greek fire

[Awlsew]

The reasons why ‘fracing’ is correct:

The engineering process involves hydraulic fracturing of rock, as in creating fractures or cracks. Frackturing is not a word, and looks terrible when written with a K.

When you abbreviate a word, you don’t add new letters, you remove the existing ones. Fracturing becomes fracing. Fracking isn’t much of an abbreviation, with only two letters missing from the total.

https://drillers.com/fracking-vs-fracing-end-debate/

[Awlsew]

ncorporating the K creates a combination of fracture, and frak. Frak, in common culture as a sanitised version of ****. The TV show, Battlestar Galactica popularised this first in the late 1970’s, then repeatedly in future versions of the series. By adding the K, a simple scientific word morphs into a ‘dirty’ word, which was the reason why environmentalists and the mainstream media did it. This is a cheap and offensive negative publicity stunt.

Users of Frak/Frack will no doubt understand the low brow titillation created by words that start in an F and end in a K. **** is a British clothing brand that capitalised on this gutter humor. They sold countless T-Shirts just because of their logo. Whilst the quality of the fabric might have been fine, it seemed that this logo was the main reason for their success. Should science follow such a low path?

https://drillers.com/fracking-vs-fracing-end-debate/

[Awlsew]

Basically, only those with **** on the brain spell frac as frack.

[Piney]

 

 

[Awlsew]

Just now, Piney said:

 

 

I was thinking that. If it starts with an 'f' then it must end with a 'k' right?

[jaylemurph]

19 minutes ago, Awlsew said:

What more is needed for a theory on an alternative history forum? Not like I'm writing a formal thesis or anything.

Why would it not be needed? You're not a respected, recognized source of unerring truth. You have to prove you know what you're talking about and not making **** up. (Granted, you're batting right at 000 with that, so I can see why you wouldn't want others pointing it out.)

Truth isn't some super-arching, self-evident property of anything you say by virtue of you saying it. You, and how you present yourself, affect the things you say and how people rate and use that information. Might be a problem for someone who grew up in an ex-Soviet country, though, so it's understandable.

When you do things like say you don't remember posting something minutes prior, that taints everything else you say. I'd stick my head out of a window and check if you said the sky was blue.

--Jaylemurph

Edited August 14, 2019 by jaylemurph

[rashore]

6 minutes ago, Awlsew said:

What more is needed for a theory on an alternative history forum? Not like I'm writing a formal thesis or anything.

Much more. We try to figure out UM's here, including historical ones. If it's a theory to be supported, why, or how is that supposed to work within historical records? Or if not, why not? Not only introducing theories, but also figuring out if the theories are valid or not to explain things.

You were the one to bring up 12-14 year old thread about it with a newer notion of it must be only drip gas, and apparently the area of the era had deposits of natural oil/gas enough for just areas to be dug up to collect in amounts enough to pull some large scale warfare and military actions.

[Kenemet]

1 hour ago, Awlsew said:

There in no letter 'k' in Frac. No one in the industry would dare use the letter 'k'. 

I refer you to these people who refer to "fracking" in their papers... perhaps you'd care to take your argument to them as well and explain to them and to the journals that have published these papers that they can't spell?

 

• Laffin, Michael, and Michael Kariya. "Shale gas and hydraulic fracking." 20th World Petroleum Congress. World Petroleum Congress, 2011. (note: World Petroleum Congress.  One presumes they know how to spell the process.)
• Burton Jr, G. Allen, et al. "Hydraulic “fracking”: are surface water impacts an ecological concern?." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 33.8 (2014): 1679-1689.
• Burton Jr, G. Allen, et al. "Hydraulic “fracking”: are surface water impacts an ecological concern?." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 33.8 (2014): 1679-1689.
• Willow, Anna J., and Sara Wylie. "Politics, ecology, and the new anthropology of energy: exploring the emerging frontiers of hydraulic fracking." Journal of Political Ecology 21.1 (2014): 222-236.
• Eckstein, Gabriel, and Amy Hardberger. "Scientific, Legal, and Ethical Foundations for Texas Water Law." Essentials of Texas Water Resources (2009): 5-35.
• Goldstein, Bernard D., Elizabeth Ferrell Bjerke, and Jill Kriesky. "Challenges of Unconventional Shale Gas Development: So What's the Rush." Notre Dame JL Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 27 (2013): 149.
• Burton Jr, G. Allen, et al. "Hydraulic “fracking”: are surface water impacts an ecological concern?." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 33.8 (2014): 1679-1689.
• Meng, Qingmin, and Steve Ashby. "Distance: A critical aspect for environmental impact assessment of hydraulic fracking." The Extractive Industries and Society 1.2 (2014): 124-126.
• Boudet, Hilary, et al. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing." Energy Policy 65 (2014): 57-67.
• Sovacool, Benjamin K. "Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking)." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 37 (2014): 249-264.
• Hassett, Kevin, and Apama Mathur. "Benefits of hydraulic fracking." Oxford Energy Forum. Vol. 91. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2013.
• Williams, Laurence, et al. "Framing ‘fracking’: Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom." Public Understanding of Science 26.1 (2017): 89-104.
• Holloway, Michael D., and Oliver Rudd. Fracking: the operations and environmental consequences of hydraulic fracturing. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
• Abdulaziz, Abdulaziz M. "Evaluation of microseismicity related to hydraulic fracking operations of petroleum reservoirs and its possible environmental repercussions." Open Journal of Earthquake Research 3.02 (2014): 43.
• Goldberg, Hilary M., Melanie Stallings Williams, and Deborah Cours. "It's a Nuisance: The Future of Fracking Litigation in the Wake of Parr v. Aruba Petroleum, Inc." Va. Envtl. LJ 33 (2015): 1.
• Batley, Graeme E., and Rai S. Kookana. "Environmental issues associated with coal seam gas recovery: managing the fracking boom." Environmental Chemistry 9.5 (2012): 425-428.
• Hassett, Kevin, and Apama Mathur. "Benefits of hydraulic fracking." Oxford Energy Forum. Vol. 91. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2013.

