About Jon

Bio

I am an illegal alien. I bring you peeeeaaacccceee! Take me to your leader.

Talk to me about

sex if you are a hot blonde female with blue starry eyes, the best burger combo if you are a bloke.

People don't know I'm good at

reciting the alphabet backwards. cooking the perfect omelette. coming up with ever inventive reason for procrastination.

My TED story

One time, humans blasted my ships to pieces, but its ok because they're dumb and know not what they're doing. Also, the pieces of my bombed out ship make the sun looks cool. Check it out at the website url

Comments & conversations

Noface
Jon Ho
Posted almost 3 years ago
Boil the oceans... Yeah... I said it.
Excellent! In fact, go and pay those a visit, they're in Orange County. Public tours of the Groundwater Replenishment System are offered at 10 a.m. on the first Friday of every month if I'm not mistaken, and you need to reserve in advance. ;) The thing about zenithsolar is that they generate heat, and they're very good at it. But then you want to pump those evaporated hot water through a cooling system and that cooling system transfers that heat back into the atmosphere thus contributing to more global warming, and this is where solar powered desalination failed. Unless you can come up with a way to remove that excess heat, by either channeling it into a miniature black hole or venting it thousands of miles into the vacuum of outer space, solar desalination for the moment is just not feasible....
Noface
Jon Ho
Posted almost 3 years ago
Boil the oceans... Yeah... I said it.
Now, for the last time, I will try to enlighten you, and that is that, because I'm tired of teaching humans who does not want to empty their cup full of their own opinions first, seeing their cup of knowledge overflow when I pour my knowledge into their cup. A waste of my precious time. If you really want to desalinate ocean water to replenish the groundwater, use semi permeable membrane. Reverse osmosis is a pressure-driven process that forces the separation of fresh water from other constituents through a semipermeable membrane. This is the preferred method in large-scale desalination implementations where electricity is cheaply available. What the hell am I talking about? Check out this website http://www.gwrsystem.com/ And now you name call me a troll, right after I proved you wrong yet again. Seriously, why say enlighten me, when every time I tried you don't want to accept enlightenment and stubbornly keep clinging to your ideas? Why keep saying you are a jester when every time I try to throw in some parody you start getting defensive and start name calling? Oh wait, I get it, you're not a moron, you're an oxymoron! Hahahahaha, good one! So when you say you are a young guy, I can safely assume that you are actually an old woman right? Epic Fail indeed! ;)
Noface
Jon Ho
Posted almost 3 years ago
Boil the oceans... Yeah... I said it.
I KNOW about Solar Desalination, heck even built a couple of prototype for a company. BUT, just like perpetual motion machine, even though they sound good on paper, in practice it does not work. That company is now using something else, which does not have the design problems of solar desalination project. There are two inherent design problems facing any solar desalination project. Firstly, the system's efficiency is governed by preferably high heat and mass transfer during evaporation and condensation. The surfaces have to be properly designed within the contradictory objectives of heat transfer efficiency, economy and reliability. Secondly, the heat of condensation is valuable because it takes large amounts of solar energy to evaporate water and generate saturated, vapor-laden hot air. This energy is, by definition, transferred to the condenser's surface during condensation. With most forms of solar stills, this heat of condensation is ejected from the system as waste heat. The challenge still existing in the field today, is to achieve the optimum temperature difference between the solar-generated vapor and the seawater-cooled condenser, maximal reuse of the energy of condensation, and minimizing the asset investment. These two design problems is the main contributor to the all powerful Point Of Failure 1 as soon as it hits Critical Mass. The other two Points of Failure is just icing in the rapidly snowballing global warming cake of apocalypse.
Noface
Jon Ho
Posted almost 3 years ago
Boil the oceans... Yeah... I said it.
