GE 8mm camcorder has snow in picutre, help w/diagnosing pr..

[Doc]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

Have a GE CG818 8mm camcorder. It's worked like a champ until today, suddeny
developed severe horizontal lines or snow.

Some observations regarding this malady:

-It's visible both through the viewfinder and from the composite out to the
computer
-It's visble in Rec mode.
-It's visible in play mode when not playing
-Banding *not* visible when playing a tape that was recorded before this
problem developed. Picture is fine in the viewfinder and through the
composite out when playing.
-It's visible on tapes recorded since problem began

Any guesses what kind of component might be causing this problem? I'd really
like to salvage this camera since it's worked great, is simple, yet has both
auto & manual focus.

Thanks for any assistance

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Doc" <docsavage20@Xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dG6wd.855$yK.276@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Have a GE CG818 8mm camcorder. It's worked like a champ until today,
suddeny
> developed severe horizontal lines or snow.
>
> Some observations regarding this malady:
>
> -It's visible both through the viewfinder and from the composite out to
the
> computer
> -It's visble in Rec mode.
> -It's visible in play mode when not playing
> -Banding *not* visible when playing a tape that was recorded before this
> problem developed. Picture is fine in the viewfinder and through the
> composite out when playing.
> -It's visible on tapes recorded since problem began
>
> Any guesses what kind of component might be causing this problem? I'd
really
> like to salvage this camera since it's worked great, is simple, yet has
both
> auto & manual focus.
>
> Thanks for any assistance
>
>
>

Virtually any compact camcorder of that age will be suffering from failing
surface mount electrolytic capacitors. Often virtually every one is bad,
replacement is possible but usually runs a couple hundred bucks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:46:33 GMT, "Doc" <docsavage20@Xhotmail.com>
wrote:

>Have a GE CG818 8mm camcorder. It's worked like a champ until today, suddeny
>developed severe horizontal lines or snow.
>
>Some observations regarding this malady:
>
>-It's visible both through the viewfinder and from the composite out to the
>computer
>-It's visble in Rec mode.
>-It's visible in play mode when not playing
>-Banding *not* visible when playing a tape that was recorded before this
>problem developed. Picture is fine in the viewfinder and through the
>composite out when playing.
>-It's visible on tapes recorded since problem began
>
>Any guesses what kind of component might be causing this problem? I'd really
>like to salvage this camera since it's worked great, is simple, yet has both
>auto & manual focus.
>
>Thanks for any assistance
>
>
The heads are probably clogged up, run a cleaning cassette for about
3 minutes. Or take it to someone that knows how to do it and have the
heads cleaned by hand.

hank

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"No One" <noone@nohwehre.com> wrote

> The heads are probably clogged up, run a cleaning cassette for about
> 3 minutes. Or take it to someone that knows how to do it and have the
> heads cleaned by hand.
>
> hank
>

WHAT!!!
Look folks. Those dry cleaning cassettes are NOT, nor have they EVER been,
intended to be used for any more than TEN SECONDS at a time. And as far as
I'm concerned they are nothing more than a short cut to hell for video tape
heads. Three minutes of running a dry head cleaner will take off hours, if
not ALL of the life you have left on the heads.
Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
chamois stick. It is time well spent.

Bill F.
www.billfarnsworthvideo.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Bill Farnsworth" <bill.farnsworth@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:xjOxd.3084$h.3060@trnddc04...
>
> "No One" <noone@nohwehre.com> wrote
>
>> The heads are probably clogged up, run a cleaning cassette for about
>> 3 minutes. Or take it to someone that knows how to do it and have the
>> heads cleaned by hand.
>>
>> hank
>>
>
> WHAT!!!
> Look folks. Those dry cleaning cassettes are NOT, nor have they EVER been,
> intended to be used for any more than TEN SECONDS at a time. And as far as
> I'm concerned they are nothing more than a short cut to hell for video
> tape heads. Three minutes of running a dry head cleaner will take off
> hours, if not ALL of the life you have left on the heads.
> Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
> cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
> chamois stick. It is time well spent.
>
> Bill F.
> www.billfarnsworthvideo.com
>
I think some manufacturers say to only run them for FIVE SECONDS at a time.