(etc, etc, and so forth)

 

...and note that when I attempt to search of "fracing" I get the following response from the search engine (I did an image capture for your convenience but I'm sure others can duplicate this.)

Even the search engine finds "frac" rather dubious.

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Kenemet

[Awlsew]

6 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Why would it not be needed? You're not a respected, recognized source of unerring truth. You have to prove you know what you're talking about and not making **** up. (Granted, you're batting right at 000 with that, so I can see why you wouldn't want others pointing it out.)

Truth isn't some super-arching, self-evident property of anything you say by virtue of you saying it. You, and how you present yourself, affect the things you say and how people rate and use that information. Might be a problem for someone who grew up in an ex-Soviet country, though, so it's understandable.

When you do things like say you don't remember posting something minutes prior, that taints everything else you say. I'd stick my head out of a window and check if you said the sky was blue.

--Jaylemurph

So what?

[Kenemet]

20 minutes ago, Awlsew said:

She is wrong. She spelled it wrong or her editer spelled it wrong. Those who know, know.

https://drillers.com/fracking-vs-fracing-end-debate/

"editor"

And citing an "op-ed" as proof is absurd.  Perhaps you'd care to cite something scholarly?

[Awlsew]

2 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I refer you to these people who refer to "fracking" in their papers... perhaps you'd care to take your argument to them as well and explain to them and to the journals that have published these papers 

We in the industry use frac. No need of the letter 'k' as it does not exist in the original term.

https://drillers.com/fracking-vs-fracing-end-debate/

But yes, it is an ongoing debate, I'm sure you have heard about it before this web site, right?

[Awlsew]

1 minute ago, Kenemet said:

"editor"

And citing an "op-ed" as proof is absurd.  Perhaps you'd care to cite something scholarly?

I am citing those folks who are actually doing it. We know.

[jaylemurph]

3 minutes ago, Awlsew said:

So what?

You possess a truly unique depth of understanding of debate. Your riposte is incisive, cutting, and well-delivered.

--Jaylemurph

[Kenemet]

27 minutes ago, Awlsew said:

What more is needed for a theory on an alternative history forum? Not like I'm writing a formal thesis or anything.

Well, you want to distinguish your idea from the next wobblepot who stumbles in here and says "Greek Fire was made up of fire ant extract and volcanic rocks", right?

In this forum, we do strive to make our ideas plausible.  So don't stand around declaiming something - prove that you have some basis for your idea.  Otherwise it's simply saying "greek fire is unicorn dust and it comes from unicorns."

...because at this point you've got about as much proof of that as you do of unicorn dust.

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, Awlsew said:

We in the industry use frac. No need of the letter 'k' as it does not exist in the original term.

https://drillers.com/fracking-vs-fracing-end-debate/

But yes, it is an ongoing debate, I'm sure you have heard about it before this web site, right?

Those of you NOT in America apparently. The point remains, it IS used in the industry regardless of whether or not it’s used where you are. 

cormac

[Awlsew]

9 minutes ago, rashore said:

Much more. We try to figure out UM's here, including historical ones. If it's a theory to be supported, why, or how is that supposed to work within historical records? Or if not, why not? Not only introducing theories, but also figuring out if the theories are valid or not to explain things.

You were the one to bring up 12-14 year old thread about it with a newer notion of it must be only drip gas, and apparently the area of the era had deposits of natural oil/gas enough for just areas to be dug up to collect in amounts enough to pull some large scale warfare and military actions.

I bumped an old thread because I was criticised for not using the search function when I posted a thread about the antikythera mechanism.  

I may be right about drip gas or I may be wrong. No worries either way.

[Kenemet]

2 minutes ago, Awlsew said:

We in the industry use frac. No need of the letter 'k' as it does not exist in the original term.

https://drillers.com/fracking-vs-fracing-end-debate/

But yes, it is an ongoing debate, I'm sure you have heard about it before this web site, right?

Those are industry papers.  You don't seem to have noticed that.

