SchmidtGenetics

@SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Giant Hail Is the Weather Threat Keeping Insurers Up at Night (www.bloomberg.com)

As the climate has warmed, there’s been an increase in the ingredients that make up hail storms: more instability in the atmosphere and stronger updrafts. The altitude in the atmosphere where water freezes has also been rising because of the warmer weather. This means that small hailstones often melt before they hit the...

SchmidtGenetics,

It’s interesting that they don’t talk about seeding the clouds at all.

Where I live they (the insurance companies pay for it) seed the clouds with silver iodide to create more nucleation points for the hail. This will increase the amount of hail, but decreases to total possible size.

SchmidtGenetics,

Works here, I think all the insurance agencies pay into the program.

But what would you sue them for? The storm was happening and it also doesn’t always work, it mitigates their potential payouts for claims that are already going to happen.

Think golf ball sized instead of baseball, stuff is still getting damaged.

SchmidtGenetics,

Insurance companies aren’t known to just spend money for no reason, it’s adding nucleation points, with less nucleation points the hail can build up larger before it break out of the storm cloud.

Sure they can’t prove it’s doing anything, but more nucleation points can’t make things worse and they know more nucleation points mean smaller potential hail.

It’s usually politics at play or environmentalists screaming about chemicals in the clouds that are the hurdles for something like this.

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

Hah it’s raining and hailed pretty good yesterday, these plants are from HD, so already hardened for outside, but yeah they’ll hang out there until they are ready to get planted.

My actual plants being hardened are up on the deck under the table for the same reasons, and should semi shade them too. Will need to pull these ones in though, too cold at night still. I’m semi worried about needing to tarp the others a few times this week….

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/1695ae68-ce38-4df1-9f23-800f2ddeb557.jpeg

SchmidtGenetics,

It’s called life support and not survive support though. Big difference between conserving as much energy as possible vs being able to freely do what you want without thought of concern.

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

What about temperature regulation? Lights? Water? Food? It’s not just air that’s “life” support.

I think entertainment is also included, so TVs, music, etc. that’s all put on the side burner when life support goes down, it’s a large portion of power if you include everything and not just “oxygen”.

New homeowner, just sorta winging it... (lemmy.world)

Having never owned a house or really had a yard of my own, I got pretty excited and decided to do some ad-hoc landscaping. Built some raised beds for vegetables, and just laying in some organic shaped in-ground beds for low water decorative plants. Gonna fill the rest in with gravel. Any pointers?

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

Yeah I can’t even think of a secondary or tertiary reason.

Unless it’s to stop people from storing it and using it inside? But even than… so my thought on that one is overall maintenance.

In my city you get charged 30% iirc of your water use for sanitary use, so that pays for waste water treatment and maintenance of sewer lines. It’s not a full 100% because people water the yards and other stuff, and it’s not feasible to measure waste discharge.

So the only reason I could think of with, is so people aren’t getting around water fees and therefore sewer maintenance fees.

But it’s probably capitalism instead of trying to maintaining infrastructure.

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

Termites aren’t an issue everywhere though.

The downspout should be discharged atleast 3 if not 5 feet from the house though. BUT that looks like garage? So slab on grade and not as much as a concern, but still not ideal.

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

So they could provide the testing data to prove it. Even the numbers, don’t need a full detailed video.

The lack of proof to their claims is concerning.

They’ve made a claim they should have known would need to be verified, eventually…… its bush league for that on its own.

SchmidtGenetics,

I thought having a conversation about the validity of their claims would be an okay thing to do in this community?

Or are you saying this place is for something else?

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

It’s data they should have had to begin with, they made the claim. Of course it’s going to be questioned, they could have been upfront with the data.

What other reason would they omit it? Other than to mislead if it wasn’t actually 100%.