 

[Doc]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Bill Farnsworth" <bill.farnsworth@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:xjOxd.3084$h.3060@trnddc04...

> Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
> cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
> chamois stick. It is time well spent.

What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean the heads, moisten
the cloth in clear acetone, and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular
to the axis of the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
to the axis of the drum.

Since the camcorder is still useful in play mode, how I've "cured" the
problem is to find 2 more 8mm camcorders in a pawn shop that work great. An
RCA and a Sony Handy Cam. Got 'em both for $65. Geez, I thought I
practically stole the other one 5 years ago for $75. Hey, there's something
to be said for using technology that's on the downhill side of being
outdated.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Doc" wrote ...
> What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
> the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,

Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.

> and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
> the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
> to the axis of the drum.

The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
without significant risk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Doc" <docsavage20@Xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news😛6Yxd.5958$Z47.4214@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Bill Farnsworth" <bill.farnsworth@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:xjOxd.3084$h.3060@trnddc04...
>
> > Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
> > cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
> > chamois stick. It is time well spent.
>
> What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean the heads, moisten
> the cloth in clear acetone, and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular
> to the axis of the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
> to the axis of the drum.
>
> Since the camcorder is still useful in play mode, how I've "cured" the
> problem is to find 2 more 8mm camcorders in a pawn shop that work great.
An
> RCA and a Sony Handy Cam. Got 'em both for $65. Geez, I thought I
> practically stole the other one 5 years ago for $75. Hey, there's
something
> to be said for using technology that's on the downhill side of being
> outdated.
>
>

That and the surface mount capacitors in those things are time bombs, even
sitting unused they'll fail after a shelf life of 5-10 years in most cases,
making older ones simply not worth much.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

[Veronica]

> "Doc" wrote ...
>> What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
>> the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,
>
> Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
> I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.
>
>> and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
>> the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
>> to the axis of the drum.
>
> The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
> consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
> without significant risk.
>
>
Use a cotton bud.
--

<http://www.theweddingphotographers.com>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Unspam" wrote ...
> [Veronica]
>
>> "Doc" wrote ...
>>> What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
>>> the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,
>>
>> Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
>> I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.
>>
>>> and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
>>> the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
>>> to the axis of the drum.
>>
>> The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
>> consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
>> without significant risk.
>>
>>
> Use a cotton bud.

Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
"Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

[Veronica]

> "Unspam" wrote ...
>> [Veronica]
>>
>>> "Doc" wrote ...
>>>> What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
>>>> the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,
>>>
>>> Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
>>> I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.
>>>
>>>> and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
>>>> the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
>>>> to the axis of the drum.
>>>
>>> The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
>>> consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
>>> without significant risk.
>>>
>>>
>> Use a cotton bud.
>
> Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
> specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
> "Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
> RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
> being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
> are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
> do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.
>



Hmmm, they worked in Abbey Road for years until they went digital, but I
give way to your superior knowledge.
--

<http://www.theweddingphotographers.com>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Unspam" wrote ...

>> Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
>> specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
>> "Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
>> RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
>> being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
>> are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
>> do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.
>
> Hmmm, they worked in Abbey Road for years until they went
> digital, but I give way to your superior knowledge.

They weren't using recorders with rotary heads "in Abbey Road
for years". For analog, linear machines (i.e. audio), they are just
fine. For that matter, if you are careful to inspect for stray snagged
fibres, cotton swabs are just fine for the non-moving parts of the
tape path of rotary-head machines.

But using them on rotary heads is just inviting disaster. And
many pro video users advocate avoiding them altogether just
because of the risk from stray fibres that you may not notice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10slq31no3lud45@corp.supernews.com...
> "Unspam" wrote ...
>
>>> Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
>>> specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
>>> "Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
>>> RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
>>> being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
>>> are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
>>> do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.
>>
>> Hmmm, they worked in Abbey Road for years until they went digital, but I
>> give way to your superior knowledge.
>
> They weren't using recorders with rotary heads "in Abbey Road
> for years". For analog, linear machines (i.e. audio), they are just fine.
> For that matter, if you are careful to inspect for stray snagged
> fibres, cotton swabs are just fine for the non-moving parts of the tape
> path of rotary-head machines.
> But using them on rotary heads is just inviting disaster. And
> many pro video users advocate avoiding them altogether just because of the
> risk from stray fibres that you may not notice.