[Awlsew]

Just now, cormac mac airt said:

Those of you NOT in America apparently. The point remains, it IS used in the industry regardless of whether or not it’s used where you are. 

cormac

Those of us who frac in America use the term: 'frac'.  I'll bite. Yes, I am an American posting from and in the United States.

[rashore]

Fracking/fracking/fracking whatever... complaining about the spelling of it falls within the site rules considering our world-wide membership.. as in, don't do it and let it drop please.

And also has absolutely nothing to do with the years old topic of Greek Fire, unless someone can seriously and not in joke fashion start providing such petroleum harvesting actions in the era and location of Greek Fire.. let's knock it off there please.

[Awlsew]

1 minute ago, Kenemet said:

Those are industry papers.  You don't seem to have noticed that.

I work in the fracing industry. We use the term: 'frac'. We know those that do not actually work in the industry because they spell it: "frack".

[Awlsew]

Just now, rashore said:

Fracking/fracking/fracking whatever... complaining about the spelling of it falls within the site rules considering our world-wide membership.. as in, don't do it and let it drop please.

And also has absolutely nothing to do with the years old topic of Greek Fire, unless someone can seriously and not in joke fashion start providing such petroleum harvesting actions in the era and location of Greek Fire.. let's knock it off there please.

Sorry, I posted 'fracing' and folks 'round here bit that bone. I knew it would spark a debate, it always does. Sorry bout that.

[onlookerofmayhem]

@Awlsew

Did you read the rest of the article you posted? Or were you just cherry picking your preferred answer?

https://drillers.com/fracking-vs-fracing-end-debate/

"The reasons why ‘fracking’ is correct:

It makes sense phonetically in relation to the ‘c’ vs ‘ck’ rule. Always use ck after a short vowel. Frack is like track, smack and stack.

Track, and tracking make sense, and do truck and trucking. Frack and fracking also make sense. Tracing has a completely different meaning, and is trucing even a word? Words usually need to make sense, those that do are more likely to stay in the vocabulary of the people.

Different versions of a word can have different core spellings, and in fact English has countless exceptions where academic rules are broken. Even if industry insiders refer to fracturing, it’s the common usage that prevails.

In the short term, we follow dictionary definitions of a correct spelling. In the long term, the dictionaries follow the most popular practical use. This is why new words are added to revised additions.

Another example can be seen by looking at history and how languages evolve. This is why the Bible keeps getting revised, and why Shakespeare was hard to grasp for many of us at school. If it were true that fracing was ‘the original term’, it isn’t anymore. If we look at what people are searching for in Google, we see a preference for the K versions."

[rashore]

1 minute ago, Awlsew said:

Sorry, I posted 'fracing' and folks 'round here bit that bone. I knew it would spark a debate, it always does. Sorry bout that.

Well yeah then, let's get away from fracking since pretty sure that's not where Greek Fire sources from.. and back to how you are going to show some sources about how drip fuel can be collected from dug up areas. Since you are claiming the common knowledge... let us laymen know how that happens.

How does one, without drilling or fracing/fracking, just dig up an area to collect drip gas? How does drip gas pool for collection that way?

[Awlsew]

1 minute ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

@Awlsew

Did you read the rest of the article you posted? Or were you just cherry picking your preferred answer?

https://drillers.com/fracking-vs-fracing-end-debate/

"The reasons why ‘fracking’ is correct:

It makes sense phonetically in relation to the ‘c’ vs ‘ck’ rule. Always use ck after a short vowel. Frack is like track, smack and stack.

Track, and tracking make sense, and do truck and trucking. Frack and fracking also make sense. Tracing has a completely different meaning, and is trucing even a word? Words usually need to make sense, those that do are more likely to stay in the vocabulary of the people.

Different versions of a word can have different core spellings, and in fact English has countless exceptions where academic rules are broken. Even if industry insiders refer to fracturing, it’s the common usage that prevails.

In the short term, we follow dictionary definitions of a correct spelling. In the long term, the dictionaries follow the most popular practical use. This is why new words are added to revised additions.

Another example can be seen by looking at history and how languages evolve. This is why the Bible keeps getting revised, and why Shakespeare was hard to grasp for many of us at school. If it were true that fracing was ‘the original term’, it isn’t anymore. If we look at what people are searching for in Google, we see a preference for the K versions."

 

New words are added to the various dictionaries every year. Dictionaries are not static. 

It is an on-going debate. If you work in fracing on fracing sites, you use 'fracing' and laugh at those who use 'frack'. An inside joke in the industry.

[Awlsew]

1 minute ago, rashore said:

Well yeah then, let's get away from fracking since pretty sure that's not where Greek Fire sources from.. and back to how you are going to show some sources about how drip fuel can be collected from dug up areas. Since you are claiming the common knowledge... let us laymen know how that happens.

How does one, without drilling or fracing/fracking, just dig up an area to collect drip gas? How does drip gas pool for collection that way?

Ancient Romans dug wells for water. The same methods could have been used to extract drip gas.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262931943_The_Wells_of_Pompeii