From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/world-economic-forum-launches-target-true-zero-to-reduce-aviation-emissions

World Economic Forum Launches Target True Zero to Reduce Aviation Emissions Mark Phelps August 3, 20215

Starry eyed dreamers can come up with all sorts of targets and plans for
zero emissions for things but none of it will become reality absent
blazing advances in technology or acceptance of politically incorrect technology like nuclear reactors.

Yeah, I know reactors have real problems but all of them can be solved
with current technology.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:59:40 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/world-economic-forum-launches-target-true-zero-to-reduce-aviation-emissions

World Economic Forum Launches Target True Zero to Reduce Aviation Emissions >>> Mark Phelps August 3, 20215

Starry eyed dreamers can come up with all sorts of targets and plans for >>zero emissions for things but none of it will become reality absent
blazing advances in technology or acceptance of politically incorrect >>technology like nuclear reactors.

Yeah, I know reactors have real problems but all of them can be solved
with current technology.

Hello Jim,

My issue with nuclear power generation, aside from the potential for it to render large areas of the planet uninhabitable virtually indefinitely, is that it is fundamentally irresponsible to produce hazardous waste without an acceptable means of its safe disposal. And then there's the enormous costs being paid by our government annually to each nuclear generating entity to cover on-site spent nuclear storage, and the equally exorbitant cost borne
by the rate-payers at the reactor's end of life for decommissioning them. (The massive concrete containment and its contents must be sawed into blocks and trucked to the (non-existent at this time) storage site.)

True, mostly, about the risks, but like I said, all those problems can be solved with current technology.

That is, we don't have to invent something new, just build something that
to date hasn't been built.

As for "uninhabitable virtually indefinitely", Chernobyl, in spite of
little action to make it happen, is already showing signs of recovery
after only 35 years, as opposed to the thousands of years of the
doomsday crowd.

The original exclusion area was about 3,000 km^2 and is shrinking
already.

As of 2016, 187 locals had returned and were living permanently in the zone.

3,000 km^2 is about 0.0002% of the Earth's land area, so it would take
100 Chernobyls to get to 0.02% and new reactors would not be the ratty
old design of Chernobyl or run by lackadaisical Russians.

Estimates for when the vast majority of the area will be considered
habitable again range from about 300 years up.

BTW, the government does not pay the generating entity anything.

It is the entity that is charged an operating fee by the government for eventual shutdown and disposal of waste. It has been that way for a LONG
time.



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 11:38:25 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:59:40 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/world-economic-forum-launches-target-true-zero-to-reduce-aviation-emissions

World Economic Forum Launches Target True Zero to Reduce Aviation Emissions
Mark Phelps August 3, 20215

Starry eyed dreamers can come up with all sorts of targets and plans for >>>>zero emissions for things but none of it will become reality absent >>>>blazing advances in technology or acceptance of politically incorrect >>>>technology like nuclear reactors.

Yeah, I know reactors have real problems but all of them can be solved >>>>with current technology.

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us#gs.7v7elx America's nuclear waste: No solution in sight

America?s nuclear waste is accumulating at over 75 sites in 35 states. In 2016, Stanford scholars discussed why there was no clear way forward for its final disposal. Not much has improved.

And yet again, that is NOT a technological problem, it is a POLITICAL
problem. How to build such facilities is century old tecnology.

Hello Jim,

My issue with nuclear power generation, aside from the potential for it to >>> render large areas of the planet uninhabitable virtually indefinitely, is >>> that it is fundamentally irresponsible to produce hazardous waste without an
acceptable means of its safe disposal. And then there's the enormous costs >>> being paid by our government annually to each nuclear generating entity to >>> cover on-site spent nuclear storage, and the equally exorbitant cost borne >>> by the rate-payers at the reactor's end of life for decommissioning them. >>> (The massive concrete containment and its contents must be sawed into blocks
and trucked to the (non-existent at this time) storage site.)

