Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[MileHigh]

You make a lot of good points and I am not as informed as I should be to debate this very serious subject properly.  Nor do I have the fire in the belly for this kind of stuff.  I more or less tuned out of politics and watching the news each day on TV about 10 years ago.  Certainly there is more than enough evil to go around in the world.  Realistically you have to pick and choose your battles also.  There is also the option to just pack up and leave and that may happen also.  You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Is there another "R*** of Nanking" in our future?  I bet you there is for both cases, if you engage, or if you don't engage.  I still believe that in the long run, the war in Iraq will not be perceived in such a negative light.  Meanwhile, some places in the world are such complete messes, that Western countries may completely pull out - morally, financially, and militarily.  Don't be surprised that with the complete falling apart of any form of civil society in some of these places that the very same people crying "Death to America" will be whining and screaming for the West to come back and save their asses.

The world is a real mess in the 21st century for sure.  To paraphrase the Smart Scarecrow, "Fix your own damn problems."

[MarkE]

I think oppositely.  A very powerful country went womping on another on pretext with all the usual horrors that come with war.  It is the worst of imperialism.  About the only thing that did not happen was widespread mutilation and torture such as occurred in Asia during WWII at the hands of the Japanese.  But I am pretty sure that the specter of silent death from above brought about by drones is still extremely terrifying.  There is no clean way to fight a war.  It should always be the last resort.  It should not be a publicity stunt ala:  "Mission Accomplished", May 2003, troops still on the ground May 2015.  Everytime I think about the idocy that came out of the Mindless Midgit Moron's mouth, like his challenge to Iraqi insurgents to "bring it on", I want to puke. 

Extreme nationalism and dreams of glory by gore are fantasies sold to largely to angry young men.  One of OSB's achieved goals was to provoke the US into a land war.  The neocons gave that miserable PoS everything he hoped for and few bullets more.

[Red_Sunset]

Mark, MileHigh,

I know we are getting out of context, but to round it off, I need to get this down.  It is all about proper moral & human ground rules.
Interesting character differentiation between MH & Bill (both definitely American) and MarkE (possibly not American) and your reaction to a seemingly improper situation or action.
Bill is Patriotic and justifies on that basis.  MileHigh is aware and conscious of the improper conduct but provides excuses to justify the acts (apparent crimes) committed by his government.  Mark has seen through the smokescreen.

The excuses offered, for the intelligence failures are astounding, considering that the whole of Europe (except UK) were unwilling  to participate, telling Bush that he had the wrong end of the stick. Remember Bush's intimidation statement "you are with us, if not, you are against us"
The assumption of justification that Saddam could/would initiate an aggression if not taken out....sure,  that is like saying I arrest you for murder because you have a hand gun.(Handguns are not for hunting, only for killing, so you sooner or later are going to use it for that purpose).  Like Tom Cruise in "Minority Report".  This is a very skewed moral position without having any direct evidence to warrant a first strike.
There was most likely a good reason for keeping you head under the sand like a ostrich for the last 10yrs because politics is all a charade, it is the opposite of what is required.  I have to admit, you are very correct.

The signals,
1.. What was the financial situation of the USA in 2001 ?
2.. What happened to the financial situation thereafter ?
3.. Who got poorer and who got richer,  and in what proportions?
Once you can clearly put this down into a matrix, you understand the mechanics of the world and what does democracy serve.

We are looking at an evolution that started after WWII in earnest and now has fully and boldly taken over.
The first warning reference to this industrial complex might was Eisenhower,  a warning reference also exist that was made by JFK and later a fleeting reference/acknowledgement exist made by Nixon.  Thereafter silence.  This power complex is now in full control, a government is only a store front.

A good way to look at it is, there is no separation between business and politics.
A country is like a giant corporation that manages many sub-companies, who all lobby to the corporate board for favors, advantages and rulings. The head of the corporation works for stake/share holders. The evolutionary flow since the 199x elevated this structure to a world wide level, with firmer controls instituted in 2001. 
It should be clear that an American corporation has no longer a national allegiance neither a direct US interest apart from a power control viewpoint.   This change impact workers the most and this should be clear to see all over the world, USA in particular.

