 Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419009 is a reply to message #418967] |
Tue, 07 February 2023 22:42   |
|
|
Originally posted by: Dave Yeo
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
> we need one or more of:
>
> * A 90% population reduction
> - No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
> * A lot of nuclear power plants
> - NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
> * An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
> - Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
> * Something new
> - We might get lucky.
Lots more transmission capability would help too.
Dave
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419011 is a reply to message #418981] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 02:11 |
Bob Martin
Messages: 167
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2023 at 09:54:21, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-07, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-06, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>>>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
>>>> >we need one or more of:
>>>> >
>>>> >* A 90% population reduction
>>>> > - No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
>>>> >* A lot of nuclear power plants
>>>> > - NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
>>>> >* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
>>>> > - Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
>>>> >* Something new
>>>> > - We might get lucky.
>>>>
>>>> Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
>>>
>>> Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
>>
>> Not to politicians looking to kick the problem downstream
>> a few decades for the next generation to worry about.
>> Or to CEOs wringing the last few bucks out of fossil fuels
>> while they pack their golden parachutes.
>>
>> What a way to treat your kids.
>>
>> I love the way the movie _Don't Look Up_ portrayed the issue.
>> It was spot on.
>>
>
> Just got it down.
>
> IMHO, the problem at the moment, is that several things have been tried
> to solve the problems, and several have fairly proved that they will not
> solve it.
>
> EV's? They need to have energy supplied, the same as fossil fueled cars
> do. Nobody considered that.
Really? How can you say that?
> Solar Power only works when the sun shines.
>
> Bugs as food?. Most people in Western Society will not eat them.
>
> When I was young, we had no electricity, no running water, no central
> heating, no mobile phones, or land line phones at all, (telegraph five
> miles away) and we survived. No trucks delivering heating oil first thing
> in the mornings. Until we take the basic step back to that, which most
> do not want, we will get nowhere until oil runs out.
>
> Million's of nuclear power stations?. Don't make me laugh.
>
> Power stations in Space.? Again, laughing hurts. They are selling solar
> panels around here, promising 25years before replacing, in my knowledge,
> most have to be replaced after 15.
>
> Again, when I was young, most food was produced within less than 10
> miles of where is was consumed, what was left over was used to fertilize gardens.
>
>
> --
> greymausg@mail.com
> where is our money gone, Dude?
>
> .
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419012 is a reply to message #418994] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 05:48 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-07 21:25, D.J. wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 14:11:46 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:46:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>> > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>>>> > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
>>>> >> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 03/02/2023 19:41, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> >>>> In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
>>>> >>
>>>> >> They have great geography for it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
>>>> >>> charged by fossil fuels.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
>>>> >> we need one or more of:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> * A 90% population reduction
>>>> >> - No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
>>>> >> * A lot of nuclear power plants
>>>> >> - NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
>>>> >> * An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
>>>> >> - Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
>>>> >> * Something new
>>>> >> - We might get lucky.
>>>> >
>>>> > Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
>>>>
>>>> Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
>>>
>>> Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
>>> happen.
>>
>> I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
>
> Nothing rediculous about it.
>
>> Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
>
> Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
> and made.
No, they weren't.
They just knew they couldn't do them with the current technology of the
time. Not that they were impossible, as impossible for ever.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419013 is a reply to message #419000] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 06:19 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-07 23:03, D.J. wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2023 21:25:44 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 14:11:46 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
>>>
>>> Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
>>> and made.
>>
>> Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
>> I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
>> for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
>> next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
>> which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.
>
> My grandfather and i watched a news program in the early 1950s. The
> point was a scientist or two would be asked questions about technology
> portrayed in newspapers.
>
> Dick Tracey comic in the newspaper showed wrist communicators. The
> scientists said it was fiction and they wetre impossible.
>
> Turns out they aren't impossible.
They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it was
just a matter of time.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419014 is a reply to message #418994] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 10:07 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris
On 07/02/2023 20:25, D.J. wrote:
> Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
> and made. Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
> suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong. My
> mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
> nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
> per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
> Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
>
> I didn't even have to do a web search.