Continued due to silly character limitation- "Water from ocean, going to crops, makes less ocean water, more land mass. - Point of Failure No 3"... You're the one who said increasing land mass, and reducing ocean would lower the temperature, not me... I admitted to being a novice in this field, in my initial statement. --- You're doing it again, reading what I wrote piecemeal! Start reading it as a whole. Sure you get cubic tons of water from the ocean due to accelerated global warming, but going to what crops? All crops are dead or dying, and no new ones will grow. So where do these cubic tons of water go? Why, back into the ocean, making land mass grow smaller and smaller! Until finally, the world is drowned in ocean water forever, with mega storm cell and miles high tsunami raging over the water. No I'm not imparting a much larger ego on you, I know, you do. And please, EGO IS GOOD! It proves that you are you, and not sheeples conforming to the status quo. It is only when you humans start thinking and acting irrationally, trying to protect an idea or meme that should die gracefully, that you become a monster, trapped by the dogma of self. ;) I love crazy idea, seriously I do. I also love jokes, sarcasm, et al. too. When I see something posted is fun, funny, provoke an interesting debate, my logic follows : post serious logic stuff backed by scientific reason first, then throw in a little parody here and there. If the guy who I took a stab out of laughed and played along, I know that that guy is a jester for real, and not some guy who has a big chip on his shoulder, menacing and threatening to sue anyone who parodied him. And yes, I AM a 15,000 years old, who spent the last 10 millenium living on earth as an illegal alien. Nah, just joking haha. Or am I? Dun dun duuunnnn ;)
Noface
Jon Ho
Posted almost 3 years ago
Boil the oceans... Yeah... I said it.
What about it, fails? What about lowering sea level, to normal levels, and creating fresh water, and salt fails? --- It fails because you are accelerating global warming by playing around with atmospheric convection system, which you originally stated with using clouds which I enlightened you to the fact that this is actually contributing factor to global warming, and now you want to use a magical black-box-boil the ocean-cooling-system that feeds into the underground aquifers. Let me introduce you to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This cooling system you propose will generate a lot of heat, and unless you can vent it into outer space, the heat this cooling system generates will increase global warming, and starts screwing with earth's atmospheric convection system, which leads to Point of Failure No 2, where crops start either start dying or will not even germinate in the first place. "Crops reduce greenhouse gases - Point of Failure No 2." Are you suggesting, that growing plantlife, does not reduce greenhouse gases? --- Stop reading what I wrote piecemeal, start reading it as a whole. Did I EVER say that growing plant life does not reduce greenhouse gases? No, I alluded to the fact that since you have already screwed up the atmosphere with accelerated global warming, crops will start dying or simply stopped germinating/growing in the first place.
Noface
Jon Ho
Posted almost 3 years ago
Is our math wrong? Is it our assumption of zero, or absolute nothingness?
Continued, silly character limitation - But perhaps there is a number z satisfying (2) that's somehow special and we just have not identified it? So here is a slightly more subtle approach. Division is a continuous process. Suppose b and c are both non-zero. Then, in a sense that can be made precise. the ratios a/b and a/c will be close if b and c are close. A similar statement applies to the numerator of a ratio (except that it may be zero.) So now assume that 0/0 has some meaningful numerical value (whatever it may be - we don't know yet), and consider a situation where both a and b in the ratio a/b become smaller and smaller. As they do the ratio should become closer and closer to the unknown value of 0/0. There are many ways in which we can choose a and b and let them become smaller. For example, suppose that a=b throughout the process. For example, we might pick a=b = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, .... Since a=b, for all choices of a we get the ratio 1 every time! This suggests that 0/0 should equal 1. But we could just as well pick b = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, .... and let a be twice as large as b. Then the ratio is always 2! So 0/0 should equal 2. But we just said it should equal 1! In fact, by letting a be r times as large as b we could get any ratio r we please! So again we run into contradictions, and therefore we are compelled to let 0/0 be undefined. So, yeah, zero does not exist, unless if you studied calculus and learn about Rule of L'Hôpital. Which then gets pretty whacky and my hands are all tired from typing and steering this spaceship at the same time so I am ashamed to tell you to just Wikipedia it. Sorry.