You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2" machines...

Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!

Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds will let you have
freon...etc, etc, etc.

Then there is the "light application of a thumbnail to the upper drum"
trick.

Seriously though...dense cotton cloth or chamois stick, DEnatured alchohol
(the 70% stuff has too much water content...heads can rust, believe it or
not), and just hold the alchohol soaked cloth/chamois against the heads
while you carefully turn the drum with your finger.

DO NOT scrub up and down (you can snap a head off) or side to side (you can
knock the heads out of alignment.) Just hold the cloth in line with the
heads while turning the drum and check the cloth/chamois each time. It
should show less and less crud after each pass and eventually come up clean.

Jay Beckman
Old Freelance Tape - EVS - Profile Op/Editor
Chandler, AZ

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Jay Beckman" wrote ...
> You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2"
> machines...

> Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!

> Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds
> will let you have freon...etc, etc, etc.

In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using
Freon to clean electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically
correct to observe that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.

I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but
we'll never know.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10sm2etkdqaae8c@corp.supernews.com...
> "Jay Beckman" wrote ...
>> You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2" machines...
>
>> Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!
>
>> Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds will let you have
>> freon...etc, etc, etc.
>
> In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more greenhouse
> gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using Freon to clean
> electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically correct to observe
> that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.
>
> I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but we'll never
> know.

True, true...

However, I don't think that Mt St Helens caused lab rats to grow second
tails or third ears...

Freon did have it's dark side.

Considering the construction "quality" of some of today's consumer gear (and
even some "pro" gear) Freon may just be a little too "industrial" in nature.

Merry and Happy...

Jay B

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote ...
[re: Freon]
> However, I don't think that Mt St Helens caused lab rats to grow
> second tails or third ears...

The MSDS doesn't mention anything like this.

"Reproductive data on rats show no change in reproductive performance."

"In animal testing, this material has not caused permanent genetic
damage
in reproductive cells of mammals (has not produced heritable genetic
damage)."

> Freon did have it's dark side.

If you compare the MSDS, it is roughly equivalent to alcohol.
Actually, I am at far greater risk from alcohol (or those who
have consumed it) than from Freon.

http://msds.dupont.com/msds/pdfs/EN/PEN_09004a2f8000789b.pdf

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10sm2etkdqaae8c@corp.supernews.com...
> "Jay Beckman" wrote ...
> > You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2"
> > machines...
>
> > Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!
>
> > Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds
> > will let you have freon...etc, etc, etc.
>
> In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
> greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using
> Freon to clean electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically
> correct to observe that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.
>
> I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but
> we'll never know.


Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
large hole above the arctic. There's modern equivilants that work nearly as
well and don't cause such a problem.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:09:32 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
>greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using
>Freon to clean electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically
>correct to observe that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.

Freon <> greenhouse gasses. Learn what you're talking about before
speaking.

By the way, this year's ozone hole over the Antarctic will set a new
record. What part of that involves being "politically correct"?

Learn science, it's good for you.

Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:A_Dyd.999$yW5.486@fed1read02...
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
> news:10sm2etkdqaae8c@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Jay Beckman" wrote ...
> >> You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2" machines...
> >
> >> Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!
> >
> >> Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds will let you
have
> >> freon...etc, etc, etc.
> >
> > In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
greenhouse
> > gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using Freon to clean
> > electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically correct to
observe
> > that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.
> >
> > I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but we'll never
> > know.
>
> True, true...
>
> However, I don't think that Mt St Helens caused lab rats to grow second
> tails or third ears...
>
> Freon did have it's dark side.
>
> Considering the construction "quality" of some of today's consumer gear
(and
> even some "pro" gear) Freon may just be a little too "industrial" in
nature.
>
> Merry and Happy...
>
> Jay B
>

True, but the tree huggers are trying to get a law passed to make it illegal
for Mt. St. Helens to give off any more gas .. still trying to figure out
who
is responsible though ...
(check out the Mt. St. Helens cam -- cool pix and they have some
short movies of some of the past "eruptions")
http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/

mikey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

>
> True, but the tree huggers are trying to get a law passed to make it
illegal
> for Mt. St. Helens to give off any more gas .. still trying to figure out
> who
> is responsible though ...