It’s funny how I am “demanding” something that would be just basic decency to include along with their claim, they provided the data for the sound after all……

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

I am saying every single one of these claims have never wound up being actually true since they go against the very nature of physics. Yet people perpetuate the claims and defend them without the supporting data.

So to not provide the data for one claim, while providing the data for another is only done to mislead from the truth.

Sorry for not accepting what they say at face value since it goes against multiple things.

SchmidtGenetics,

Except if you read the information its only actually a 2 db decrease…

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

It’s a wild statement to claim it doesn’t reduce power when even increasing the length of the discharge tube would affect its performance, and they’ve added a good 8”. Every time like this comes out without the data to back it up, it’s always false, everytime. If it wasn’t the data would be provided now wouldn’t it? Even just showing the CFM data would be enough, but they purposely omit it.

The fact that they purposely omitted data that they have is extremely concerning, it’s not a bold claim say it’s obviously false. It’s bold to claim something like that that goes against what we already know about physics.

I am sorry you are eating up this “marketing”, it’s why products like this are even sold, it’s hilarious, the amount of people defending this asinine claim is honestly quite shocking, especially on a community like this.

Not exactly a good scientific method here, mate.

Uhh… I’m not the one making claims that goes against common knowledge of aerodynamics and then not providing that data. So sure, wanting someone to prove their claim makes me bad at scientific method…?? Maybe the people defending bullshit claims are the ones you should be calling out, oh wait that you yourself. Give you head a fucking shake lmfao.

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

Every claim where they omit the actual data to support the claim is never fully true. Provide the CFM testing data they must have to even make that claim.

There is no valid reason to omit that data unless to mislead.

SchmidtGenetics,

Even increasing or decreasing the length of the discharge tube will change its power and CFM and they’ve added 8”. There is no way the aerodynamics and the overall performance isn’t affected.

SchmidtGenetics,

It’s also only 2db overall, the one frequency they dropped that much.

SchmidtGenetics,

The team reduced the overall leaf blower noise by about two decibels, making the machine sound 37% quieter.

You omitted the most important data, it’s 2db overall, not 12db.

So your own “recalculation” isn’t even in the right ballpark as the correct answer.

Its people that misinterpret the information and perpetuate it like you are doing here that makes these look far better than they actually are.

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

The team reduced the overall leaf blower noise by about two decibels, making the machine sound 37% quieter.

It’s an insignificant 2db, I don’t know why buddy didn’t provide the relevant information.

SchmidtGenetics,

The team reduced the overall leaf blower noise by about two decibels, making the machine sound 37% quieter.

It’s an insignificant 2db, I don’t know why buddy didn’t provide the relevant information.

SchmidtGenetics,

The team reduced the overall leaf blower noise by about two decibels, making the machine sound 37% quieter.

It’s an insignificant 2db, I don’t know why buddy didn’t provide the relevant information.

SchmidtGenetics, (edited )

They provided the DB data so your argument for all of those reasons is invalid. They could have easily spent a single sentence providing the CFM data. So no, not a single one of those reasons is valid to omit 6 words.

They made a claim, they didn’t need to mention the power claim, but they did. They should have omitted the claim itself using your logic, instead of the supporting data. The argument is flawed itself.

and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary.

Like knowing making a discharge tube longer or shorter affects its aerodynamics….? So we know the claim is false already…? Their ambiguity is meant to mislead people with zero working knowledge of the subject… anyone with any experience will see its flaw immediately.

SchmidtGenetics,

We agree that the -12dB is what’s important for human hearing … Now, you may agree that the 94% reduction is what counts regarding engineering // fabrication // design.

-2db* and 37%*

Why are you perpetuating the wrong information?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • cisconetworking
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • ethstaker
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • thenastyranch
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • modclub
  • kavyap
  • GTA5RPClips
  • provamag3
  • osvaldo12
  • khanakhh
  • cubers
  • Durango
  • everett
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tester
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • anitta
  • megavids
  • Leos
  • lostlight
  • All magazines