed due to shifting ground issues, like run off with mud. In my opinion, it would be great, but it's only a good start. It also provides baseline for the costs of flattening an area, adjusting for costs in rugged terrain, digging a trench, and a walk/drive way for vehicles.

So, what else is required? Well, a large concrete wall would be nice. But just how large? It's difficult to know for sure, but concrete typically costs around 75-150 dollar per cubic yard[1][2], potentially up to 200 dollars per cubic yard, depending on the price of energy, labor, the quality of concrete, and many other things. Using mostly the Corps of Engineers and the National Guard to construct the fencing, the cost to build a wall was about $2.8 million a mile, while the fencing constructed in 2008, using mostly private constructors, cost about $5.1 million a mile. [1][PDF] Higher strength concrete contains fiberglass, but depending on the amount required to keep the concrete from expanding, cracking, or changing from water and weather damage, it could be anywhere from 200-1200 dollars per cubic yard. As well, there are varying life's of concrete; depending on weather resistant, water resistant, the expansion of the reinforced metal (which can rust), or resistance to temperature changes, can all impact the general life of the concrete, on top of whatever load it's expected to bear. The thickness of the wall is a driving factor in cost; due to the nature of multiplication, it would expand the over-all cubic yardage significantly. For a 9 foot by 3 foot thick wall, or 3 yard tall by 1 yard long wall, this would be approximately 3 square yards. Over a mile, or 1760 yards, this would require approximately 5280 cubic yards of concrete per mile. Assuming 75-150 dollars per cubic yard, the concrete itself would only cost about 400-800,000 dollars per mile, or 3-6 billion dollars total. Not that bad. Of course you need to consider the cost of pouring, steel reinforcement, construction, paving and many other factors, although readying an area typically only costs 10-20 dollars per square foot, and could be cheaper if done by the army core of engineers (since time is money for most commercial construction companies, and this could be included in the total 3 million cost by Boeing). Readying say, a 10 foot wide area, might cost half a million dollars per mile, at most, depending on the geography, or an additional, 3.75 billion dollars. By using the army core of engineers, variable costs, such as time for construction, delays due to rain and weather, and issues of flattening out an area, are all largely alleviated. Since the army core of engineers gets dirt for free, among other things, it would be significantly easier for them to construct a wall, all resources considered on their end, which would reduce prices.

Rebar reinforced concrete generally isn't a whole lot more expensive than regular concrete; indeed rebar is relatively cheap and often times even provides somewhat of mold for the structure. Fiber reinforcement, which can greatly increase the longevity of the concrete, it's flexibility, resistance to water damage, and many other things, can be significantly more expensive. I'm not entirely sure of the cost per cubic yard, or what percentage of fiberglass to concrete ratio should be used, among other things, and due to varying costs and purposes (such as most fiber reinforced concrete going on to form the foundation for bridges, which can be much more expensive than concrete that's simply stronger, albeit perhaps not as strong as a bridge), it's difficult to ascertain what the cost of a probably stronger, but more expensive wall would be. Other types of concrete also escape direct calculations due to the variability.

But, it stands to reason that rebar reinforced concrete with steel webbing should be okay, enough, in the very least, and it's much easier to calculate for. The walls could be constructed and then transported to sight in molds, with the foundation being laid for it to be mounted on, and possibly sunk into later on, making it easier to assemble instead of pouring the molds on sight. Additionally, it could allow the concrete molds to be made in factories or warehouses, increasing the ease of construction and eliminating issues with on sight construction, potentially reducing the cost or other complications that could be associated with the wall.

How long would the wall last; what would it's life be? This is more difficult to calculate.

However! What about an even bigger wall?

Even bigger wall!
So what about an even bigger, stronger wall? Well, 20 foot tall sounds fairly insurmountable, on foot, and even with a ladder it would be hard to sneak in a at this level over the wall, assuming you made it through the trench (which could be designed to make carrying a 20 foot, or say a 16 foot or so ladder, incredibly difficult given the angle of the trench) and the razor wire with a large ladder. With the right design, over hanging razor wire, getting a decent grappling hook or otherwise something similar over could be near impossible, given the angle required, meaning it could potentially eliminate these things as an immediate hazard.

Thickness could vary. Only approximately 3-4 feet in thickness are probably needed. For a 1.3 x 6.5 yard wall, or 20 tall by 4 foot wide wall, this would only be approximately 14,872, or 15,000 cubic yards per mile (1.3 x 6.5 x 1760 yards per mile). At 75 dollars per cubic yard, this would be approximately 1.125 million dollars per mile, or about 8.5 billion dollars total; double this for 150 dollar concrete. Not really that bad.

So what of a HUGE wall? Say, 30 feet tall, 9 feet wide? Well, that's only about 30 square yards; per mile, this would be approximately 52,800 cubic yards. This would be about 3.6 times as expensive, or around 4.05 million per mile, or around 30.6 billion dollars total. Not that bad; over 20 years, it would only be 1.5 billion dollars a year. In my mind a 20 feet wall would do, so say a 24 foot tall wall by nine foot thick would be a little cheaper, while a 24 foot by 6 foot thick wall would be around 2.1 million dollars per mile. But let's go with the crazy awesome cranked up 30 foot tall 9 foot thick wall with razor wire on top; that would be virtually impenetrable.With the boeing ditches, gates, and roads, and whatnot this would be around 18 billion + 30 billion, or potentially 18+ 8.5 to 17 billion dollars, for the 20x4 foot or 24x6 foot walls.

What else would be needed?

Guard Towers
Any good wall is only as good as their surveillance. The point of a wall is to slow down, not completely hinder individuals from getting over. Given enough time and resources an individual could find crafty ways over the wall, without much concern. The object of the wall is to slow people down, enough, say several hours or days, to get by, so that by the time they get to the wall, and possibly over it, and had a chance of escape, they would be noticed. Or requiring tunneling, which could be detected with sonar over long periods of time. All of this essentially requiring them to go to great lengths to get great resources that could be easily spotted miles away without much concern, allowing for adequate time to fight back. These types of situations would allow guards enough time to spot potential trespassers, and have the border patrol respond and move in on people's positions without people simply getting too far inland to catch.

So, how would one construct a guard tower? Well, the most likely scenario is guard towers that are built into the border wall itself. A walk way could be present on top of the concrete wall, allowing passage, with guard rails and a way to avoid getting too close to razor wire (possibly raised up over it), or simply ladders/stairs leading up to each guard tower itself. Each guard tower area would be a little thicker than the surrounding area and probably support a box at the top that was substantially larger than tower itself. So, each guard tower would be, for good measure, somewhat thicker over-all down to the base of the concrete structure, and probably a lot thicker at the top, to house a lot of people, perhaps 20 x 20 foot. I'm not entirely sure how heavy or expensive this would be. But at about 40 foot tall, it stands to reason that not a lot of extra material would be needed. For good measure, a guard tower at about every quarter mile or so, or every 440 yards, that was 40 foot tall, and operated by 6 people total (two people every 8 hours, for morning, mid day and night shifts) seems reasonable and effective.

In my mind, they should use stairs, to prevent potential accidents, and make entering or leaving the facility relatively easy, as climbing up a ladder could result in potentially falling 40 or so feet, possibly with an additional ladder in case of the need of quick way out of the facility; there are some building codes for stairs, but it's usually a good idea to exceed those.

Without alleviated costs, the 12 x 12 foot structure, at approximately 40 feet tall, or 4 x 4 x 13 yards, would be around 15,600 dollars if made of pure concrete, not really that expensive. Assuming it's built into the wall, this would only require approximately 3600 more dollars due to the extra concrete. However, the inside would likely be hollow, to allow for the stair case; assuming a foot gap in the middle and sides for handguards, and a 6 foot wide stair case, 13 by 12 foot long (including flat spaces), that had around 3 foot thick walls, would only be around 3600 dollars. So the guard towers, made out of concrete, wouldn't be that expensive, and hopefully would have some I-beam support.

What type of cameras and surveillance equipment should be used? To eliminate problems with spotting living targets, that could be hiding, and problems at night without distortions from headlights, flood lights, or other issues, thermal vision is probably best. Since thermal vision can focus on living creatures, which generally tend to be warmer than the background, and don't depend on the level of light, unlike night vision which can be unusable during the day or a particularly bright day, or during foggy times etc. thermal vision is probably best for all ranges during the day. However, thermal vision can be expensive; at around 6-15,000 dollars per unit, it's can be a tad pricey, and is about 10 times the cost of night vision on average. Expensive scopes or binoculars can range anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 dollars, all the way up to 10,000 dollars, depending on their value or purpose (so, star gazing scopes or their equivalent could be considerably more expensive). In addition, flood lights, surveillance cameras, TV's, and a place for four people to operate might add on to the cost. Air conditioners would also be required, with standard units being up to 5000 dollars per, and requiring some source of electricity or energy.

Some form of sniper rifle, gun, or otherwise way to warn off or engage attackers would be necessary. Non-lethal long range sound weapons, microwave (ADS system), tear gas launchers (say from 40mm automatic grenade launchers, or mortars) or otherwise some type of device would be required for border patrol to engage targets non-lethally. Since these are relatively under developed it would be difficult to know how to implement them. Due to difficulties with a sniper rifle, including needing a trained sniper, a place to shoot out of, so an open space in the armor of the guard tower, and having a person always being on scope, a .50 caliber machine gun mounted at the top of the guard tower would be preferable. Utilizing a remote controlled CROWS or arrows system, the need for an operator to expose themselves could be eliminated, and long ranged camera and scope based systems could be used to aim. Depending on the variant, they might be around 10,000-46,000 dollars per unit, depending on their sensitivity or speed of target acquisition, which may not be very much if stable (as in, could be cheaper than a mobile version).

Bullet proof glass is also expensive; polycarbonate, plastic, and acrylic glass all form general mixtures for bullet resistant glass, and in order to stop 7.62mm rounds, or powerful sniper or armor piercing rounds, might take up to 2.5 inches of material[1]. Since bullet proof glass costs can range from 10-200 dollars per square meter, a cost of say, oh, 2 meters, by 24 meters long (for 20 x 20 foot wide area, that is over 6 foot tall), would only be, at max, around 10,000 dollars.

In essence, a lot would go into a guard tower. Costs would depend primarily on the value or thickness of various materials. But it's reasonable to assume that it probably wouldn't be much over 100,000 dollars per guard tower. A guard tower every quarter of a mile, or 440 yards, at 100,000 per guard tower, for 7500 miles, would only be about 3 billion dollars. It's easy to see how there would be room for growth, in terms of cost, for a 200,000+ guard tower, depending on what's added per guard tower, meaning that any potential problems could likely be alleviated with money.

One thing a raised, visual identification guard tower couldn't do is detect for underground tunneling. Sonar detectors, pressure sensors, and otherwise abilities to detect vibrations in the ground would be necessary. These could be in the guard towers, but likely this job should fall to border patrol. To locate, investigate, and figure out whether or not any potential tunneling was occurring. I wouldn't even know where to begin finding out the cost of something like this. Maybe the Mythbusters Chinese drums could work out, or fish finders, or any kind of passive sonar system capable of detecting tunneling and vibrations underground. Fish finders usually aren't much over 500 dollars.

You would also need some kind of long range communication system. High powered radios and possibly local radio towers might be necessary.

Cars and other Weapons

Cars
Cars can be pretty expensive. From 10,000 dollars for regular cars, to 40,000 dollar V8 SUV's, to armored vehicles, the price of transportation vehicles can vary given the circumstances and desired paths. It's difficult to come up with an estimate for a would be car and it's quality in terms of reliability, speed, and power on all forms of terrain and in all kinds of weather.