True, mostly, about the risks, but like I said, all those problems can be >>solved with current technology.

That is, we don't have to invent something new, just build something that >>to date hasn't been built.

So, you disagree that it is fundamentally irresponsible to produce hazardous waste without an acceptable means of its safe disposal.

Yes, but yet again, that is NOT a technological problem, it is a
POLITICAL problem. How to build such facilities is century old tecnology.

Actually building them is a POLITICAL issue.

As for "uninhabitable virtually indefinitely", Chernobyl, in spite of >>little action to make it happen, is already showing signs of recovery
after only 35 years, as opposed to the thousands of years of the
doomsday crowd.

The original exclusion area was about 3,000 km^2 and is shrinking
already.

As of 2016, 187 locals had returned and were living permanently in the zone. >>
3,000 km^2 is about 0.0002% of the Earth's land area, so it would take
100 Chernobyls to get to 0.02% and new reactors would not be the ratty
old design of Chernobyl or run by lackadaisical Russians.

Estimates for when the vast majority of the area will be considered >>habitable again range from about 300 years up.

BTW, the government does not pay the generating entity anything.

It is the entity that is charged an operating fee by the government for >>eventual shutdown and disposal of waste. It has been that way for a LONG >>time.

Jim,

Have you seen these articles?

<snip>

I don't care and most of it is irrelevant arm waving.

First, I don't care much what other countries do as long as they are not bombing Pearl Harbour.

Second, the majority of US nuclear waste is generated by the US
government as a result of military operations, not private nuclear power plants.

As of 2019 the US disposal fund was $43 billion and earns about $1.5
billion a year in interest, and utilities pumped in about $750 million per
year until the lawsuit over the utter lack of any action on the part of
the DOE, which is the agency responsible for handling waste.

Yet the DOE has done NOTHING to address the issue and a federal judge
found in 2014 that the DOE cannot charge for a service it is not
providing, and utilities stopped paying.

That sounds like yet another POLITICAL issue.

If this were a perfect world of rainbows and butterflys, then there
might be an international effort to find a remote, uninhabited place
where everyone could store the waste.

But that again, is a POLITICAL issue.

And since ALL the issues with nuclear power are political, discussions
of them belong somewhere else.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> writes:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/world-economic-forum-launches-target-true-zero-to-reduce-aviation-emissions

World Economic Forum Launches Target True Zero to Reduce Aviation Emissions >> Mark Phelps August 3, 20215

Starry eyed dreamers can come up with all sorts of targets and plans for
zero emissions for things but none of it will become reality absent
blazing advances in technology or acceptance of politically incorrect technology like nuclear reactors.

Yeah, I know reactors have real problems but all of them can be solved
with current technology.

Politicians are dreamers.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 18:00:10 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
wrote:

And since ALL the issues with nuclear power are political, discussions
of them belong somewhere else.

As I recall, it was you who was first to mention nuclear power generation in this forum.

I was hoping you might acknowledge the viability of LH2 for electric
aviation in light of the new high temperature fuel-cell technological breakthrough information I provided.

On that subject, here is a technology that bypasses the necessity for electricity to power electrolysis of water into its constituent H2 and O2 gases.

https://environment.harvard.edu/news/next-step-renewable-bionic-leaf-fuel-production
"What you do is you use sunlight to rearrange the bonds of water and
make hydrogen and oxygen. You can use the hydrogen as a fuel via fuel
cells. That takes the hydrogen and takes oxygen from the air and then it
generates electricity."

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/2KRlRhNbxKg
Watch as light splits water into H2 and O2 before your eyes.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/bionic-leaf-turns-sunlight-into-liquid-fuel/

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/01/harvards-bionic-leaf-could-help-feed-the-world/
"The bionic leaf is an outgrowth of NoceraAs artificial leaf, which
efficiently splits water into hydrogen and oxygen gas by pairing silicon
u the material that makes up solar panels u with catalyst coatings. The
hydrogen gas can be stored on site and used to drive fuel cells,
providing a way to store and use power that originates from the sun."