There's a difference with some of these things.
There is no physical law that says you can't make a radio that fits on
your wrist. The problem is the battery - if you want a 10W transmitter
so you can communicate over reasonable distances it's going to burn
power. The solution is to turn down the transmitter power, and have lots
of base stations so you don't need 10W any more.
By the time cars were invented (Benz, 1886) trains were way faster than
25MPH. In fact Rocket had got to 30 in 1829, and after all that's only
the speed of a good horse.
Rockets have been understood since Isaac Newton.
But batteries? We know the rules of chemistry. There's a limit of how
much energy you can get out of a chemical reaction, and we know what it
is. That's why Lithium is so popular - the reactions are high energy.
Fusion? We know it's possible. Just look up... but making it work is
extremely difficult. It'll probably never be cheap. But it will also
probably never run out.
Right now the only power source that won't wreck the climate, doesn't
rely on fuel that will run out in decades, and is even vaguely reliable
is fission. Sure, it's dirty, but it's all we've got.
Andy
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419015 is a reply to message #419014] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 11:00 |
scott
Messages: 4380
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 07/02/2023 20:25, D.J. wrote:
>> Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
>> and made. Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
>> suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong. My
>> mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
>> nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
>> per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
>> Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
>>
>> I didn't even have to do a web search.
>
> There's a difference with some of these things.
>
> There is no physical law that says you can't make a radio that fits on
> your wrist. The problem is the battery - if you want a 10W transmitter
> so you can communicate over reasonable distances it's going to burn
> power. The solution is to turn down the transmitter power, and have lots
> of base stations so you don't need 10W any more.
>
> By the time cars were invented (Benz, 1886) trains were way faster than
> 25MPH. In fact Rocket had got to 30 in 1829, and after all that's only
> the speed of a good horse.
>
> Rockets have been understood since Isaac Newton.
>
> But batteries? We know the rules of chemistry. There's a limit of how
> much energy you can get out of a chemical reaction, and we know what it
> is. That's why Lithium is so popular - the reactions are high energy.
>
> Fusion? We know it's possible. Just look up... but making it work is
> extremely difficult. It'll probably never be cheap. But it will also
> probably never run out.
>
> Right now the only power source that won't wreck the climate, doesn't
> rely on fuel that will run out in decades, and is even vaguely reliable
> is fission. Sure, it's dirty, but it's all we've got.
If you look a bit deeper into the fuel issue, you'll find that
"run out in decades" applies to the current fleet of 439 reactors.
To expand that to a fleet (30,000) large enough to replace fossil fuel
energy sources requires far more fuel that can be obtained
with a EROI of greater than unity. Granted other renewables will
offset some of that demand, reducing the needed fleet size, yet
the baseload fleet size requirement will be large.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419016 is a reply to message #418994] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 11:15 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3899
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 14:11:46 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:46:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>> >On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>>>> ><steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> >>On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
>>>> >>Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 03/02/2023 19:41, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> >>> > In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
>>>> >>
>>>> >> They have great geography for it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
>>>> >>> charged by fossil fuels.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
>>>> >>we need one or more of:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>* A 90% population reduction
>>>> >> - No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
>>>> >>* A lot of nuclear power plants
>>>> >> - NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
>>>> >>* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
>>>> >> - Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
>>>> >>* Something new
>>>> >> - We might get lucky.
>>>> >
>>>> >Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
>>>>
>>>> Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
>>>
>>> Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
>>> happen.
>>
>> I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
>
> Nothing rediculous about it.
>
>> Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
>
> Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
> and made.
Really? Ever hear of Dick Tracy?
> Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
> suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong.
I'm sure the first guy to drive 25 was just terrified. I'm sure you
have a first hand recount of this story.
> My
> mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
> nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
> per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
> Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
Wow. An anecdote that proves you are wrong using your own mother.
It appears your mom's encyclopedia didn't think it was impossible.
I have to doubt that anything called an encyclopedia would posit train
tracks in the air. However if it predicted we would get to the moon
I guess it didn't think it was impossible.