So I figured military HUMVEE's should suffice for a decent patrol car. With consistent, well tested variables, and ensured reliable performance, they would make a good candidate for border protection, or at least be easy for calculation. At 6,000+ pounds, capable of carrying an automatic 40mm grenade launcher or .50 caliber machine gun, and generally being a behemoth of a vehicle, with armored variants capable of stopping fragmentation and armor piercing 7.62mm rounds, they would probably eliminate any issues with being attacked and any issues of terrain. The armored variants range from around 140,000-150,000 dollars. Due to the Iraq war, and the replacement of HUM VEE's, which MRAP's, the military has procured and is now retiring many Hum Vees, which could be implemented or re purposed as border security vehicles, and essentially be free.

At around, oh say, the equivalent of four per every mile, this would only take about 30,000 vehicles. At 150,000 per, this would be about 4.5 billion dollars; not so bad. While gasoline costs would need to be factored in, it's arguable that the vehicles would only move when required, and they would mostly be stationary. The gas mileage isn't too bad, and probably no worse than about 8-10 MPG. Assuming 1 billion's dollars worth of gasoline annually, and HUMVEE's with a range of about 200-300 miles, a 25 gallon tank, and the price of gasoline at 4 dollars per gallon, this would be approximately 10 million tank fulls, enough for 300 trips for approximately 30,000 vehicles, or 60,000 to 90,000 miles of range per year. A billion dollars worth of gasoline would probably cover all the border patrol needed a year, making gasoline costs a non-issue.

Drones and Areal Surveillance
Drones are a new technology available to border security, already in use and planned to increase in the future. I'm not entirely sure how expensive they would be; drones are somewhere around 1-4 million dollars per vehicle, in the case of MQ-1 predator drones, and all the way up to 36 million per vehicle with MQ-9 predators drones, cover variable ranges, and have variable costs per flight time. For the drones used presently by border security, they cost around 3000 dollars per hour, to fly, and flew for a combined 5700 hours a year, at around 18 million dollars annually. Not so bad. For around a billion dollars, you could have up to 250 MQ-1 drones, or up to a 1000 or so with 4 billion dollars, which would likely be enough to match current border patrol surveillance and then some, with flight times and maintenance only being in the millions of dollars, so mostly a negligible cost.

155mm Howitzers
Important to a border security wall, would be big guns. While .50 caliber machine guns (preferably with rubber, general purpose, and high explosive incendiary armor piercing rounds) are powerful, they'd do little to stop an oncoming tank or otherwise a large armored vehicle. As a result, relatively large guns would be required. The general standard for these types of things tends to be a 155mm howitzer. Old howitzers, basically retired, and out of use, would be ideal for this. Able to take out tanks, having a 15+ mile range, and otherwise being incredibly powerful, they would be ideal and already in line with modern military equipment.

There are many retired, but still serviceable 155mm howitzers, with 10,000 or so old M114 howitzers now being replaced by future variants, which could essentially be re purposed for free. Obviously, for one every mile, this would require 7500; with one every two miles, this would only require 3,750 or so. From the M114, to M198 versions, they would all likely be cheaper than the new titanium M777 howitzers, that are about 4.5 million dollars per unit. At around 500,000 dollars for an M198, this would only be around 3.75 billion dollars to cover the entire border, if one was used at every mile. Depending on how many are in storage, the cost of their shells, and many other factors, the cost of 155mm howitzers may be negligible. Due to the issues of needing to man these weapons, with a crew of 5-11 people, the primary costs comes not from the gun itself but from the potential crew manning it. Hence some form of remote operated feature would be required. Preferably with some kind of advanced or computerized targeting system; despite being on the more expensive M777, it's reasonable to assume that the actual electronic targeting systems probably aren't too expensive. Even assuming the same price of the M777 (although limitations on titanium are a major concern, so they'd likely be steel, which would likely cut out the bulk of the price), spaced out every 5 miles instead, this would require only about 1500, or around 6.75 billion dollars.

Likely, these would need to be behind the border wall, on American soil, as to remove any suspicions of guns on foreign soil. As well, they would likely need to be remote operated, to remove the 35,000 to 75,000 odd crew men that would need to be stationed around the area, which would be 1.75 to 3.75 billion dollars in wages alone. Unless transformed into a practice artillery range for soldiers, of some kind, the equipment pieces would likely need to be remote operated in some way. To eliminate issues with accidental, hacked, or corrupted people firing them, it's possible this could be controlled by the national guard or military units, and then positions called in by the guard towers; as in, multiple people would be required to fire the weapon. They could provide videos on potential suspects, linked to U.S. operators, who could decide if the targets were worthy of or called for 155mm Howitzers, and then determine how to respond. Additionally, smoke screens or other such non-lethal rounds could be utilized to mask a position or make it difficult to progress.

Cruise missiles and Anti-air Weaponry
Cruise missiles are pretty expensive; at about 500,000-1,000,000 dollars per, say the Tomahawk BGM-109 cruise missiles, 1 missile every 2 miles would be around 3,750 missiles, or around 1.875-3.75 billion dollars. They would be tactical weapons at best, utilized only in dire situations as a last ditch effort. Say, to take out tanks in the worst case scenario of a large scale enemy land invasion. As a result of their cost and this unlikely scenario, they may be superfluous.

But anti-air guns seem reasonable. There are plenty of weapons; .30 caliber, .50 caliber, even 20mm guns that could all be viable. Air bursting flak rounds which explode when they are within range of a target (whether by utilizing radar, magnetic, or other forms of proximity detection) are probably best to cover the skies in annoying levels of shrapnel. My preference is for the 40mm bofors; relatively cheap, with lots of old unused models, and potentially updated targeting systems, the 40mm bofors serves as a general purpose anti-aircraft weapon. With rounds up to 900 grams, traveling at 1030 m/s, reaching 41,000 feet, and around 460,000 joules, the weapon promises about 2.5 times the power of even the 30mm GAU-8 minigun, and 23 times the power of a .50 caliber rounds, and substantially higher, air bursting payloads, allowing for the easy acquisition of aircraft. Probably at no more than 100,000 dollars per unit, and one placed every mile, this would only at max be around 750 million dollars, and it could potentially be much cheaper, well under 20,000-50,000 dollars per unit, if not free. Yet it would likely eliminate almost any issues with aircraft trying to invade America.

STINGERS, that is standard FIM-92 Stinger 's, likely fired out of ground based unmanned tubular launching platforms, similar to those on the AN/TWQ-1 Avenger vehicles, would likely be a lot more expensive. Despite their incredible range, targeting systems, and anti-aircraft capabilities, each unit costs somewhere on the order of 38,000 dollars per unit, or for one every mile, around 285 million dollars. Depending on the desired usage, you could have around four per mile, say one every guard tower, or four per box, but this would be closer to 1.15 billion dollars. Given their one time use, expense, and potential for accidents, these weapons would only be used as a last line of defense against air based attacks, but they could, in theory, in addition to 40mm bofors rounds, eliminate almost all aircraft issues, being UV based instead of infrared, capable of targeting the exhaust of jets with relative ease.

As a result, it's easy to see how the guns, cars, and other things at the border patrol wall would probably be relatively cheap. At a combined cost of likely less than 10 dollars, for drones, military HUMVEE's and Howitzers, the guns would only amount to a relatively small cost of the over-all cost of the wall.

Employees

Employees would likely make up the bulk of the cost of the border wall. There are approximately 22,000 border patrol personnel, and disregarding costs for vehicles, weapons, training, or other such things, if they received a decent, and average salary of around 50,000 per year, this would cost about 1.1 billion dollars per year, alone. Assuming we quadrupled the border patrol amount, this would be around 4.5 billion dollars a year in wages alone. The entire cost of the U.S. customs annual budget is around 11.84 billion dollars, so an additional 4.5 billion dollars would be over 25% increase in cost. [1][2]

But what of the guard towers? 4 people per guard towers to ensure constant 24 hours surveillance, and then one extra person, for four towers every quarter of a mile, or 30,000 towers, would require 120,000 personnel. Quite possibly, to ensure two people in the facility at any one time, you would need six people per tower daily if taking 8 hours shifts. Assuming 12 hours shifts, this would still require four people. That means this might take up to 120,000-180,000 personnel, guards, watching over the area rather scrupulously to look out for any potential deadly assassins!

Which would be about 6 to 9 billion dollars, a year, to fund. Considering how close this is to the 12 billion dollars of the entire U.S. customs budget and the raw volume of people required to do this, this could be rather huge. It's arguable that this could be reserve military, military, training, or otherwise already existing military personnel, to possibly lower the price of constant surveillance. It's arguable it could be a mix of both. They could take relatively low salaries or payment to reduce the over-all cost or any number of potential cost fixes. But one things for sure, it would be rather expensive. It would be possible to spread out the guard towers to every mile or so, reducing the total amount to a quarter of that before, although they would need to be taller, at about 60 feet or so, and probably require 6 personnel per unit, putting it at 2.25 billion per year. But being so spread out might make it harder to see people coming, requiring more powerful scopes, or more attentive surveillance. You would also likely lose a lot of contact between guard towers.

All of the cost of wages would not include the price of training, arming, and providing other benefits to the employees. As a result the costs could very well be double that of what's predicted or shown. In the long run, wage and training might make up the bulk of the cost of a border wall, rather than a border wall, even extremely well protected, itself. Even at 3 billion dollars per year in the minimum predicted wage costs with only an additional 60,000 personnel, this would match the cost of a 60 billion dollars wall per year.

Over-all Cost

The over-all cost of the wall, in my opinion, doesn't really seem to be that high. Perhaps 30 billion for the wall, excluding gates, with a 24-30 foot tall by 6-9 foot wide wall. An additional 2.4 million dollars per mile, or 18 billion dollars, for razor wire, iron gates, a trench, and a flat place to drive for cars, potentially with road barriers to stop cars from ever reaching the wall. Stretching 7500 miles, this fenced and wall protected area would cost about 48 billion dollars.

Guard towers would cost somewhere on the order of .75-3 billion dollars, with HUMVEE's, drones, howitzers, and anti-air guns only tacking on about 3 billion, 4 billion, 3.75 billion, and 750 million dollars respectively. Combined, this is an, only additionally, 11.5 billion dollar expenditure.

This reaches only 59.5 billion dollars, or about 60 billion dollars, for anti-air guns, cruise missiles, howitzers, armored vehicles, hopefully tanks, and potentially some other vehicles committed to the border wall. Over 20 years, this should be only about 3 billion per year.

With the added price of gasoline, this is around 1 billion extra per year (although it's enough for 75,000 miles a year per vehicle). With the price of employment, this could be anywhere from an additional 6.75 to 13.75 billion dollars annually, depending on the border patrol wage costs and the number of guard towers, from anywhere from 60,000 to 240,000 additional people.

It is therefore conceivable that the largest cost to the wall is not necessarily the wall itself, but employment. Even if the wall itself was twice as expensive, this would only be 6 billion per year, over 20 years, or 12 billion if double again. As a result it's easy to see how a mammoth, well protected wall would, in the long run, be relatively cheap, even compared to the surveillance designed to protect it.

Ethical considerations, political concerns, or reasons for the wall are also an issue not calculated. The value and purpose of the wall should be considered and dealt with. I personally believe that as an attempt to keep out foreign invaders and even potentially illegal contraband (90% which has been traceable to Mexican drug cartels), the wall would be preferable and a necessary precaution, but that it should, if anything, be used to streamline, and not prevent immigration into the U.S.