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/9/e2024855118.short
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Continuous electrochemical water splitting from natural water sources
via forward osmosis
Samuel S. Veroneau and View ORCID ProfileDaniel G. Nocera


I'm thinking that this technology, together with the high-temperature
fuel-cell technology I mentioned in a previous message may advance the
movement toward long range electric aircraft.



High Temperature Fuel-cell Technological breakthrough:
There is an exciting new technological development that holds promise for achieving zero emissions for electric aviation. High temperature fuel-cell advancement by Hypoint appears to have significantly advanced the efficiency
of typically ~60% efficient fuel-cells (Toyota Marai). Please have a look
at this video https://youtu.be/0stTeHSVvFw to see HyPoint's claims.
HyPoint's May, 2021 White Paper is here: https://docsend.com/view/t9aw2mk .

December 2020, HyPoint was named a winner of NASA's iTech Initiative.

https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/electric-hybrid/prototype-air-cooled-fuel-cell-for-aircraft-passes-validation-tests.html
Testing has shown that the turbo air-cooled hydrogen fuel cell system
will achieve up to 2,000 watts per kilogram of specific power, more than
triple the power-to-weight ratio of traditional hydrogen fuel cells
systems. It will also feature up to 1,500 watt-hours per kilogram of
energy density, enabling longer-distance journeys.

Best regards,
Larry

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 18:00:10 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

And since ALL the issues with nuclear power are political, discussions
of them belong somewhere else.

As I recall, it was you who was first to mention nuclear power generation in this forum.

Yeah, in a couple of words as an example of existing but politically incorrect tecnology.

Then YOU took the ball and ran with it.

I was hoping you might acknowledge the viability of LH2 for electric
aviation in light of the new high temperature fuel-cell technological breakthrough information I provided.

Possibility, with a lot more research yes, viability any time soon, no.

Any day now we will have unlimited fusion energy, a cure for the common
cold, and peace in the Middle East.

And it has been that way for over a half century.

On that subject, here is a technology that bypasses the necessity for electricity to power electrolysis of water into its constituent H2 and O2 gases.

I read about this, yet another, pie in the sky scheme long ago.

That's never going to happen other than in some niche applications for a
LOT of reasons.

Even if you could get it to work on a large scale, you still have the issues
of compressing, storing, and transporting the hydrogen, none of which are
cheap in terms of energy.

Climate change will destroy civilization, so we better destroy
civilization to keep that from happening...

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting


On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:32:47 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 18:00:10 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
wrote:

[snip]

I was hoping you might acknowledge the viability of LH2 for electric
aviation in light of the new high temperature fuel-cell technological
breakthrough information I provided.

Possibility, with a lot more research yes, viability any time soon, no.

Agreed. Some of the recent "breakthrough"technologies I have suggested
require further development. Apparently that development is underway,
however.

Any day now we will have unlimited fusion energy, a cure for the common
cold, and peace in the Middle East.

And it has been that way for over a half century.

I would wager you were equally skeptical about the likelihood of electric automobiles being accepted worldwide by governments and the public before
Elon Musk proved that they can be stylish, reasonably non-polluting, and
very fast.

You skepticism is why I value your input on this topic. You are
knowledgeable and difficult to convince; that drives me to research the
points you make, and learn something in the process.

On that subject, here is a technology that bypasses the necessity for
electricity to power electrolysis of water into its constituent H2 and O2
gases.

I read about this, yet another, pie in the sky scheme long ago.

That's never going to happen other than in some niche applications for a
LOT of reasons.

I believe the report indicates that the direct photo-electrolysis of water
into its constituent gases is currently working in the laboratory.
Regardless of how efficient it is or is not, a passive solar electrolysis
cell fueled solely by sunshine could deliver H2 and O2 whenever and wherever the sun hits it. That's about as clean H2 production as I can imagine.