> I didn't even have to do a web search.
It would help if you would engage your brain first.
Give us a list of inventions and the books and articles that declared the
inventions were impossible before they were invented. Then work the
numbers to prove this happens "most" of the time.
The assertion is ridiculous. You can't think something is impossible
when you don't even now what it is.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419022 is a reply to message #419019] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 13:36 |
Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 282
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-08, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I don't know about you, but I rarely think about things I don't know about.
>>
>> As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we
>> know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we
>> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also
>> unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know
>>
>
> You're quoting one of the individuals responsible for the war in Vietnam,
> probably not the most reliable source for wisdom.
Even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while.
Niklas
--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], `Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.--Charles Babbage
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419023 is a reply to message #419013] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 13:37 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:19:21 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-02-07 23:03, D.J. wrote:
>> On 7 Feb 2023 21:25:44 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 14:11:46 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> > Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
>>>>
>>>> Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
>>>> and made.
>>>
>>> Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
>>> I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
>>> for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
>>> next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
>>> which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.
>>
>> My grandfather and i watched a news program in the early 1950s. The
>> point was a scientist or two would be asked questions about technology
>> portrayed in newspapers.
>>
>> Dick Tracey comic in the newspaper showed wrist communicators. The
>> scientists said it was fiction and they wetre impossible.
>>
>> Turns out they aren't impossible.
>
> They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it was
> just a matter of time.
Then they should have said so, and not let someone else pretend
otherwise.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419024 is a reply to message #419016] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 13:42 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:15:23 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 14:11:46 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:46:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>> >>On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>>>> >><steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
>>>> >>>Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 03/02/2023 19:41, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> >>>> > In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> They have great geography for it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
>>>> >>>> charged by fossil fuels.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
>>>> >>>we need one or more of:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>* A 90% population reduction
>>>> >>> - No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
>>>> >>>* A lot of nuclear power plants
>>>> >>> - NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
>>>> >>>* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
>>>> >>> - Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
>>>> >>>* Something new
>>>> >>> - We might get lucky.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
>>>> >
>>>> >Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
>>>>
>>>> Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
>>>> happen.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
>>
>> Nothing rediculous about it.
>>
>>> Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
>>
>> Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
>> and made.
>
> Really? Ever hear of Dick Tracy?
I mentioned that cartoon strip earlier. The scientist said it was
fiction and would never happen.
>> Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
>> suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong.
>
> I'm sure the first guy to drive 25 was just terrified. I'm sure you
> have a first hand recount of this story.
>
>> My
>> mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
>> nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
>> per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
>> Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
>
> Wow. An anecdote that proves you are wrong using your own mother.
> It appears your mom's encyclopedia didn't think it was impossible.
> I have to doubt that anything called an encyclopedia would posit train
> tracks in the air. However if it predicted we would get to the moon
> I guess it didn't think it was impossible.
They did say it was impossible. I told my mother that the encyclopedia
article made no sense. Trains were going faster than 60 mph, and they
wouldn't be used anyway.
>> I didn't even have to do a web search.
>
> It would help if you would engage your brain first.
I did. I'm pointing out others in here have not done so.
> Give us a list of inventions and the books and articles that declared the
> inventions were impossible before they were invented. Then work the
> numbers to prove this happens "most" of the time.
>
> The assertion is ridiculous. You can't think something is impossible
> when you don't even now what it is.
Gee, so you never read Dick Tracy ?
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419026 is a reply to message #419023] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 14:07 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-08 19:37, D.J. wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:19:21 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-07 23:03, D.J. wrote:
>>> On 7 Feb 2023 21:25:44 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>>> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 14:11:46 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >> Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
>>>> >
>>>> > Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
>>>> > and made.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
>>>> I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
>>>> for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
>>>> next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
>>>> which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.
>>>
>>> My grandfather and i watched a news program in the early 1950s. The
>>> point was a scientist or two would be asked questions about technology
>>> portrayed in newspapers.
>>>
>>> Dick Tracey comic in the newspaper showed wrist communicators. The
>>> scientists said it was fiction and they wetre impossible.