Jet Pack

2013-02-14T11:45:00.002-08:00

Jet Pack

Jet packs are often things that are struggled with, in a way to try to develop a working mechanism to achieve flight. Jet packs often represent the pinnacle of what could be available to the common man, allowing the average person to fly, or say, fly to work, without the need of an overly large or expensive vehicle. While many solutions have been proposed, and few have succeeded due to practical limitations, I do have a few ideas to how one may work.

One problem with Jet packs seems to be the rocket. Rockets are incredibly inefficient, for many reasons, a large reason being the needed for an internal oxygen source. Since oxygen is relatively heavy compared to other elements often used in combustion, such as hydrogen or carbon, oxygen makes up the bulk of the weight of fuel, and therefore a limit to how long a jet pack can fly (probably, the single largest limitation to jet packs is range and flight time, compared to relative cost). Due to it's large mass in comparison, with the oxidizer of rocket fuel causing the rocket to be roughly 3 times heavier than standard jet fuel, eliminating an internal oxygen supply, or perhaps a molecular one, may make an engine design practical for sustained flight without exceeding the gratuitous weight limit for flight, which could make practical flight impossible if too high, more weight requiring more fuel.For comparison, an F15 is approximately 28,000 pounds, and uses approximately 13,500 pounds of fuel, or around half it's mass in fuel.[1][2] If extra oxygen was required, this might require approximately 40,000 pounds of fuel, significantly more than the mass of the plane.

Additionally, rocket engines by themselves are generally relatively inefficient. General turbine jet engines, that combine oxygen from the air with fuel, tend to be significantly more efficient in their own right, due to their design. A standard rocket efficiency is around 5.9%, whereas a conventional, modern, air-breathing jet engine has an efficiency of around 35%.[1] Thus a conventional jet engine would require six times less fuel to achieve the same distance or time traveled, based on fuel efficiency alone. Generally, rocket fuel is 3 times heavier than standard jet fuel. If the mass of oxygen is factored in, with say, traditional kerosene jet fuel being used, compared to hydrogen peroxide, or a liquid oxygen and hydrogen fuel mix, the kerosene jet fuel absorbing oxygen from the air, then 3 times more fuel is required on this basis alone, given that 3 times more energy is present by using oxygen from the air, rather than within the fuel source. Thus, allowing for approximately 18 times the distance to be traveled, by simply using a more efficient design.

For a base comparison, a Jet pack produced for the U.S. army, for instance, the Bell Rocket Belt, was able to fly for approximately 30 second (in it's improved variant). Therefore, a jet engine design, operating on the simple notion of improved fuel and improved engine efficiency, could theoretically fly for roughly 9 minutes, if it otherwise carried the same properties (aerodynamics, etc.), with a 200 pound person, approximately.

Therefore it is imperative to utilize more efficient engine designs, and more efficient fuels, incorporating external, ambient sources of oxygen, to allow for longer, and more practical flight times. Wings are also an important consideration, considering that wings would allow for higher fuel efficiencies as well, where as traditional rockets (and jet packs, like the Bell Rocket), simply propel themselves without the assistance of wings. By utilizing wings, the design could theoretically be even more efficient, from 2.5 times more with a glider wing suit, or 15 times or more with a proper high efficiency glider.

Fuel

Using something other than rocket fuel, for various reasons, can provide a higher energy to weight ratio for fuel, which takes up the bulk of the weight in most flying devices.

The energy density of Kerosene, or jet fuel, is comparable to gasoline, at around 46 mega joules per kilogram. Jet-A, the standard commercial jet fuel, which must reach ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A), designed with a relatively high flash point, and a number of other safety issues including a stable burn, has around 43 mega joules per kilogram.[1][2][3] I am unsure of the exact energy density of various kind of rocket fuels, although they generally tend to be three times denser than standard jet fuel, producing significantly less energy in terms of over-all mass. This is because they utilize stored oxygen, rather than oxygen from the air, which increases the mass of the fuel. 1 gallon of gasoline for instance produces roughly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide[1]; despite being around 6.8 pounds itself, the oxygen from the air represents the bulk of it's weight in mass, thus producing a 1 to 3 ratio in terms of weight. This means that utilizing the open air jet engines could, based on fuel alone, increase efficiency (in terms of mass) by some 3 times over current designs.

Hydrogen has an even higher energy to mass ratio than kerosene, however. At 43 mega joules per kilogram to hydrogen 123[1][2], hydrogen is approximately 2.85 times more energetic than kerosene in terms of it's energy to mass ratio. This could allow for around 25 minutes of uninterrupted flight using the same basic size and design jet pack, based off of these aspects alone.

However, hydrogen has many drawbacks. Hydrogen is highly volatile, having a potential air to fuel ratio of 4-75%, compared to say gasoline at 6-12%, and a low ignition temperature and energy requirement, capable of being set off by sunlight in the presence of oxygen. Since the oxygen ratio can be extremely variable, hydrogen, even in small amounts, or gratuitous amounts (presumably snuffing out the oxygen) can erupt in giant fireballs. Even at 700 bar, a maximum safe range for a high strength container, hydrogen is still 6 times more voluminous than jet fuel or gasoline, taking up significantly more space and also requiring a high pressure container, which is usually heavy. Since hydrogen is often created from natural gas, and wastes over 40% of the energy, it can be wasteful to produce economically, as well. As a result, hydrogen may not be an ideal fuel source, but it does theoretically provide the highest weight to fuel ratio available, if other factors can be eliminated.

Wings

Wings, perhaps, shed light on how to create the largest range or time of flight increase. Since most rockets lack wings, they generally can be ignored in terms of relative gliding ratios in comparison; particularly, compared to the original jet pack used by the military, or similiar designs.

Right off the bat, a wing suit, that is a commercially available wing suit, can provide a glide ratio of roughly 2.5 to 1, or extend the life of flight by 2.5 times. [1][2] This means that by wearing an awesome glider/wing suit, you can potentially fly 2.5-3 times longer than without one. Ignoring the potential power of hydrogen, this would allow for roughly 27 minutes in flight, or around 75 minutes with hydrogen.

A plane typically has around 12 to 1 glide ratio, while a hang glider has some 15 to 1 ratio. It's easy to see how 30 minutes, multiplied by 12 or 15 could result in a several hour flight, allowing a substantial distance to be crossed. Assuming a substantially efficient glider, even less fuel could be used if a current could be caught, allowing the engine to simply propel the glider up to the maximum height required to catch a current, therefore allowing for a more capable glider operation, or safety issues in case of gliding issues.

Thus if a hang glider, wing suit, or other available high glide ratio is utilized, than even less fuel would be required to travel the same distance. This could be anywhere to 6-8 hours, or more depending on the efficiency of the design. Sail planes for instance often have a glide ratio of 45-70 (although they are substantially larger, and, large planes, of course).

In Conclusion
Jetpacks would be awesome. Getting around the house, on top of the roof, flying to the grocery store, or any other variety of tasks where flight would be useful. Allowing oneself to fly while not being hampered by a large vehicle, allowing hands to be used, could be incredibly useful. Obviously, some kind of suit, protection gear, and helmet and goggles would be required in order to be safe.

The bell rocket belt, used at the Olympics, was later revived in 2000, and was capable of approximately 30 seconds in flight, a maximum speed of 60 mph (96kmph), and a distance of around 350 meters, at 60 kilograms (132 pounds) with 6 gallons of fuel. I am unsure how efficient the design was, the exact energy density of the fuel (water being present in the diluted form, the efficiency of conversion and the catalyst etc.), or other such factors, but it stands to reason that it is not that far off from the basic estimates.

With the initial factors considered, a 6 times more efficient engine, and 3 times more efficient fuel, this would give the jet pack approximately 9 minutes of flight. A jet pack comparative to to the bell rocket, H202-Z flew for approximately 33 seconds[1][2], while jet pack Jet pack T-73, using a jet engine type design, and kerosene, flew for approximately 9 minutes, indicating that the general concept of an 18 times longer flight time probably holds true in most scenarios.

This means that with a 3 to 1 glide ratio, with a simple, small glider, around the capabilities of a glider suit, a person could theoretically fly for roughly 27 minutes, or around 30 minutes. With a 12 to 1 ratio, similiar to a boeing 747, you could fly for approximately 6 hours. Given the longer time in flight, this could mean a significantly farther range. At 60 mph this would be approximately 360 miles, or perhaps 150 miles to your destination and back, shorter than your average trip to work.

However, the T-73, could fly approximately 18 km; however, it's speed was somewhere around 80 miles per hour, and a slower speed could mean a somewhat higher efficiency. In any case, the maximum range, if 12 times more efficient, would be approximately 216 kilometers, or 135 miles. This would easily be to work and back, or to a store; so 60 miles to a destination, and 60 miles back. While relatively heavy, at around around 130-200 pounds, these jet packs could essentially be significantly lighter and more practical than planes. With a glider suit, the range could be some 45 kilometers, or 28 miles, for a 14 mile trip there and back.

If scaled down to 1/6th their size, if this is potentially possible, it could be a more reasonable 20 to 30 pounds. While it would have a shorter time in flight, this could still be 22 miles. Using a poor glider suit instead, that would be approximately 4.6 miles, and even 4 times smaller, it would be 5-6 pounds, with a range of about a mile. Quite a feat for previous jet packs that would have otherwise been only able to travel a few hundred meters, and last for 30 seconds.

This of course dependent on a variety of factors. But in short, by utilizing wings, a more efficient design, and fuel, it may be possible to travel significantly farther than current jet packs allow, allowing them to reasonable forms of transportation, or at least for moving around the house.

Body Armor

2013-01-11T04:02:00.000-08:00

Increasing Body armor Capabilities

On the Aspect of Cost
The United States's military spent roughly $300 million dollars on interceptor body armor in 2004; an Interceptor system costs roughly $1,585.Theoretically, that equates to roughly 189,274 units or around 190,000 interceptor units; to my knowledge more armor has been purchased since then but I'm not entirely aware how many have been obtained or how much each vest costs.

60,000 MTV and IMTV (improved, modular tactical vest) vests have been purchased by the marines, and another 28,364 vests have been purchased by the navy. Assuming roughly the same price as the Interceptor, around 140 million extra dollars would ave been spent on body armor since august 2008. Both of these have predominately been for the Afghanistan and Iraq efforts. I also know that in 2013 the pentagon awarded two contracts worth a total of 158 million dollars to two companies.

The soft body armor used by the military has roughly a IIIA NIJ rating, or is capable of stopping 9mm rounds, .44 Magnums or anything below, but not rifle rounds.

This means that, annually, over the past 10 years, on average, the military has spent roughly 45 million dollars (to my knowledge) on body armor per year, most of which was for, the Iraq and Afghanistan effort. With the new armor in 2013, this might be an additional 16 million per year, or around 60 million dollars, with a number of potential Even if it was 70 million dollars on average, annually, That would still be 1/10,000th of the nearly 700 billion dollar budget the military receives. The armor, worn by our primary troops, and individual units, human beings, people, is less than 1/10,000th of our total spending; and that assumes I've overestimated the guess by 10 million dollars a year. This equals roughly 3.5 Apache helicopters, half an F35, or roughly 1/10th of the cost of a single B-2 bomber. The armor worn by medics, tank crews, soldiers on foot, repair crew, practically everyone that can benefit from personal defense, is only given 1/10,000th of the total budget, practically nothing in comparison to our other purchases. To purchase 700 million dollars worth of body armor a year would be 2.3 times more than the 200,000 interceptor vests we bought back in 2004, the largest single expenditure on body armor in the last 10 years.

