Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
 
Backwoods Home Magazine, self-reliance, homesteading, off-grid

Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues
 Print Display Ads
 Print Classifieds
 Newsletter
 Letters
 Humor
 Free Stuff
 Recipes
 Home Energy

General Store
 Ordering Info
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 ePublications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Help Yourself
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

BHM Blogs
 Behind The Scenes
 Ask Jackie Clay
 Massad Ayoob
 Claire Wolfe
 Where We Live
 Dave on Twitter
Retired Blogs
 Oliver Del Signore
 David Lee
 Energy Questions
 Bramblestitches

Quick Links
 Home Energy Info
 Jackie Clay
 Ask Jackie Online
 Dave Duffy
 Massad Ayoob
 John Silveira
 Claire Wolfe

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Enter Forum
 Lost Password

More Features
 Meet The Staff
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address
 Write For BHM
 Disclaimer and
 Privacy Policy


Retired Features
 Country Moments
 Links
 Feedback
 Radio Show


Link to BHM

Letters and email from readers about Backwoods Home Magazine and the BHM website

THIS FEATURE IS NO LONGER UPDATED



Archive for the ‘Humor’ Category

 

Resistance (lighter side)

Tuesday, July 17th, 2012
Claire,
Because I am involved with electronics and ham radio, I hijacked this signature as soon as I saw it.
With apologies to the Borg…
“Resistance isn’t futile, its voltage divided by current.”
Paul
 

Humor?

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

As a new subscriber to your magazine I was surprized that your humor section actually used Southerners as the butt of your humor.  I like a good joke and a laugh but I find it demeaning to use stereotypical humor with Southerners as the focus.  In some circles this could be construed as bigotry, but what the hell… nobody gets bent out of shape if a woman or a negro is the focus of humor, right?  Why should Southerners feel put off when a complete column is devoted to them.

I enjoy your magazine altogether.  The information it provides is worth the subscription rates.

Best wishes,

Mississippi Slim

 

Global warming

Monday, August 17th, 2009

Great piece – I enjoy the tongue in cheek approach.

But what if the environmentalists really are at fault?

Remember back in the 70′s when they were crying about the coming Ice Age. But then they got the EPA to clamp down on coal burning, especially for electrical generation. Soon enough, don’t you know it, the skies cleared up from all the soot and next thing we’re experiencing Global Warming.

Of course that might also mean that increased industrialization, especially of India and China, is responsible for the decline and reversal of Global Warming over the last 10 years.

Wouldn’t the watermelons* hate to admit that?

Phill Osborn
Hagerstown, Md.

*watermelon – green on the outside but red on the inside

 

Wind Theory

Friday, August 14th, 2009

Dear Mr. Del Signore:

I must first preface my comments by saying that I am somewhat of an agnostic regarding this whole global warming issue. While I believe the problem is real, I am still not convinced of it’s seriousness or whether we can realistically do anything to stop it. Nor am I a blind faith-based global warming denier. So, I will stick to the particulars of the theory you have proffered.

Your explanation of what causes wind and how it works is largely correct, in that the energy in the wind comes entirely from the sun, as the sun sets up convection currents between warm and cool areas on the earth’s surface. The kinetic energy in the wind eventually dissipates in the form of low-level heat as the result of friction effects when the wind comes in contact with the irregular surface of the earth (and to a lesser degree, as the result of turbulence within the wind stream itself). Because the sun continues to shine and continues to set up convection currents, a steady state is achieved, which is why the wind continues to blow.

Now, here are several areas where I think you run astray in your theory that wind turbines act to slow the rotation of the earth.

First off, even if wind power were built out to some total conceivable maximum, the combined swept area of all the wind turbines would represent but a tiny fraction of a percent of the total area of all the obstacles on the surface of the earth that the wind would normally encounter. Furthermore, as the rate of global deforestation continues to increase, we are very likely decreasing the amount of obstacles to the free flow of wind, despite the building of wind turbines. In other words, for every wind turbine built, there are probably thousands of trees over a hundred feet high that have been cut down, thus providing a smoother path for the wind than it had when the trees were still standing.

Second (and this is far more subtle), being that the earth is a rotating sphere, and the wind a fluid moving on the surface of that sphere, the motion of the wind is far from uniform and takes on the form of distinct circular patterns (e.g., the ‘trade winds’ etc.) that interact with each other in complex ways. Thus, for every unit of wind-induced momentum transfered to the earth in the direction of the earth’s rotation, there is somewhere on the earth’s surface an equal amount of wind-induced momentum transferred in the direction opposite to the earth’s rotation. It can probably be mathematically proven that these have to cancel out (just don’t ask me to do it), and result in no net transfer of momentum to the earth.

Anyway, it’s a very interesting theory. You ought to look into it further, as I strongly suspect that somewhere in the geophysical literature someone somewhere has analyzed just this sort of thing.

Sincerely,

Edmund Dohnert
Wilmington, Delaware

Sorry, Edmund, but I’m going to take a page from the Liberal Handbook and stick with my theory despite all the facts and evidence to the contrary.

It’s new world of hope and change and I’m going to be a good citizen and get with the program. I’m going to hope the laws of nature will change so I can be right.

And even if they don’t, perhaps I can get my congresscritter to introduce new legislation revising the relevant natural laws so my theory will be correct.

I mean, if they can revise the “natural laws” of economics and business and banking, why not those of other inconvenient things like physics?

Thanks for writing.

Oliver

 

BHM Newsletter – January, 2009

Monday, January 26th, 2009

THANKS for the great jokes in this issue!!! I almost wet myself when reading them-keep ‘em comin’!!!

I absolutely love your newsletters-thanks for the work that goes into them!!!

Marsha, freezing here in Michigan!!

 
 


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.