>>>
>>> Turns out they aren't impossible.
>>
>> They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it was
>> just a matter of time.
>
> Then they should have said so, and not let someone else pretend
> otherwise.
The newsboys asked the wrong people.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419027 is a reply to message #419025] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 14:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-08 19:58, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:15:23 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> My
>>>> mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
>>>> nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
>>>> per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
>>>> Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
>>>
>>> Wow. An anecdote that proves you are wrong using your own mother.
>>> It appears your mom's encyclopedia didn't think it was impossible.
>>> I have to doubt that anything called an encyclopedia would posit train
>>> tracks in the air. However if it predicted we would get to the moon
>>> I guess it didn't think it was impossible.
>>
>> They did say it was impossible.
>
> Even it it did, that doesn't imply that it was generally accepted
> to be "impossible", just infeasible with current technology. Otherwise
> Goddard and Braun et alia wouldn't have even tried.
Right.
A scientist can only say something is impossible when it defies "laws",
principles.
Otherwise it means "we can not yet do it" or "we don't know if it is
possible to do it" or "no idea how to do it". Which leaves ground for
investigation and discovery.
But for example they can say "the water motor is impossible".
> All of your examples are a far cry from expecting some magical
> physics-defying power source (ZPE, Shipstones) to solve the current
> energy and climate problems.
>
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419030 is a reply to message #419026] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 16:22 |
|
|
Originally posted by: greymaus
On 2023-02-08, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-02-08 19:37, D.J. wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:19:21 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>>>>
>>>> Turns out they aren't impossible.
>>>
>>> They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it was
>>> just a matter of time.
>>
>> Then they should have said so, and not let someone else pretend
>> otherwise.
>
> The newsboys asked the wrong people.
>
>
Couple of things since I last irritated y'all.
Was there any connection between the transistor and what a lot of people
used to use for the early radio's, the cat's whisker.
Newton, I think, wrote that "we are standing on the shoulders of giants",
meaning that all that he did was founded on previous research.
The breakthrough of phones. In being awarded the patent, Bell had to refer
to the time difference between NY and Chicago. Several people were claiming
that at around the same time.
Teachers are telling me that children are now hard to teach, because they are
distracted with their mobile phones.
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419032 is a reply to message #419026] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 17:11 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 20:07:48 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-02-08 19:37, D.J. wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:19:21 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-07 23:03, D.J. wrote:
>>>> On 7 Feb 2023 21:25:44 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 14:11:46 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
>>>> >> and made.
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
>>>> > I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
>>>> > for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
>>>> > next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
>>>> > which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.
>>>>
>>>> My grandfather and i watched a news program in the early 1950s. The
>>>> point was a scientist or two would be asked questions about technology
>>>> portrayed in newspapers.
>>>>
>>>> Dick Tracey comic in the newspaper showed wrist communicators. The
>>>> scientists said it was fiction and they wetre impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Turns out they aren't impossible.
>>>
>>> They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it was
>>> just a matter of time.
>>
>> Then they should have said so, and not let someone else pretend
>> otherwise.
>
> The newsboys asked the wrong people.
I was about 6 years old, so I wouldn't know that bck then.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419033 is a reply to message #419030] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 17:13 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 8 Feb 2023 21:22:50 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-08, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-08 19:37, D.J. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:19:21 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>>>> >
>>>> > Turns out they aren't impossible.
>>>>
>>>> They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it was
>>>> just a matter of time.
>>>
>>> Then they should have said so, and not let someone else pretend
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> The newsboys asked the wrong people.
>>
>>
>
> Couple of things since I last irritated y'all.
>
> Was there any connection between the transistor and what a lot of people
> used to use for the early radio's, the cat's whisker.
Galena crystal is the cat's whisker. The leads on the crystal looked
like cat's whiskers.
> Newton, I think, wrote that "we are standing on the shoulders of giants",
> meaning that all that he did was founded on previous research.
>
> The breakthrough of phones. In being awarded the patent, Bell had to refer
> to the time difference between NY and Chicago. Several people were claiming
> that at around the same time.