I actually support the B-2 bombers, F-35 planes, and other high grade military equipment we have, despite it's price; I'm not suggesting we getting rid of a B-2 bomber or half an F-35 in order to procure more body armor, but I think the relative costs of these items, of which we are planning on buying thousands of F-35's, put the issue of cost into perspective. The military could afford better body armor for it's primary troop scape (about 200,000 people deployed "over seas") for just a small fraction of it's total cost. The cost of body armor at the moment is nearly negligible, meaning we could theoretically spend gratuitous amounts on body armor without much issue, and yet the armor has trouble stopping rifle rounds and threats currently faced by troops every day. Cost is not a significant factor in my opinion, and if there was a more effective option available, say 10 times more expensive, or roughly 15,000 dollars per vest, it's over-all costs would be nothing compared to it's potential impacts (such as actually making our soldiers rifle resistant, opening up a whole new line of capabilities, and protection), or even the medical bills we currently pay, as horrific and awful as that is. At 50,000 dollars per unit, which would likely be more expensive than we would really need, we would spend 10 billion dollars for 200,000 units, to provide armor for our entire deployed troopscape, which we could easily afford every year, let alone when replacements are desired.

Carbon Nano-tubes
An option I'm not necessarily suggesting, but theoretically could work, and that will also hopefully give a sense of scale, is nanocomp armor CNT (carbon nano tube) armor. Carbon nano-tubes. An example of Nano-comp armor, or CNT armor, that currently exists, is a 2mm piece of material, roughly the thickness of a few business cards, that is capable of stopping a 9mm round without significant penetration or destruction of the material. The company says it's targeting growth and maturation akin to carbon fiber, with a target material cost of $350/kg to $400/kg. I'm not sure if it's capable of stopping more rounds, what level of 9mm rounds (fired at higher velocities), or capable of withstanding repeated impacts, but this puts the armor at roughly level II NIJ armor capabilities assuming minimum capabilities. Comparable Kevlar armor vests of this armor rating are generally around 6-8mm in thickness.

Assuming minimum capabilities, this makes the nano comp armor roughly 3 times stronger than Kevlar on a thickness to thickness ratio. Since carbon nanotubes are around 1.3-1.4 grams per cubic centimeter while Kevlar is around 1.4, the mass is comparable, making carbon nanotubes approximately 3 times stronger in terms of weight. The target cost is around 350-400 dollars per kilogram, so each pound is likely 160-180 dollars. But, let's just assume it's going to be 500 dollars per kilogram, or 230 dollars per pound, taking into account certain variables, shipping costs, or some other cost not accounted for. A standard 16 lb interceptor vest, made out of this material, would be around 3600 dollars or 2.3 times it's current price. This would have equated in a 690 million dollar cost for 192,000 vests, instead of 300 million, a negligible cost considering the billions spent annually. Perhaps almost equal to a B2 bomber (not that I don't support B2 bombers, I believe their existence and use is necessary). And this is assuming that the armor is 3 times as powerful, which it is likely 4, this is assuming the cost is 500 dollars per kilogram, which it is likely 350-400 (390-560 million dollars), and that there aren't potentially better nanocomp type materials already available. This would mean tripling the effectiveness of modern body armor assuming minimum capacities, for a practically negligible cost.

Put in another perspective, Kevlar EOD suits can be around 50-80 pounds. They generally protect from large projectiles, fragmentation, and general explosives, although they are heavy, bulky, and trap in enough body heat to the point where they can cause heat stress, and aren't expected to be worn for more than 1 hour without some form of internal cooling. A suit that was 3 times lighter weight, at the same strength, would only be approximately 26 pounds; since the carbon nanotubes are more heat resistant than Kevlar, and potentially have other admirable properties, the armor could be a lot thinner, ignoring the rubber and foam, and potentially eliminate heat issues. However, such a suit, if at 500 dollars per kilogram, or 230 dollars per pound, would cost about 6000 dollars, or roughly four times that we spent on interceptor body armor. Despite this, the costs to our over-all military would be negligible, or for our deployed troopscape, 1.2 billion dollars. If the material was 4 times stronger than Kevlar, and used potentially dyneema over plastic for fragmentation disentegration, it could easily be around 20 pounds.

Although it's easy to see how such an armor system might not appear available. These products are only almost within mass production and their effectiveness has yet to face the rigor of the military or military testing, so perhaps unknown or untested complications will arise. Still, assuming they did function correctly, and were relatively strong

M5 Fiber
Something I do believe in supporting immediately is M5 fiber. M5 fiber is about as strong as Kevlar, at around half the thickness and weight, that is elastic, much more heat tolerant, and a very chemically stable material, meaning it's likelihood to break down due to UV, chemicals or heat is relatively low. It's heat tolerance is supposedly above that of nomex, making it potentially better than what current firefighters wear and also potentially useful against warm environments as general armor. Being an Aramid, it carries roughly the same properties as Kevlar, although the elasticity may make it over-all more durable and even potentially more capable for repeated impacts given it's ability to yield when stretch, rather than being permanently stretched and therefore weakened.

Liquid body armor, or nano silica particles suspended in ethylene glycol after being baked in an oven, is known to increase Kevlar's Strength by roughly 3.5 times it's current amount. The material is a non-newtonian fluid, meaning that it behaves like a solid under stress or impact, like corn starch. Four layers of STF-treated Kevlar can dissipate the same amount of energy as 14 layers of neat Kevlar (or 3.5 times, although it has worse performance against knives and low velocity impacts). In addition, STF-treated fibers don't stretch as far on impact as ordinary fibers, meaning that bullets don't penetrate as deeply into the armor or transfer as much blunt force trauma to the target; the researchers theorize that this is because it takes more energy for the bullet to stretch the STF-treated fibers. This means that, potentially, M5 fiber could be flat out 7 times stronger than kevlar on a mass to mass basis, and roughly on a thickness basis; this means that a typical interceptor vest could be 7-8 times more powerful, or powerful enough to warrant fully body armor or more body armor that's lighter but still retains more or equal strength. Combined with increased multiple shot protection due to increased stretch resistant and stretching capability, the armor may provide legitimate multiple round protection against extremely powerful rounds, and particularly against higher velocity rounds, potentially rifle rounds. Both liquid body armor and M5 fiber have higher protection against higher velocity rounds, potentially allowing for greater stopping power in a variety of generally high velocity rounds, such as rifle rounds or certain armor piercing rounds. I am not entirely aware of the costs, of either system, but even if it was 10 times the cost of current body armor it's cost would still be negligible. At 15,000 dollars per vest/suit, or 10 times current body armor costs, the entire military could obtain these, for 3 million individuals, for roughly 45 billion dollars, and those required would be for currently deployed troops and individuals in training; that would mean 4.50 billion dollars for 300,000, or for slow procurement over 10 years for the entire military or just for the active troops in combat zones/training scenarios. With a relatively high shelf life it shouldn't wear out over time, as well. At 150,000 dollars each it would be 1/20th the budget for those procured for just general combat troops and training, or 1/10th to 1/20th the cost over 5-10 years for the entire military (being fielded to combat troops first).

There are all kinds of options available that could be implemented relatively quickly with relatively minor expenses to the over-all budget. Even so, medical bills and logistical costs make up the bulk of our cost of deployment, in terms of money. Even less soldiers were required, due to their increased effectiveness, in the long term hundreds of billions of dollars could be shaved off, along with the cost of medical bills and veteran rehabilitation costs, which if the armor could protect against the basic threats faced today, from IED's to Ak-47's, would be relatively low.

Do I blame the military for the weaker body armor? No.

But I do somewhat blame people in Congress for most likely suggesting "that sounds expensive" when likely the cost would be nearly negligible and super expensive body armor would still be negligible costs and it's obviously fiscally and generally stupid to not get it. I wouldn't care if it was 10% of our budget, if it could or could have prevented 90% of our current causalities I would be happy, and it still would amount to nearly nothing considering all it would do.

The acute and Chronic Effects of Marijuana use as found by Modern Science

2012-10-13T13:43:00.003-07:00

The acute and Chronic Effects of Marijuana use as found by Modern Science

Immediate Physiological Effects

Immediate physiological effects in marijuana include raising the heart rate and decreasing blood pressure, despite the increased heart rate (which would normally increase blood pressure.) This combination by itself is unusually unhealthy under most circumstances, but the degree of it's impact is important to consider.

Usually, under the acute effects of marijuana, the heart rate raises 1.5-2 times it's resting rate, with chronic users. Jogging or brisk running paces usually reach these levels. If combined with other drugs, or strenuous activity, it can raise the heart rate to unsafe levels. In general, triple the resting heart rate is the maximum safe level for the heart rate, and this can only maintained for a few minutes; with marijuana is may remain at dangerously unsafe levels for several hours. If coupled with any other activity that raises the heart rate, including strenuous activity, this can put severe strain on the heart, cuasing both long term and short term problems.

Marijuana also decreases blood pressure, by about X amount. If combined with other drugs, like alcohol or blood pressure medication, it can easily drop blood pressure levels to incredibly unsafe levels, resulting in permanent heart damage, or even death. Generally, blood pressure levels should not be below X level, and marijuana is X level. Therefore sustained levels below this for extended periods of time can be dangerous and damage the heart.

Combined, the effects of both of these are magnified; a high heart rate and low blood pressure can damage the heart for a number of reasons.

Immediate physiological effects in marijuana include raising the heart rate and decreasing the blood pressure despite the increased heart rate (which would normally increase blood pressure.) If combined with other drugs that either increase the heart rate or substantially lower blood pressure the effects can be drastic or even fatal. In general, acute marijuana use raises the heart rate 1.5-2 times it's resting or normal rate; this suggests that if an individual was rest, and their heart rate was around 75 BPM at rest rate, it would be between 112.5 and 150 BPM. It is not uncommon for jogging heart rates to reach these levels, suggesting that while the acute effects persist it would be as if running a marathon frequently. If one were to be jogging or moving relatively quickly while under the acute effects of marijuana, this may double what would ordinarily be the jogging heart rate; such as if an individual was jogging while under the acute effects of marijuana, and the jogging heart rate was 112.5 to 150, it would be double this under the effects of marijuana, or 250-300, far above what might be considered sprinting levels.

The maximum safe levels of heart rate for an individual would be near triple their resting heart rate. Minor strenuous activity that can easily raise the heart rate to 1.5 or double the resting heart rate This suggests that if any kind of strenuous activity is combined with marijuana, the acute effects on the heart and exceed safety levels enormously.

Long Term Physiological Effects

Marijuana uses stresses the heart a lot, usually not enough to kill immediately unless coupled with some other heart condition, strenuous activity, or drug. However, over time this chronic damage can have life long debilitating effects.

Angiogenesis

Chronic use

Lungs, if smoked

Short Term Acute Psychological and Nervous System Effects

Long Term Physiological and Nervous System Effects

More or less
There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that frequent marijuana use can damage the lungs, heart, kidney, liver, and other organs in addition to the brain, both lowering cognitive capacities, reaction time, and having adverse effects on the response to dopamine and other Endocannabinoid systems. Due to the amount of time it can persist in the system dissolved in lipids and other parts of the body, even infrequent use can cause trouble with driving, health, and general work throughout the day even days after acute administration. Recreational use should take great care to avoid any work for days after an event, or possibly not be taken at all.

