Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (14763)	6/29/2006 9:24:39 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78418

hmmmmmmmmm... I said it and I meant it and it can be done. I know triple PhD's who say so, and their studies of fluid dynamics of what people once thought were chaotic systems. i.e blood flow in artificial hearts, were ground breaking. It is not laughable. It is easy programming and easy science. the hard part is getting 10,000 accurate inputs and all those computers harnessed. A latency time slows down computation. Yes, you have to model flows over a wide area to get the one area at the end of the flow "right". Since weather travels at 10 to 15 miles per hour, you have to model weather right to the Pacific coast to get it right. Well maybe not that far, but easily 1500 miles upwind. And since wind varies a lot in direction that covers a pretty wide area. 1500 miles by 800 miles I would say. And the Jet Stream has to be looked at. It affects weather throught Canada and the nothern states pretty closely. My statistical system would not require that much area. One million square kilometres, 600 miles by 600 miles. You have to do stats on one cell, and then compare it at each point, to every other cell, or a subset of those cells. You get perhaps 1000 stat groups for each cell back for 12,000 days. Maybe 300 billion data sets. Something to have fun with. EC<:-}