>
> Teachers are telling me that children are now hard to teach, because they are
> distracted with their mobile phones.
Relatives I have talked to, all cell phone must be off and put up,
none in class.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419034 is a reply to message #419025] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 17:14 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 18:58:45 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:15:23 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> My
>>>> mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
>>>> nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
>>>> per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
>>>> Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
>>>
>>> Wow. An anecdote that proves you are wrong using your own mother.
>>> It appears your mom's encyclopedia didn't think it was impossible.
>>> I have to doubt that anything called an encyclopedia would posit train
>>> tracks in the air. However if it predicted we would get to the moon
>>> I guess it didn't think it was impossible.
>>
>> They did say it was impossible.
>
> Even it it did, that doesn't imply that it was generally accepted
> to be "impossible", just infeasible with current technology. Otherwise
> Goddard and Braun et alia wouldn't have even tried.
>
> All of your examples are a far cry from expecting some magical
> physics-defying power source (ZPE, Shipstones) to solve the current
> energy and climate problems.
I don't expect it to work, because of the big jump in planet wide
ignorance.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419035 is a reply to message #419013] |
Wed, 08 February 2023 22:29 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8608
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-02-07 23:03, D.J. wrote:
>> On 7 Feb 2023 21:25:44 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 14:11:46 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> > Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
>>>>
>>>> Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
>>>> and made.
>>>
>>> Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
>>> I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
>>> for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
>>> next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
>>> which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.
>>
>> My grandfather and i watched a news program in the early 1950s. The
>> point was a scientist or two would be asked questions about technology
>> portrayed in newspapers.
>>
>> Dick Tracey comic in the newspaper showed wrist communicators. The
>> scientists said it was fiction and they wetre impossible.
>>
>> Turns out they aren't impossible.
>
> They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it was
> just a matter of time.
>
No one knew until the transistor was invented. Until then, everyone was
thinking in terms of tubes, and the engineering was going into
miniaturizing them more and more. None of this would be possible without
the transistor, no matter how hard anyone worked.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419040 is a reply to message #419038] |
Thu, 09 February 2023 04:11 |
|
|
Originally posted by: greymaus
On 2023-02-09, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 20:29:06 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No one knew until the transistor was invented. Until then, everyone was
>> thinking in terms of tubes, and the engineering was going into
>> miniaturizing them more and more. None of this would be possible without
>> the transistor, no matter how hard anyone worked.
>
> Quite so, this thread reminds me of one some time back where folks
> were complaining about CFLs and how we should never have been conned into
> using the dreadful things when "everyone knew" that LED lighting was just
> round the corner.
>
> Efficient LED lighting was considered so unlikely by those in the
> know that the team who pulled it off got a Nobel for their efforts! *Nobody*
> could have seen it coming.
>
Nobody expected the Spanish Inqusition (sp?)
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419042 is a reply to message #419038] |
Thu, 09 February 2023 08:37 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3899
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 20:29:06 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No one knew until the transistor was invented. Until then, everyone was
>> thinking in terms of tubes, and the engineering was going into
>> miniaturizing them more and more. None of this would be possible without
>> the transistor, no matter how hard anyone worked.
>
> Quite so, this thread reminds me of one some time back where folks
> were complaining about CFLs and how we should never have been conned into
> using the dreadful things when "everyone knew" that LED lighting was just
> round the corner.
>
> Efficient LED lighting was considered so unlikely by those in the
> know that the team who pulled it off got a Nobel for their efforts! *Nobody*
> could have seen it coming.
Nobody?
I certainly saw it coming.
I remember when we had red only, then green, and a fairly long time
until blue.
It was pretty clear it was only a matter of time.
So, at least one person saw it coming.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419046 is a reply to message #418947] |
Thu, 09 February 2023 10:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Kurt Weiske
To: Andy Burns
-=> Andy Burns wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
AB> If I was running more than one car, I'd be more likely to consider an
AB> EV as one of them, but I'm not ...
Plug-in hybrids are nice. You don't get the simplicity of losing the
internal combustion engine, but you can toodle around on your in-town
errands only using EV and have the gas engine for longer trips.