National Bank

2012-08-31T22:04:00.002-07:00

National Bank

The united States pays 227 billion dollars in interest annually. If 90% of this cost was alleviated, due to the National Banking system being a non-profit low interest system designed to benefit all parties involved, roughly 204 billion dollars could be saved annually.

The United State's already guarantees and backs most banks in the United States, agreeing to provide them with monetary funds to pay back investors should many of them withdraw at any point in time. Due to the fact that the U.S. backs the bankers, the U.S. is in theory a bank to the bankers.

If a non-profit low interest rate system was developed (only enough interest to run the program, and pay employees etc.) and funded by the United States, theoretically an enormous amount of debt relief and interest problems could be removed from the American people. A 30 year loan on a house at a 3.5% interest rate (standard market interest rate) would equate to roughly 105% extra money being paid on a house, doubling the cost for housing. If 100% of this was eliminated, housing prices could literally be cut in half; in other words if a low interest, or a 30 year interest rate was reduced to merely 5% at the culmination of 30 years, the small portion necessary for storing, loaning money, and various processing fees being ignored, housing prices could literally be cut in half.

Not only would this help the United States but also reduce the price of housing, car loans, and most other costs drastically.

Most major banks receive the majority of their income from corporations and other businesses, as well as individuals well over the 1% in annual income rates, allowing major interest and debt relief for roughly 98% of the population to occur without affecting the Banks primary income rates. Not only could this benefit the American people and the United State's budget, but also allow for a more seamless transaction between banks and the U.S. reserve's.

If the U.S. created a banking system, they already pay for and protect most banks in the U.S., installing and creating security systems and providing police supports for robberies. As a result, the cost of switching over to a U.S. created system wouldn't put more stress on the government to in essence, build a banking infrastructure, as they already do pay for the majority of it, while banks produce little. Because banks do not lose money in banking transactions, as no physical commodity is produced, banks will not lose profit on already built capital (such as failing to sell 1 million automobiles for next year, as banks make profit purely off of more people being available). Therefore, cutting down business will not make them lose already spent money, suggesting that profit gains and losses will be directly proportional. Banks will not be obscenely hurt, and the workers in these banks could be easily switched over to officially work for the government, getting rid of the middle men and saving billions.

Random Idea

2012-08-31T22:03:00.002-07:00

Random Idea

Take away taxes on consumers, increase them on business, better for average person, no net loss for business or government.

Basic equations!

40,000(dollars) x 25(workers) = 1,000,000 (in market)

Gross product, 1,000,000 (all of market). Workers spend money back on market, to get things, to live. Workers break even. Company makes 1,000,000 in sales. 1,000,000

10% tax rate = 36,000 (dollars) x 25(workers)= 900,000, x 10% again (taxes) = 190,000 in taxes, 36,000 dollars a year and 810,000 for market after taxes.

Increase taxes to 19% on business, decrease to 0% on consumers. 40,000 x 25 = 1,000,000 x .19 = 190,000, or taxes before.

Except! More products to consumers. Maybe. Idk. O_O

Global Warming

2012-08-31T20:05:00.002-07:00

Global Warming
So far, there is little concrete proof that global warming is being caused by a predominately man made carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect as presented by the IPCC and a few other organizations (although in the case of NASA and the EPA, not all members of the organization necessarily agree).[1][2][3] While carbon dioxide may be having some effect, there is little evidence to indicate that it's a significant issue, or predominately responsible for any of the arbitrary warming that may theoretically be occurring.

Global warming works in many ways, but the carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect works by a small band or layer of carbon dioxide in the mid troposphere making the effect of carbon dioxide relatively stronger per unit than water vapor.[1][2][3] The Ozone layer blocks much of the UV that comes to earth; Visible radiation going through the earth's atmosphere, and a small amount of UV, is absorbed and reflected back up into the Atmosphere at much lower frequencies, or in the infrared zones, which is opaque to various greenhouse gases, including water vapor. Greenhouse gases absorb and then reflect or re-radiate the infrared radiation, which is produced by the earth from visible light and other forms of radiation, in nearly all directions, some of it down, back towards earth which prolongs it's time in the atmosphere and warms up the earth.[1][2][3] Water vapor is at roughly 20,000 parts per million in the atmosphere, compared to a maximum of 400 for carbon dioxide, or exists in over 50 times the volume as carbon dioxide. This makes the effect of carbon dioxide relatively minor in comparison to the effect of water vapor and other more powerful and present greenhouse gases, near the surface.[1][2][3][4][5]

However, the reality is somewhat more complex for the carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect. The atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal or infrared radiation (with exceptions for "window" bands which let some of the heat through), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport, or more or less direct heat transfer. [1][2][3] Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect, with carbon dioxide, as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate. This particular area of carbon dioxide is far more important on the warming effect of the earth than it otherwise would be as a greenhouse gas due it's increased concentration and the lack of interaction from the water reflecting most of the infrared back down. [1][2][3][4][5][6]

If carbon dioxide does not reach this layer, which carbon dioxide produced from the surface, such as with cars and animals, rarely does, since it is denser than air and clumps at the surface and even in the mid troposphere,[1][2][3][4] it has little effect on this form of the greenhouse effect, making it relatively unimportant, which due to it's small amount in comparison, makes it relatively negligible. Unless the carbon dioxide reaches this layer in the mid troposphere, which being heavier than the atmosphere and clumping mostly to the surface due to the fact it does not diffuse through it, let alone uniformly, it's effect is relatively negligible. Due to the manner in which it reflects radiation back down, this surface in the mid troposphere is much thicker than is required to warm the earth; because so little gets past the surface of this band of carbon dioxide, increasing the thickness of this layer would also be mostly negligible in warming the surface. It's as a result of this that increasing carbon dioxide levels, produced from cars, fires, and other man made objects, are relatively insignificant.

In other words, the total volume of carbon dioxide is not the worry, but it's distribution. Since it does coat practically all of the mid troposphere, albeit unevenly, and with important exceptions for window bands considered, it reflects nearly all of the of radiation that can be reflected (predominately in the infrared spectrum) back down. This suggests that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will have a negligible impact; as long as there is a near complete cover of the earth's mid-tropospheric Atmosphere, even unevenly, forming a virtual wall, it will reflect most of the infrared back down; increasing levels do not change it's effects, as evidenced by how it operates and satellites which have proven no increase of temperatures over areas with higher carbon dioxide levels in their specific mid-tropospheric regions. In other words, while some areas have increased and decreased carbon dioxide levels, the levels do not seem to be affecting temperatures specifically nearly at all. [1][2][3][4]

Indeed, it was originally assumed carbon dioxide had a near even spread partially as a result of this near even infrared reflection. Areas with higher carbon dioxide levels do not tend to necessarily produce more heat. Areas over the equator tend to have less carbon dioxide than areas in temperate zones, yet their temperatures are often higher[1]. While important to the global warming cycle, relative power cannot be measured on a unit to unit basis; indeed, the carbon dioxide in the ocean and near the surface is considered less important than that of which is higher up in the atmosphere and that of which is in the mid troposphere. The importance of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse cycle is not dependent on amount, but distribution in the atmosphere; this also means that increasing the amount in important areas of distribution will likely have a negligible effect on warming. This means increasing levels, if they do increase, will likely have negligible effects except for surface increases, of which carbon dioxide is one of the weakest greenhouse gases in comparison to natural gas, nitrous oxide, and even water vapor in this form.

The amount we do produce is also being rapidly absorbed by trees, the ocean, and other waterborne carbon dioxide consuming creatures such as algae. NASA individuals, using the amount of carbon dioxide that is predicted to be produced by the IPCC, proved that it would at least have to be much cooler in the same given time frame, given how much carbon dioxide is likely to be absorbed by these sinks, even assuming it made it to the mid troposphere and amplified it's effects, which is unlikely. In a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters, NASA scientists estimate that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide will result in 1.64 degrees Celsius of warming over the next 200 years, max. As stated by NASA the IPCC Did not allow the vegetation to increase its leaf density as a response to the physiological effects of increased CO2 and consequent changes in climate. Other assessments included these interactions but did not account for the vegetation down regulation to reduce plant’s photosynthetic activity and as such resulted in a weak vegetation negative response. According to NASA; "When we combine these interactions in climate simulations with 2 × CO2, the associated increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2." [1][2][3][4][5][6]

There are also a lot more radiative energy losses in this carbon dioxide zone than has been suggested by the IPCC, as well. According to some individuals at NASA, it's significantly less. While the carbon dioxide reflects virtually all the infrared back down to earth, only about 50% of the radiation produced by the earth is infrared and a certain percentage of the energy is lost as latent and sensible heat, reducing it's effects, in addition to the fact that heat is absorbed by the atmosphere, which is then lost by it's expulsion. Even assuming an increase would have a significant effect, it would be much, much less, as a result. Even while NASA proclaims the importance of carbon dioxide in the warming cycle, it does not state that increasing it will have a significant effect. -??[1][Remote Sensing PDF]

Carbon dioxide levels taken from ice core drilling are routinely used to measure temperatures of previous ages. There is a connection between warm weather and carbon dioxide, but it is not the carbon dioxide causing the warming. When the oceans warm, the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved into them decreases, due to the fact that warmer waters cannot store as much carbon dioxide in them, much like how colder carbon dioxide drinks stay fizzier longer (warm drinks can, but they have to be held under pressure, which is why warm soft drinks often explode in the heat). As a result, carbon dioxide is released as a result of the oceans warming, which serves as a good measurement when relative measures are taken from ice core drilling to figure out carbon dioxide levels, influence by the ocean, since over 70% of the carbon dioxide released is from the ocean.[1][2][3][4][5][6] It should be noted that since carbon dioxide increases when it's warm, and not the other way around, that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere does not exponentially warm the earth or else no cooling events would happen; if anything, the carbon dioxide release from the oceans after a warming event would seem to cool it down, since it has cooled since these times, compounding the issue of carbon dioxide being predominately responsible for the warming. If carbon dioxide did result in change, and the majority of it comes from the oceans based on their current temperatures, then where did the rest of the carbon dioxide come from? ...?

The oceans rising due to thermal expansion and the melting of the ice caps is also silly. Most ice in the oceans are stored under water[1][2][3], and water expands when frozen, suggesting that the ice melting under water, if anything, should decrease the ocean's levels. As well, the maximum density of water occurs at 3.98 °C (39.16 °F), while it expands while under 0 degrees Celsius, or while frozen. While the surface temperature is often some 60 degrees, the water beneath the surface makes up the most significant portion of water, and on average is some 0 °C (32 °F) to 3 °C (37 °F). This means that unless we have a sudden, extremely sharp change or increase in temperature, the ocean levels should actually decrease slightly from slightly increase heat, and not rise, if a significant change will occur at all, simply due to the vastness of the ocean and the somewhat irrelevant nature of atmospheric temperatures in relation. [1][2][3]

We do not have as many carbon dioxide producing chemicals as the IPCC States. Consumption, and therefore production of carbon dioxide, is expected to increase over 200 years. [1]

The world has roughly, in proven reserves, 1,324 billion barrels of oil, 300 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and 860 billion tons of coal.[1][2][3] The worldwide consumption of oil is roughly some 31.4 billion barrels per year, while worldwide consumption of natural gas is roughly 3.2 trillion cubic meters a year, and the worldwide consumption of coal is roughly 7.25 billion tonnes. At the current rate of consumption, this would mean running out of gasoline in 42 years, natural gas in 93.75, and coal in roughly 118 years. Gasoline represents some 40% of total fossil fuel consumption, and in 2008 energy by supply was oil 33.5%, coal 26.8%, gas 20.8%, out of the total energy consumption. [1]

The idea that we're going to increase temperatures substantially despite our lack of these primary carbon dioxide producing materials is mostly unfounded. If our consumption increased, by finding new forms of fossil fuels (which is possible, such as natural gas at the bottom of the ocean and other potential unfound or untapped reserves) perhaps it would be possible to extend this figure, but considering that global usage is expected to go down with a rationing of resources and improvements in fuel efficiency it's even further, less likely.