Huh? Is it "tree huggers" or just someone trying to be cute? There was a
reasonably well publicized gag a few years ago where someone was pushing for
a ban on "di-hydrogen monoxide" and actually succeeded in getting a
ridiculous number of signatures.

 

[James]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...
>
> Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
> large hole above the arctic.

Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
due to natural forces.

Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:06:26 GMT "James" <muzician21@xyahoo.com>
wrote:

>"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...
>>
>> Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
>> large hole above the arctic.
>
>Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
>and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
>due to natural forces.

You might want to read several articals in Physics Today in the last
few years. I'm only familiar with those because that's one I get, but
I'm sure that there are other scientific journals that have detailed
the chemistry that is responsible for these reactions. The process has
been well known in the scientific community for more than 20 years.

It remains a political question mark simply because it is inconvenient
to some parts of the political spectrum, mostly the same people that
have trouble with evolution, the heliocentric solar system, and the
concept of a round earth.

Ozone concentrations over both poles has been tracked for many years.
Naturally there is a normal variation from year to year, but the
current trend is way outside the norm.

Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.

>Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?

Ozone is created normally in the upper atmosphere from the ionization
of O2 by the solar wind.

Ozone in the lower atmosphere, from automobile exhaust, etc, makes its
way to the upper atmosphere only very slowly.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"James" <muzician21@xyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Snmzd.12790$Z47.11041@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...
> >
> > Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of
the
> > large hole above the arctic.
>
> Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
> and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
> due to natural forces.
>
> Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?
>
>

Ozone is caused by diatomic oxygen molecules being busted apart by shortwave
UV light, they then recombine into Ozone (O3).

I can't *prove* that freon "caused" the ozone hole any more than I can
personally "prove" that the earth is round or that the moon is not made of
cheese, but it's widely accepted to be a substantial contributor. Yeah
there's a lot of BS environmental hysteria out there but there's some
substance to some of it. A quick google search brings up hundreds of links
to various reading. If the internet is not considered a trustworthy source
there's plenty of respected scientific books and magazines with coverage of
the subject at most libraries.

Since the manufacture of CFC's was banned in the US the world has not fallen
apart, technology has come to the rescue and developed suitable substitutes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:41:29 -0600, Jim Adney <jadney@vwtype3.org>
wrote:

>You might want to read several articals in Physics Today in the last
>few years. I'm only familiar with those because that's one I get, but
>I'm sure that there are other scientific journals that have detailed
>the chemistry that is responsible for these reactions. The process has
>been well known in the scientific community for more than 20 years.
>
>It remains a political question mark simply because it is inconvenient
>to some parts of the political spectrum, mostly the same people that
>have trouble with evolution, the heliocentric solar system, and the
>concept of a round earth.
>
>Ozone concentrations over both poles has been tracked for many years.
>Naturally there is a normal variation from year to year, but the
>current trend is way outside the norm.
>
>Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
>the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
>there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.

It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
is that it's a change in extremely recent history.
We have absolutely no idea of how much the ozone layers have changed
over even the last century, much less long enough to make some sort of
rational claim of an abnormal change over a long period if time.
Maybe when we have been measuring the ozone layers for even as short a
time as 50 years, we might find a cycle that's simply repeating.
But to make such a claim with such an extremely short data gathering
period is simply bad science.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:jlnts05c3s6bcrk1lidun5r4aq677s248n@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:41:29 -0600, Jim Adney <jadney@vwtype3.org>
| wrote:
|
....
| >Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
| >the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
| >there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.
|
| It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
| We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
| is that it's a change in extremely recent history.
....

But when the incoming wave is 50 feet high it's not a good time to assume
it's part of a normal cycle.

N