Locally sited direct solar hydrolysis coupled with the very high efficiency
of electric motor technology, and more efficient high temperature fuel-cell technology would eliminate the power required to generate H2, and deliver it
at the "filling station," all without emitting any CO2 or any other
pollutants.

Even if you could get it to work on a large scale, you still have the issues >of compressing, storing, and transporting the hydrogen, none of which are >cheap in terms of energy.

Compressing H2 is not required if a cryocooler is employed to liquefy it;
LH2 is stored at ambient atmospheric pressure. In the videos at the links I included in previous posts, you will see cryocoolers liquefying atmospheric nitrogen with only ~150 Watts of energy required.

Alternatively, H2 can be stored in the spaces between solid-matter molecules
al la Power Paste, or some other similar product.

As mentioned above, on-site hydrogen generation obviates the necessity for transporting it, and eliminates the emissions associated with the
traditional method of trucking fuel to filling stations.

Climate change will destroy civilization, so we better destroy
civilization to keep that from happening...

I too believe that we have passed the point of turning the destructive environmental trend around as evidenced by the loss of forests:


https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/deforestation-and-forest-degradation
"Over half of the tropical forests worldwide have been destroyed since
the 1960s, and every second, more than one hectare of tropical forests
is destroyed or drastically degraded. This intense and devastating
pressure on forests is not limited to the tropics u an estimated 3.7
million hectares of EuropeAs forests are damaged by livestock, insects,
diseases, forest fires, and other human-linked activities."

Of course, the last phrase in your sentence is meant tongue-in-cheek, but it sounds like QAnon fake news and makes me want to take my toddler aged
children to Mexico and shoot them through the heart with my spear gun to
"save the world from monsters." :-( https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/california-man-admitted-killing-his-kids-with-a-spear-gun-in-mexico-said-he-was-enlightened-by-qanon-and-believed-young-victims-had-serpent-dna-criminal-complaint/ar-AANfmh9

-----------------------


Have you been wondering what has happened to our democracy?

YOU MUST VIEW THIS VIDEO: https://youtu.be/mAplGu1RxPg

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat from Road Island, delivers his first of three speeches on court capture by the corporate elite: https://youtu.be/mAplGu1RxPg . He clearly and articulately explains the
long term strategy of the of right-wing plutocrats' capture of our noble
nation for their own avaricious goals. His three damning speeches are a
clear explanation of how we got to this deplorable place in history.


What can we do about it?

The Move to Amend Coalition https://www.movetoamend.org Is actively working
to end corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, not corporate interests. Please get the word out.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:32:47 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 18:00:10 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
wrote:

[snip]

I was hoping you might acknowledge the viability of LH2 for electric
aviation in light of the new high temperature fuel-cell technological
breakthrough information I provided.

Possibility, with a lot more research yes, viability any time soon, no.

Agreed. Some of the recent "breakthrough"technologies I have suggested require further development. Apparently that development is underway, however.

And likely will be for a LONG time.

Any day now we will have unlimited fusion energy, a cure for the common >>cold, and peace in the Middle East.

And it has been that way for over a half century.

I would wager you were equally skeptical about the likelihood of electric automobiles being accepted worldwide by governments and the public before Elon Musk proved that they can be stylish, reasonably non-polluting, and
very fast.

As well as very expensive, prone to catching fire, taking a
comparatively long time to refuel, needing a battery replacement
that is a significant fraction of the original vehicle cost after 6
years or so, and requiring government subsidies to make them anywhere
near affordable by most people.

You skepticism is why I value your input on this topic. You are knowledgeable and difficult to convince; that drives me to research the points you make, and learn something in the process.

On that subject, here is a technology that bypasses the necessity for
electricity to power electrolysis of water into its constituent H2 and O2 >>> gases.

I read about this, yet another, pie in the sky scheme long ago.

That's never going to happen other than in some niche applications for a >>LOT of reasons.