It should also be noted that warming is only occurring in key, isolated places, such as parts of Africa, Australia, and Alaska. Specific areas of the earth warming does not mean that the entire earth will warm, and effects over the whole earth from say, an area of 32 degrees suddenly turning to 34, are unlikely, since these areas will likely remain unaffected, since a total global average is increasing, but the entire earth is not warming equally.

Some Satellite Data
So, increasing surface carbon dioxide levels will have a negligible effect in warming the surface. Definitely not anything as high as a degree or so even if the next 100 years. However, if it were a result of a carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect, we'd see a rise of temperature in the mid troposphere proportional to that on the surface. Do we?

Well, no. Satellites and weather balloons have documented little if any change[1][2][3][4]; even the IPCC's satellite documented little change[1][2]. The IPCC's official stance on the situation is there is "net spurious cooling". However, looking at the satellite data, it was possible to come up with a possible conclusion for why there seemed to be little if any change. It was possible that the orbital decay calculations on the satellite were off as it got closer to the atmosphere and eventually fall back through due to the earth's gravity increasing exponentially as it neared and due to atmospheric distortions from increased solar periods increasing UV and effects on the atmosphere. The problem with these calculations are, that orbital decay was already calculated for; assuming we were to recalculate this, the belief was that, as the satellite got closer to earth, the view of the satellite would be off due to the curvature of the earth. However, Microwave Sounding Unit data doesn't necessarily change with the angle of incidence to the earth, since there is a varied gigahert and aperture range. It's possible there would be less coverage of the earth, although this would simply present less data, and not necessarily a more negative trend (unless a series of coincidences were to occur). For all intents and purposes, if it did, it would suggest that the mid troposphere was warming more than it should have. As the angle of incidence increases with the earth, this would take the microwave sounding data longer to get to get from the satellite to the earth and back, given that the angle from the satellite to the ground would increase, hence increasing the length of the virtual hypotenuse. As a result, microwave data would take longer to get to the satellite, indicating what could be perceived as a longer hertz range, or a decrease in air pressure, which could be perceived the result of warming, and air expanding. (This impact would likely be negligible, however). In any case, this would require the orbital decay of the satellite to nearly have exactly matched the temperature change on the surface of the earth, proportionally, which has not been recorded by any other satellite, weather balloon, and would be increasingly improbable. Even if somehow it was slightly off in a perfect direction, with every satellite and weather balloon's temperature gauges perfectly slightly off to measure virtually the same temperature for random and various reasons, all evidence gathered to come to this conclusion would be scientifically and mathematically unfounded, suggesting a still unexplained cause for something that happened to effect every satellite and weather balloon equally, suggesting a far larger issue with a lack of the fundamental understanding of specific sciences that would compound the issue far beyond the scope of global warming, meaning global warming would be the least of our worries.

To directly compare MSU2R with radiosondes, a surface temperature layer is added to the radiosonde layers, and a vertical integration over all layers is done to compute and effective MUS2R trend of -0.02K per decade, instead of -0.05K, which is closer agreement with the observed +.07K per decade trend. Even so it still displays a negative trend; decreasing or not, essentially the aspect is, the mid tropospheric data is not complete nor indicative of being where global warming would suggest even over compensating for heat, which gives a much higher heat increase than would be expected, as well. Basically, the data does not suggest an increase in global warming as a result of the carbon dioxide in the mid troposphere, and potentially even records the opposite effect. [1][2][3]

While orbital decay could theoretically be compensated for, it does not negate the satellite data, as at best it is still cooling -.02K per decade, according to that data.

Even if the changes are "spurious", they could still exist, so the data should not be construed to reflect a predicted model, in any case.

The fallibility of Temperature Measurements

Correlation Between carbon dioxide and temperature; heat is going up, carbon dioxide is going up, therefore there must be a connection? While there might be, it seems to be rather inconsistent. Should it be atmospheric warming, it should be even and a direct result of increased carbon dioxide, but the figures are relatively random. [1][2][3] While many "positive" links have been asserted, they have not in fact, proven a direct correlation with carbon dioxide, which if it is carbon dioxide, there theoretically should be. Carbon dioxide increases, earth heats up X amount; supposedly. But what the data shows, more or less, is no direct connection between heat and carbon dioxide. There are wild and variable temperature changes, even over long periods of time, but carbon dioxide has increased steadily, without a steady increase in temperature, even if it can be average. If climatologists know what they are talking about, then on another planet, like earth, say some 10 degrees cooler, how much would X degree of carbon dioxide increase that planet's temperature? The fact of the matter is, all that's been measured is an increase in temperature, and a theoretical increase in carbon dioxide, and if those two correlate the same, then X amount of temperature increase could be expected. However, the temperature may have increased regardless of carbon dioxide, due to other factors, other greenhouse gases and may even simply have been arbitrary or a slow warming as getting out of the ice age.

It should also be noted that most warming has occurred in the last 20 years, that is calculated within the 100 year data. This has also been surface temperature increases, and not necessarily atmospheric increases. While the data presents various ups and downs that easily factor out, it is only a result of these last 20 years that we see massive increases in temperatures. It may simply be that the last 20 years have been unusually warm, with no real direction connection to human activities. Measuring the earth's average temperature when it's been the hottest it has been in the last 1300 years, as a baseline for global warming, may indeed produce a biased result.

Additionally, we are just out of a "little ice age". [1][2][3] Temperatures, from roughly 1300-1850 A.D., were around 1°C cooler. If the earth was warming, this would be consistent with re-normalizing to regular trends, and wouldn't denote any significant increase afterwards. Many theories exist as to why this occurred, many more suggest it was potentially localized in specific areas, but possibly the one that ought to be considered the most is the arbitrary variability and fluctuations of weather. Even according to the IPCC, the 1 degree difference was rather "modest" and probably was ineffectual, suggesting a recent warming may be just the same, as well.

Weather balloons didn't begin to monitor weather until about 1896, by a single French Meteorologist,[1] and didn't become accurate, stable or consistent until the 1950's. The first satellite in space, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, first reached space in 1957. Weather monitoring did not occur until some time after this. The world meteorological society was not produced until the 1950's, The International Meteorological society, (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Antarctica, Alaska and other important places did not begin substantial weather monitoring until some time later. The notion that surface temperature measurements in the 1850's are a "good enough" measurement, when such information would be disregarded completely if taken today, without accurate atmospheric measures, different altitude measurements and a multitude of other factors, is silly.

While ice core drilling has shown correlations between carbon dioxide and temperature, this is most likely a lag in production. When the oceans, or pretty much any water warms, they release carbon dioxide; when they cool, they absorb more carbon dioxide. As the oceans warm, they will release more carbon dioxide, and vice versa; a little bit of this carbon dioxide is often trapped in ice, revealing relative carbon dioxide levels of a given timeframe. This means that, likely, most of the carbon dioxide found during warm temperatures is likely a result of warmer oceans, and not the other way around.[1][2] Compounding the issue, of carbon dioxide was the primary cause of an increase in global temperatures, than as they increased, increasing the carbon dioxide levels even further, the earth would have never cooled back down, which is has considerably since these times. It should also be noted that levels of carbon dioxide could also theoretically be times of great cold, in accordance with increased volcanic activity, which can cool down the earth.

This also means that the issue involving "the most carbon dioxide in 650,000 years"[1][2][3] could likely be explained by the fact the ice age began at the Pleistocene Epoch some 2.6 million years, and it has consistently gotten warmer and the carbon dioxide levels have risen from 10,000 years ago.

How even if true it's not the whole world evenly, so it's obviously not an equal effect from carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide levels are lower in the tropics and at the equator than in most temperate zones, yet it is substantially warmer in these areas. It's likely the amount of carbon dioxide has little if any variation on these temperatures. This is due to the band of carbon dioxide existing beyond a certain amount having the impact; the amount of carbon dioxide does not matter, but it's distribution, and if it coats the mid troposphere entirely, albeit unevenly, the same general greenhouse effect will occur equally by reflecting radiation back down towards the earth, but water vapor and other greenhouse gases will determine how much is absorbed.

But what of Venus?

Venus has some odd 96.5% of their atmosphere being carbon dioxide, while at max earth is some 0.038% carbon dioxide (or 380 ppm). This automatically produces a 2540 times difference of carbon dioxide between Earth and Venus; considering that it's atmosphere is some 91 times denser, this puts the carbon dioxide levels at roughly 228,552, or 230,000 times more than earth. Assuming Venus is 800 degrees warmer (which it is less than this), this would only mean a .00347 increase in temperature for doubling the earth's carbon dioxide.[1]

It should be noted however that Venus's carbon dioxide likely came after the warming effect, when the oceans evaporated and dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen due to solar radiation, and that very little light reaches Venus's surface since it is reflected, the atmosphere is incredibly thick, and the impact of carbon dioxide is minimal.

Not that Venus is necessarily a good analogue for earth.

What to take from This
Global warming, being a significant trend to worry about, may be false; it's likely the earth is warming due to arbitrary weather patterns that cycle without much impact from human activity, if it's warming much at all.

However, gasoline and other fossil fuels are expensive and increasingly harder to get ahold of. Mercury levels in the ocean, predominately a result of burning coal, are so high that the FDA recommends lowering the amount of fish people eat due to the fear of mercury poisoning and mercury build up. All the pollution and materials we create go into the atmosphere to be breathed in and rained back down and absorbed into drinking water and habitats of animals we consume, not only hurting our ecosystem but potentially ourselves, as well.

We have maybe 40-60 years worth of cheaply available gasoline left, and 120 years of coal, at the current rate of consumption, which our rate of consumption is set to increase in the future, to potentially double these levels by 2050, compounding what little fuel we may have left by this time. If we don't switch our fuel supplies over to cheaper, less polluting and more available options, such as Thorium or burning gasoline in steam turbines and then using algae to capture the exhaust, for improved efficiency and safety, we may all suffer, economically, strategically, and with our health.

Even if global warming is untrue there is no detriment to improving our current energy situation and potentially having energy independence, potentially in the U.S. or country of origin, to be self reliant and not rely on foreign intervention or resources.

If the globe is warming, whether arbitrarily or by a result of some other mechanism, it is still important to understand this so we can understand the effects.

Another important thing to consider is that the scientific institutions purporting global warming are not necessarily wrong. They may have proposed ideas, but it was only because of the evidence they provided that it was capable to potentially prove them wrong.The assessment of isolated individuals within these institutions going off of raw numbers is a potentially valid figure for what those figures would produce, however, when considering variables, such as the current temperatures of the oceans, their vastness, the method of carbon dioxide's warming, rather than equating an increase in heat or change based on a raw unit to unit variable, a more clear picture becomes available, and we advance our scientific understanding of the world.