** The Middle East remodeling started with Saddam is still ongoing and their is a clear objective to purpose and what needs to be achieved.  A couple of Texans, they might be in a better position to inform us.

Just some musing that might possibly be true and help to understand the world around us. 
Red

[tinman]

That is true, but it doesn't help.  What you have is energy stored in compressing the air that is released as the bubble rises to lower surrounding pressure.  That complicates the math quite a bit, but when it is all said and done the very best that you can do is get back the energy consumed compressing air to displace the water.  If the air were an incompressible liquid instead of a compressible gas, then we would have the simpler form of the math:  absent losses we would lift rho_water*volume*gh water at the bottom, and as the bubble rose we would have available:  (rho_water - rho_{displacing fluid})*volume*gh energy available, provided we take infinite time in the move.  As the gas is compressible, we displace less water at the start.  We've stored energy that would have gone into lifting the water in the gas bubble.

I plotted a graph over a depth of 200 meters,and the joules of potential energy gained with the rising/expanding vessel equaled that of the energy needed to compress the 1ltr vessel at 200 meters to 290psig. What i didnt take into account was the fact that the water level would also be raised. Now being in the ocean,we wouldnt see that rise,nor would it make any difference to the potential energy gained. But,what if that ocean was a column that was just slightly bigger than the vessel(that expands). If this column was 200 meters high,and the vessel could expand to 5 times it's displacement in length,then the head of water would be gaining in hight as the vessel rose. So now insted of haveing a 200 meter head at the start and finish,we would end up having say a 205 meter head of water as the vessel neared the top. So not only dose the vessel now have a means of gaining more potential energy,it also means that we only had to account for a 200 meter head pressure,while the vessel can travel 205 meters up.That last 5 meters makes a big difference in potential energy gained,all while we had to put no more energy into the system.

It's a bit of a cascade effect. The higher the vessel rises,the lower the pressure,the more the vessel expands,the more water is displaced,and the higher the head of water rises-->and this continue's throughout the whole cycle. Nothing in the sense of pressure changes,as the water volume remains the same,but the water level rises.

[MarkE]

I plotted a graph over a depth of 200 meters,and the joules of potential energy gained with the rising/expanding vessel equaled that of the energy needed to compress the 1ltr vessel at 200 meters to 290psig. What i didnt take into account was the fact that the water level would also be raised.

I would need to see either the equations used to see what you have included.  If you calculated in small increments, such as 0.1m steps then you should have been able to calculate the energy to better than 1%.  Whatever assumptio you make about the column cross section will reflect back into the pressure that compresses the air and if the calculations are performed properly it is still all a wash.

Now being in the ocean,we wouldnt see that rise,nor would it make any difference to the potential energy gained. But,what if that ocean was a column that was just slightly bigger than the vessel(that expands). If this column was 200 meters high,and the vessel could expand to 5 times it's displacement in length,then the head of water would be gaining in hight as the vessel rose. So now insted of haveing a 200 meter head at the start and finish,we would end up having say a 205 meter head of water as the vessel neared the top. So not only dose the vessel now have a means of gaining more potential energy,it also means that we only had to account for a 200 meter head pressure,while the vessel can travel 205 meters up.That last 5 meters makes a big difference in potential energy gained,all while we had to put no more energy into the system.

Again, don't forget that the skinny column also applie much higher compression upon the float until you get close to the top.

It's a bit of a cascade effect. The higher the vessel rises,the lower the pressure,the more the vessel expands,the more water is displaced,and the higher the head of water rises-->and this continue's throughout the whole cycle. Nothing in the sense of pressure changes,as the water volume remains the same,but the water level rises.

Yes that is all true and when you work it out the curve follows a natural logarithm function.  But at the end of the day all that has been done is some energy has been put into compression of the gas and some into immediately raising a volume of water.  As the gas bubble rises and relaxes, it releases energy that increases the volume of lifted water.  If the bubble rises very slowly, then the compression energy identically converts to mgh of water.  The math gets more complicated but the best that you can do remains a theoretical break-even.