I believe the report indicates that the direct photo-electrolysis of water into its constituent gases is currently working in the laboratory.

There are LOTS of things "currently working in the laboratory", but that
does not mean they will ever be actually useful.

Regardless of how efficient it is or is not, a passive solar electrolysis cell fueled solely by sunshine could deliver H2 and O2 whenever and wherever the sun hits it. That's about as clean H2 production as I can imagine.

It would by the height of folly to disregard efficiency.

Remember just a few years back when alcohol would be the fuel of the
future until inconvenient facts like ALL agriculture would have to be
devoted to alcohol production to achieve it and the price of corn sky
rocketed in places like Mexico?

Locally sited direct solar hydrolysis coupled with the very high efficiency of electric motor technology, and more efficient high temperature fuel-cell technology would eliminate the power required to generate H2, and deliver it at the "filling station," all without emitting any CO2 or any other pollutants.

So you are going to fuel your fuel cell based car with low pressure
hydrogen?

Yeah, that's going to work just great on oh so many levels.

Even if you could get it to work on a large scale, you still have the issues >>of compressing, storing, and transporting the hydrogen, none of which are >>cheap in terms of energy.

Compressing H2 is not required if a cryocooler is employed to liquefy it;
LH2 is stored at ambient atmospheric pressure. In the videos at the links I included in previous posts, you will see cryocoolers liquefying atmospheric nitrogen with only ~150 Watts of energy required.

Yep, all you need now is a VERY well insulated cryo tank and whoever
does the fueling needs a full face shield, safety glasses, insulated or
leather gloves, long-sleeved shirt, and pants without cuffs along with
a bunch of safety training and in some places a certificate of some sort.

BTW, did you bother to get the volume of nitrogen produced with 150 W?

Alternatively, H2 can be stored in the spaces between solid-matter molecules al la Power Paste, or some other similar product.

Or maybe pixie dust...

As mentioned above, on-site hydrogen generation obviates the necessity for transporting it, and eliminates the emissions associated with the
traditional method of trucking fuel to filling stations.

And just where, on your typical filling station, would you put all this
high tech equipment and who monitors it to prevent another Hindenburg
event?

It is also highly unlikely that whoever does the actual fueling will be
someone working for gas station attendant wages.

Climate change will destroy civilization, so we better destroy
civilization to keep that from happening...

I too believe that we have passed the point of turning the destructive environmental trend around as evidenced by the loss of forests:

I guess that just flew right over your head.

It was satire directed at the panic stricken Chicken Little's of the
world.


<snip>
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:32:47 -0700, Jim Pennino <ji...@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 18:00:10 -0700, Jim Pennino <ji...@gonzo.specsol.net> >>> wrote:

[snip]

I was hoping you might acknowledge the viability of LH2 for electric
aviation in light of the new high temperature fuel-cell technological >>> breakthrough information I provided.

Possibility, with a lot more research yes, viability any time soon, no.

Agreed. Some of the recent "breakthrough"technologies I have suggested require further development. Apparently that development is underway, however.

And likely will be for a LONG time.

Any day now we will have unlimited fusion energy, a cure for the common >>cold, and peace in the Middle East.

And it has been that way for over a half century.

I would wager you were equally skeptical about the likelihood of electric automobiles being accepted worldwide by governments and the public before Elon Musk proved that they can be stylish, reasonably non-polluting, and very fast.

As well as very expensive, prone to catching fire, taking a
comparatively long time to refuel, needing a battery replacement
that is a significant fraction of the original vehicle cost after 6
years or so, and requiring government subsidies to make them anywhere
near affordable by most people.

You skepticism is why I value your input on this topic. You are knowledgeable and difficult to convince; that drives me to research the points you make, and learn something in the process.

On that subject, here is a technology that bypasses the necessity for >>> electricity to power electrolysis of water into its constituent H2 and O2
gases.

I read about this, yet another, pie in the sky scheme long ago.

That's never going to happen other than in some niche applications for a >>LOT of reasons.