It should also be noted that, not in fact "98% of scientists agree" with the assessment, so much as, according to individual assessments, there may be a 90% confidence rating (according to the IPCC), and that according to a American Geophysical Union (AGU) comprising two questions, basically do you think the temperatures have risen since the 1850's, and do you think human involvement was involved, which only some 80% responded with yes. However, climate change is not necessarily the same as global warming. A significant contribution, as compared to negligible, could be less than 1% considering what a massive impact it would be for humans to have affected the millions of years cycle. It should be noted that while humans have created roads, buildings, lights that practically blot out the earth when seen from space, turned land over into agriculture, wiped out, created and expanded multiple species, deforested, and created massive structures, this does not necessarily mean they have increased temperatures. In any case, "I heard that somebody heard that somebody heard" is not good evidence for scientific inquiries. 1000 years ago, many scientists "knew" the earth was flat, 500 years ago many people "knew" that the universe revolved around the earth, and 10 years ago we "knew" carbon dioxide was uniform throughout the atmosphere. Think of everything we'll know, tomorrow.

Possible Capabilities with Gasoline

2012-08-25T19:56:00.001-07:00

Gasoline for Electricity Generation
Gasoline is an incredibly powerful fuel source, possessing around 21.5 million joules per pound, compared to coal at around 11 million joules. It’s currently used in automobiles, planes, and other vehicles due to its raw power and high energy density. However, a lot of gasoline is currently wasted; the efficiency of many automobiles is lacking as much of the gasoline is wasted generating heat. A typical internal combustion engine only possesses about 26% thermal efficiency and only about 20% mechanical efficiency.

Comparatively, steam turbines generally have around 35-40% efficiency, and are capable of getting around 90% fuel efficiency, meaning that if gasoline was burned to power specially designed steam turbines they could easily be around 3-4 times more efficient in terms of energy production, and potentially up to 4.5 times more efficient, than standard combustion engines. If this energy was stored as electricity, this means that the energy, over the power grid and through cars, could easily be 3 times more efficient when used in vehicles after the energy is generated with multi-million dollar steam turbines rather than few thousand dollar engines. This would mean that we would not only get three times as much energy from gasoline as we do now, but that the cost of gasoline would essentially drop by 1/3 its current amount, given our reduced need for it. If the energy was generated in a more efficient machine before being used in vehicles one could easily reduce the price of locomotion drastically as well as reduce their polluting emissions.

Algae could be used to capture the exhaust from the steam turbines to prevent it from going into the atmosphere, and then use that algae to produce ethanol. As of now the standard 5-10% ethanol gasoline fuel blend currently used in most unleaded standard gasoline seems to possess the equivalent fuel efficiency of gasoline, despite ethanol being around 1/3 weaker than gasoline. This means that burning ethanol in addition to gasoline in the right concentration seems to keep its power level at the same level as straight gasoline, and is basically like adding 10% free fuel to the mixture simply by reusing previously discarded waste products.

It would also make self-reliance on energy a much more feasible task. The United States in 2004 imported nearly 65% of its oil from other countries, and this was considered the peak import year for the 2000 onward period (foreign oil usage is expected to drop to 54% by 2030). If the efficiency of the United States’ use of oil was increased by just 3 times its current amount, all the gasoline used in the United States could come from local sources. This means that a dependency on foreign imported oil, some of this oil that could potentially come from questionable sources, would be eliminated and the United States’ energy supply needed for daily expenses and even potentially economic prowess could be entirely in its own hands.

The price of practically everything could fall (given the current transport system that involves using gasoline), pollution could be virtually eliminated and various Countries’ dependence on foreign oil could be removed, allowing them to prosper without the hands of countries’ whose democratic values may not be the same as theirs.

While we would still be reliant on gasoline, the said process would create a lot less pollution and would provide vastly more energy for no foreseeable increase in cost in regards to fuel consumption, being a good option for all of the United States’ and other affiliated countries’ energy needs.

While Carbon Fiber is expensive, the addition of Thorium or reduced energy costs, at least enough to lower carbon fiber from 15-16 dollars per pound to 5 dollars per pound, being slightly less than 1/5th the density of of steel (1.5 grams per cubic centimeter compared to 7.85), would put carbon fiber unit to unit about as expensive as steel, making it more feasible for production while keeping the same level of safety. This could be possible with improved efficiency of electricity production, and if the electric cars were lighter weight, they could not only travel further (eliminating range anxiety) but the life of the engine and battery could be lengthened. Potential replacements to lithium include Potassium ion and lithium titanate both of which have longer lives than lithium ion and have potential advantages and disadvantages, namely potassium ion being cheap and lithium titanate being able to recharge faster.

Ways to improve the Standard U.S. firearm

2012-08-25T19:55:00.001-07:00

Current state of Affairs

In August 2010 the Individual Carbine Competition was formed to help provide Infantry with a newer, more modern weapon, and was cancelled March 19 2013, due to budget concerns, of which were about 1.8 billion dollars. [1][2] While this is silly for many reasons, the general basis will be discussed below.

General Background
The M16 was officially adopted in 1969, although it saw use in the Vietnam war as early as 1963. The firearm has been the primary weapon of the U.S. for almost 43 years as of 2013, and has officially been in service for at least 50 years. Comparatively, M1903 Springfield was in service for 34 years, from 1903-1937, the M1 Garand was in service for 23 years, from 1936 to 1959, and the M14 for 11 years, from 1959 to 1970. As technologically progressed, it was generally assumed that firearms would need to be replaced progressively faster, as the rate of technological advancement tends to increase exponentially, consequentially faster and faster rate of development to require frequent replacements over the years. Despite this, the M16 has been the primary U.S. firearm, technically, for 43 years, and was widely used in Vietnam, before it's adoption in 1969 (the Vietnam war lasted from 1955-1975). Thus the weapon has been in service for an incredibly long time, twice as long as the m1 garand and almost 5 times as long as the M14, despite the fact technologically continues to rapidly progress.

At it's conception, the weapon was plagued with problems. The U.S. military initially refused to adopt any rounds weaker than the .30-06 or 7.62mm x 51mm NATO round, such as the .280 british round, prompting NATO to require all allied countries to use a similiar, more powerful round. Despite this initial decision, intermediate cartridges have achieved substantial success, as they have become the norm in NATO countries (the 5.56mm cartridge, in particular). The AR-10, also designed by Eugine stoner, was more accurate, lighter weight, had less recoil than the previous M1 garand or soon to be adopted M14, and was generally as reliable as the M14. Despite this, the weapon was not chosen by the U.S. military. More or less, a more conventional weapon, similiar to the M1 garand, was desired, and so ultimately the M14 was adopted. Rather than utilize plastics or fiberglass, or other materials available in other weapons, and utilized a traditional wooden frame, was traditionally layed out (instead of bullpup). It sported a number of improvements, utilizing a 20 round detachable box magazine instead of an 8 round en bloc magazine, and being fed from the bottom instead of the top, allowing for easier feeding and an enlarged magazine. The weapon was capable of firing in full auto, similiar to the Browning Automatic Rifle (a light machine gun), but was considerably lighter and shorter, and was deployed to nearly all infantry units.

However, many problems emerged; the M14, while much lighter than a BAR, and more similiar to the M1 garand, was considered to have too much recoil to function adequately. Even with it's weaker (3500 joules compared to about 4000), lighter, and smaller round (3.35 inches compared to 2.75 inches), the weapon still produced substantial, and sometimes uncontrollable fully automatic fire. The fear was so great that M14's sent to Vietnam had their fully automatic firing selectors welded closed, to prevent the weapon from firing fully automatic. (A Report in X said that the side that fired the most bullets) As a result, the U.S. was ready and willing to replace their standard firearm with a more modern one, citing issues with weight, size, and recoil as significant concerns.

The obvious choice would have been the previous candidates, the EM-2 or AR-10. The EM-2 was a bull-pup weapon, without a long stock, that was able to shorten the over-all length the weapon, when compared to the M14 or M1 garand, by around 10 inches. The weapon was only 35 inches long and about 7.8 pounds with a 24.5 inch barrel, and could have been 30.5 inches with a 20 inch barrel (standard on the M16 today.) It fired a weaker round, that could be stored in larger magazines (from 8 rounds to 20), and generally had less recoil, although it was just as accurate and followed a similiar ballistic trajectory as the .30-06. The 7mm round was more aerodynamic, and had a higher ballistic efficiency, allowing it to have almost as much power as the .30-06 at long ranges. At close ranges, the weapon was generally considered sufficient in terms of stopping power, being 9 grams and traveling at 770 m/s, with 2680 joules, compared to the Ak-47 with 8 grams and 715 m/s, and 2000 joules, meaning it had more power than the competing enemy weapon (known for reliability and firepower), but significantly higher accuracy.

The Ar-10 on the other hand was a much larger, traditionally layed out weapon. Unloaded, the weapon had a similiar weight of about 7.5 pounds, but was over 6 inches longer, and had a 4 inch shorter barrel (comparatively, the EM-2 could have been over 10 inches shorter with a same sized barrel). This increased over-all length gave the disadvantage of being more cumbersome and harder to use in close quarters, as well as harder to aim. It did however, have substantially more firepower, utilizing a .30-06, with similiar accuracy, and had substantially less recoil than the M14 or M1 garand, meaning the weapon could fire in full auto largely without issues. The choice was largely between a slightly longer but more powerful weapon, or a shorter, but just as accurate and long ranged weapon, that had less (but generally sufficient) power. The AR-10 was longer but as a result of it's unique firing system could decrease recoil but lengthened the over-all weapon, while the EM-2 was shorter, but had to use weaker, smaller rounds to be easy to control.

In the end,

On the aspect of Cost

The individual carbine competition is being shut down largely due to cost, which may again limit U.S. troops from getting a superior firearm. The entire competition is expected to cost 1.8 billion dollars, with acquiring new weapons to be around the same cost of procurement for M16's. Even assuming the replacement weapon was more expensive, the issue is of cost is largely insignificant for many reasons. The U.S. military does not spend that much money on firearms, compared to their total expenditures, despite the fact that all service men have a need for a personal defense weapon, which could mean life or death in many situations; a more reliable, and consequently more durable weapon, may last longer, therefore decreasing over all costs, as well.

The over-all cost of firearms are not very high, relatively speaking. At a thousand dollars each, a million U.S. firearms would be about 1 billion dollars; 10 million would be 10 billion, and so forth. An extra barrel and accessories can add about 600 dollars, so 6 billion more dollars on top of that 10 billion, for 10 million firearms. There are, presumably, only roughly 8 million M16 type firearms worlwide. Never the less, assuming the U.S. bought 10 million, this would cost roughly 16 billion dollars. Over the 50 year life of the weapon, this equates to roughly 320 million dollars per year, or over the official 43 year life span 380 million, roughly half a B-2 bomber. Although the firearms' price have increased with inflation, at today's cost this would be about 1/2200th of the military's annual budget, or 1/43rd the annual budget in a single down payment (1/430th over a 10 year time frame).

Comparatively the SR-25 is around 4000 dollars per unit. It is extremely accurate, with out of the box accuracy being around .5-1 MOA, or around that of a standard M40 sniper rifle. Despite this, it is semi-automatic, of instead of manually operated, and has a 20 round magazine, with around the same recoil as an M16 despite firing a substantially more powerful round. It is also around the same weight and has similiar ergonomics, lasting about as long as the weapon and it's barrel, without the need for a replacement barrel. Being more expensive, around 2.6 times more, this would only be about 40 billion dollars for 10 million, or 4 billion per year over 10 years, out of a 700 billion dollar budget, easily able to replace the average soldier's firearm. For every individual person, medics, officers, even your average person who might need to pick up a weapon and defend themselves, for just 4 billion a year you could arm each of the 3 million service members with over 3 sniper grade semi-automatic rifles. While it might not necessarily be the best firearm for our soldiers, even one of the best sniper rifles in our arsenal would be fairly inexpensive, in terms of over-all cost. Therefore the weapon could be 10 times more expensive, at around 15,000 dollars per year, and probably be insignificant in terms of over-all cost to the military, in regards to what it would it provide for every service member.

Even assuming cost is a factor, generally higher quality, and more reliable weapons, such as the FN SCAR, HK416, or XM8 tend to be more

Ways to improve the Standard U.S. firearm

Body Armor and how we could do better

2012-08-25T00:07:00.000-07:00

Increasing Body armor Capabilities

On the Aspect of Cost
The United States's military spent roughly $300 million dollars on interceptor body armor in 2004; an Interceptor system costs roughly $1,585.Theoretically, that equates to roughly 189,274 units or around 190,000 interceptor units; to my knowledge more armor has been purchased since then but I'm not entirely aware how many have been obtained or how much each vest costs.

60,000 MTV and IMTV (improved, modular tactical vest) vests have been purchased by the marines, and another 28,364 vests have been purchased by the navy. Assuming roughly the same price as the Interceptor, around 140 million extra dollars wpi;d have been spent on body armor since august 2008. Both of these have predominately been for the Afghanistan and Iraq efforts.

The soft body armor is at roughly NIJ IIIA rating, or capable of stopping 9mm rounds, .44 Magnums or anything below, but not rifle rounds.

This means that, annually, over the past 10 years, on average, the military has spent roughly 45 million dollars (to my knowledge) on body armor, most of which was for, presumably, the Iraq and Afghanistan effort. Even if it was 70 million dollars on average, annually, That would still be 1/10,000th of the nearly 700 billion dollar budget the military receives. The armor, worn by our primary troops, and individual units, human beings, people, is less than 1/10,000th of our total spending; and that assumes I've underestimated the guess by 35 million dollars a year. This equals roughly 3.5 Apache helicopters, half an F35, or roughly 1/10th of the cost of a single B-2 bomber. The armor worn by medics, tank crews, soldiers on foot, repair crew, practically everyone that can benefit from personal defense, is only given 1/10,000th of the total budget, practically nothing in comparison to our other purchases.

I actually like how much we spend on these expensive vehicles however, and I believe it wholly necessary given their capabilities; I'm not suggesting we getting rid of a B-2 bomber or half an F-35 in order to procure more body armor, but I think the relative costs put the issue of cost into perspective. The military could afford better body armor for it's primary troop scape (about 200,000 people deployed "over seas") for the equivalent of pennies of it's annual costs. The cost of body armor at the moment is nearly negligible, meaning we could theoretically spend gratuitous amounts on body armor, and yet the armor has trouble stopping rifle rounds. Cost is not a significant factor in my opinion, and if there was a more effective option available, say 10 times more expensive, or roughly 15,000 dollars per vest, it's over-all costs would be nothing compared to it's potential impacts (such as actually making our soldiers rifle resistant, opening up a whole new line of capabilities, and protection), or even the medical bills we currently pay, as horrific and awful as that is.

Another option I'm not exactly suggesting, but that will also hopefully give a sense of scale, is nanocomp armor CNT (carbon nano tube) armor. An example of Nano-comp CNT, that currently exists, is a 2mm piece of material, roughly the thickness of a few business cards, that is capable of stopping a 9mm round without significant penetration or destruction of the material. The company says it's targeting growth and maturation akin to carbon fiber, with a target material cost of $350/kg to $400/kg. I'm not sure if it's capable of stopping more rounds, what level of 9mm rounds (fired at higher velocities), or capable of withstanding repeated impacts, but this puts the armor at roughly II armor capabilities assuming minimum capabilities. Comparable Kevlar armor vests of this armor rating are generally around 6mm in thickness.

This makes the nano comp armor roughly 3 times stronger than Kevlar on a thickness to thickness ratio, assuming minimum capabilities. It's possible to assume it has roughly the same mass as Kevlar at this thickness, although it is possible it's slightly less, since carbon nanotubes are around 1.3-1.4 grams per cubic centimeter while Kevlar is around 1.4 The target cost is around 350-400 dollars per kilogram, so each pound is likely 160-180 dollars. Let's just assume it's going to be 500 dollars per kilogram, or 230 dollars per pound, since this is only a predicted mass produced price, and it could be more. A standard 16 lb interceptor vest (made out of this material) would be around 3600 dollars or 2.3 times it's current price. This would have equated in a 690 million dollar cost for 192,000 vests, instead of 300 million, a negligible cost considering the billions spent annually. Perhaps almost equal to a B2 bomber (not that I don't support B2 bombers, I believe their existence and use is necessary). And this is assuming that the armor is 3 times as powerful, which it is likely 4, this is assuming the cost is 500 dollars per kilogram, which it is likely 350-400 (390-560 million dollars), and that there aren't potentially better nanocomp type materials already available. This would mean tripling the effectiveness of modern body armor assuming minimum capacities, for a practically negligible cost.

Although it's easy to see how such an armor system might not appear available. These products are only almost within mass production and their effectiveness has yet to face the rigor of the military or military testing, so perhaps unknown or untested complications will arise.

Something I do believe in supporting immediately is M5 fiber. M5 fiber is about as strong as Kevlar, at around half the thickness and weight, that is elastic, much more heat tolerant, and a very chemically stable material, meaning it's likelihood to break down due to UV, chemicals or heat is relatively low. It's heat tolerance is supposedly above that of nomex, making it potentially better than what current firefighters wear and also potentially useful against warm environments as general armor. Being an Aramid, it carries roughly the same properties as Kevlar, although the elasticity may make it over-all more durable and even potentially more capable for repeated impacts given it's ability to yield when stretch, rather than being permanently stretched and therefore weakened.

Liquid body armor, or nano silica particles suspended in ethylene glycol after being baked in an oven, is known to increase Kevlar's Strength by roughly 3.5 times it's current amount. The material is a non-newtonian fluid, meaning that it behaves like a solid under stress or impact, like corn starch. Four layers of STF-treated Kevlar can dissipate the same amount of energy as 14 layers of neat Kevlar (or 3.5 times, although it has worse performance against knives and low velocity impacts). In addition, STF-treated fibers don't stretch as far on impact as ordinary fibers, meaning that bullets don't penetrate as deeply into the armor or transfer as much blunt force trauma to the target; the researchers theorize that this is because it takes more energy for the bullet to stretch the STF-treated fibers. This means that, potentially, M5 fiber could be flat out 7 times stronger than kevlar on a mass to mass basis, and roughly on a thickness basis; this means that a typical interceptor vest could be 7-8 times more powerful, or powerful enough to warrant fully body armor or more body armor that's lighter but still retains more or equal strength. Combined with increased multiple shot protection due to increased stretch resistant and stretching capability, the armor may provide legitimate multiple round protection against extremely powerful rounds, and particularly against higher velocity rounds, potentially rifle rounds. Both liquid body armor and M5 fiber have higher protection against higher velocity rounds, potentially allowing for greater stopping power in a variety of generally high velocity rounds, such as rifle rounds or certain armor piercing rounds. I am not entirely aware of the costs, of either system, but even if it was 10 times the cost of current body armor it's cost would still be negligible. At 15,000 dollars per vest/suit, or 10 times current body armor costs, the entire military could obtain these, for 3 million individuals, for roughly 45 billion dollars, and those required would be for currently deployed troops and individuals in training; that would mean 4.50 billion dollars for 300,000, or for slow procurement over 10 years for the entire military or just for the active troops in combat zones/training scenarios. With a relatively high shelf life it shouldn't wear out over time, as well. At 150,000 dollars each it would be 1/20th the budget for those procured for just general combat troops and training, or 1/10th to 1/20th the cost over 5-10 years for the entire military (being fielded to combat troops first).

There are all kinds of options available that could be implemented relatively quickly with relatively minor expenses to the over-all budget. Even so, medical bills and logistical costs make up the bulk of our cost of deployment, in terms of money. Even less soldiers were required, due to their increased effectiveness, in the long term hundreds of billions of dollars could be shaved off, along with the cost of medical bills and veteran rehabilitation costs, which if the armor could protect against the basic threats faced today, from IED's to Ak-47's, would be relatively low.

Do I blame the military for the weaker body armor? No.

But I do somewhat blame people in Congress for most likely suggesting "that sounds expensive" when likely the cost would be nearly negligible and super expensive body armor would still be negligible costs and it's obviously fiscally and generally stupid to not get it. I wouldn't care if it was 10% of our budget, if it could or could have prevented 90% of our current causalities I would be happy, and it still would amount to nearly nothing considering all it would do.

Thorium and How to solve our Energy Problems

2012-08-24T18:07:00.004-07:00

Thorium and How to solve our Energy Problems

Thorium has the potential to replace our entire energy supply, including electricity, gasoline, and natural gas, either by using the Molten Salt reactor method or the Sub-critical method. The first has the potential to decrease electricity costs to well beyond tens times their current cost, while the sub-critical could potentially decrease electricity costs by 200 times it's current amount. Thorium is only mildly radioactive, producing Alpha Particles which can't get through the skin (low velocity protons), has no chance of a melt down, is 3-4 times more abundant than Uranium, does not require a fuel breeding process, can clean up nuclear waste, and is potentially over 200 times more powerful than current Uranium reactors. Soil on average has about 6 parts per million of Thorium, or around 1 pound per every 166,666.66 pounds of other material, Thorium being 3 times as common as tin and about as common as lead, suggesting that if Thorium was already incredibly dangerous, we'd likely be dead.

The Molten Salt reactor method

The Sub-critical method is capable of reducing the cost of electricity to roughly 1/200th it's current amount.

Even if electricity was just 10 times cheaper, a multitude of things could be possible. Turning mercury into gold, which generally takes roughly 6-9 times the cost in Gold in electricity to do, could now become profitable. More practical things could include creating carbon fiber, who's cost is mostly in production. Nylon and rayon, which are relatively cheap in comparison, which carbon fiber is made from, are relatively cheap in comparison; it is the price of production where the difficulties lie. . If energy and manufacture costs were reduced, some of what could be alleviated by extremely cheap or nearly free energy, then it might be possible to mass produce carbon fiber as replaceable material for steel. Being around 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter, compared to 7.85 for iron, it is less than 1/5th the weight of steel or iron. If much of the furnishing and engine remained the same while most of the frame and other parts of the vehicle were replaced with carbon fiber, vehicles may realistically be 1/3 their initial weight with no other changes in performance. Carbon fiber, which is in many cases stronger than steel, would not only be safer due to it's higher strength but also due to the over-all lighter weight of the vehicle. While more expensive per pound that steel, currently at around 15 dollars per pound, if it was just 1/3 this then carbon fiber would be 5 dollar per pound, or less than a dollar per unit (since the density is lower) making it feasible for replacing steel. In 2004, the U.S. imported roughly 65% of it's energy supply; if we could get to just below 3 times greater efficiency in automobiles, not only could the U.S. reduce it's spending significantly but we could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and lengthen the life of our own oil reserves, as well as not overstress them. Given the high price of global oil, local oil should be cheaper, decreasing the price Americans spend on oil even more so. Conversely, it may give the needed range and battery life desired of electric cars, as s lighter weight transfers to longer potential distances travel per charge and less stress that is required to transport the vehicle, meaning that the engine and battery life are tippled. By simply reducing the weight of the vehicle, much is improved; by having more strength and being lighter weight, safety is improved phenomenally.

RAWR!

2012-08-24T17:41:00.002-07:00

Hello, I eat bagles!