I believe the report indicates that the direct photo-electrolysis of water into its constituent gases is currently working in the laboratory.

There are LOTS of things "currently working in the laboratory", but that does not mean they will ever be actually useful.

Regardless of how efficient it is or is not, a passive solar electrolysis cell fueled solely by sunshine could deliver H2 and O2 whenever and wherever
the sun hits it. That's about as clean H2 production as I can imagine.

It would by the height of folly to disregard efficiency.

Remember just a few years back when alcohol would be the fuel of the
future until inconvenient facts like ALL agriculture would have to be devoted to alcohol production to achieve it and the price of corn sky rocketed in places like Mexico?

Locally sited direct solar hydrolysis coupled with the very high efficiency
of electric motor technology, and more efficient high temperature fuel-cell
technology would eliminate the power required to generate H2, and deliver it
at the "filling station," all without emitting any CO2 or any other pollutants.

So you are going to fuel your fuel cell based car with low pressure hydrogen?

Yeah, that's going to work just great on oh so many levels.

Even if you could get it to work on a large scale, you still have the issues
of compressing, storing, and transporting the hydrogen, none of which are >>cheap in terms of energy.

Compressing H2 is not required if a cryocooler is employed to liquefy it; LH2 is stored at ambient atmospheric pressure. In the videos at the links I
included in previous posts, you will see cryocoolers liquefying atmospheric
nitrogen with only ~150 Watts of energy required.

Yep, all you need now is a VERY well insulated cryo tank and whoever
does the fueling needs a full face shield, safety glasses, insulated or leather gloves, long-sleeved shirt, and pants without cuffs along with
a bunch of safety training and in some places a certificate of some sort.

BTW, did you bother to get the volume of nitrogen produced with 150 W?

Alternatively, H2 can be stored in the spaces between solid-matter molecules
al la Power Paste, or some other similar product.

Or maybe pixie dust...

As mentioned above, on-site hydrogen generation obviates the necessity for transporting it, and eliminates the emissions associated with the traditional method of trucking fuel to filling stations.

And just where, on your typical filling station, would you put all this
high tech equipment and who monitors it to prevent another Hindenburg
event?

It is also highly unlikely that whoever does the actual fueling will be someone working for gas station attendant wages.

Climate change will destroy civilization, so we better destroy >>civilization to keep that from happening...

I too believe that we have passed the point of turning the destructive environmental trend around as evidenced by the loss of forests:

I guess that just flew right over your head.

It was satire directed at the panic stricken Chicken Little's of the
world.

<snip>

What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
wrote:

Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?

What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?


oIrrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.o
uLDighera
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?

What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?

Religion and science are orthogonal.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:28:13 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>> wrote:

Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?

What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?

Religion and science are orthogonal.

What if there were a neurophysiological structural difference between individuals with a tendency toward emotionally dominant behavior and those with the curiosity and courage to believe in the empirical facts they observe?

What about it and what does it have to do with piloting?

<snip>


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:04:45 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:28:13 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>>> wrote:

Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?

What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?

Religion and science are orthogonal.

What if there were a neurophysiological structural difference between
individuals with a tendency toward emotionally dominant behavior and those >> with the curiosity and courage to believe in the empirical facts they
observe?

What about it and what does it have to do with piloting?

<snip>

Oh. I thought the topic had wandered so from piloting till it was absurd.

I expected a more cogent response from you, Jim.

.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:04:45 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:28:13 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>> wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>>>> wrote:

Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?

What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?

Religion and science are orthogonal.

What if there were a neurophysiological structural difference between
individuals with a tendency toward emotionally dominant behavior and those >>> with the curiosity and courage to believe in the empirical facts they
observe?

What about it and what does it have to do with piloting?

<snip>

Oh. I thought the topic had wandered so from piloting till it was absurd.

I expected a more cogent response from you, Jim.

As soon as I hit the words "liberal" and "conservative" I totally shut
down.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2