I have friends who take trips with EVs, and planning your trip around
stopping to charge seems like a pain. It'll be the norm someday, I'm
sure.
kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
| http://realitycheckbbs.org
| 1:218/700@fidonet
| mastodon https://tilde.zone/@poindexter
.... Retrace your steps
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
* realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419051 is a reply to message #419050] |
Thu, 09 February 2023 13:29 |
|
|
Originally posted by: greymaus
On 2023-02-09, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-64p-this> writes:
>
>> To: greymaus
>> -=> greymaus wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
>>
>> gr> Another pet hate, auto-mobiles that need special tools to fix. Cheers
>> gr> to John Deere users.
>>
>> I've always loved Toyotas. You could take the majority of the car apart
>> with a philips head screwdriver, flat head screwdriver, and a 10/13mm
>> box wrench.
>
> How long ago was that? My 1975 Corolla was wonderful for exactly that
> reason (did my first head gasket on that car); my 1990 pickup seemed to
> need a new oddball socket size for every job.
One I used needed a peculiar tool to change the small indicating lights.
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419053 is a reply to message #419040] |
Thu, 09 February 2023 14:42 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5563
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-09, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-09, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 20:29:06 -0700
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No one knew until the transistor was invented. Until then, everyone was
>>> thinking in terms of tubes, and the engineering was going into
>>> miniaturizing them more and more. None of this would be possible without
>>> the transistor, no matter how hard anyone worked.
>>
>> Quite so, this thread reminds me of one some time back where folks
>> were complaining about CFLs and how we should never have been conned into
>> using the dreadful things when "everyone knew" that LED lighting was just
>> round the corner.
I have a couple of CFLs, but they're external lights; CFLs are totally
unfit for internal lighting IMHO. I was glad to see decent LED lighting
come along, but was willing to stick with halogens for as long as it took.
>> Efficient LED lighting was considered so unlikely by those in the
>> know that the team who pulled it off got a Nobel for their efforts!
>> *Nobody* could have seen it coming.
>
> Nobody expected the Spanish Inqusition (sp?)
Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam...
Nobody expects the spammish repetition!
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful -
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419054 is a reply to message #419033] |
Thu, 09 February 2023 17:51 |
Alfred Falk
Messages: 197
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote in
news:qg78uh1ms5jr3gdjnjuvjntkroo91jbe55@4ax.com:
> On 8 Feb 2023 21:22:50 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-08, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-08 19:37, D.J. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:19:21 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Turns out they aren't impossible.
>>>> >
>>>> > They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it
>>>> > was just a matter of time.
>>>>
>>>> Then they should have said so, and not let someone else pretend
>>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> The newsboys asked the wrong people.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Couple of things since I last irritated y'all.
>>
>> Was there any connection between the transistor and what a lot of
>> people used to use for the early radio's, the cat's whisker.
>
> Galena crystal is the cat's whisker. The leads on the crystal looked
> like cat's whiskers.
Technical nit:
the cat's whisker was the stiff little wire that poked the galena crystal,
forming the point contact.
>> Newton, I think, wrote that "we are standing on the shoulders of
>> giants", meaning that all that he did was founded on previous research.
>>
>> The breakthrough of phones. In being awarded the patent, Bell had to
>> refer to the time difference between NY and Chicago. Several people
>> were claiming that at around the same time.
>>
>> Teachers are telling me that children are now hard to teach, because
>> they are distracted with their mobile phones.
>
> Relatives I have talked to, all cell phone must be off and put up,
> none in class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419057 is a reply to message #419056] |
Fri, 10 February 2023 05:13 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-10 06:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 22:51:00 -0000 (UTC)
> Alfred Falk <aefalk@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Technical nit:
>> the cat's whisker was the stiff little wire that poked the galena
>> crystal, forming the point contact.
>
> I recall reading of people getting the point contact effect to work
> with coal and even rusty (not Rusty) razor blades as well as galena
> crystal.
I saw it with a pair of old piers in an oscilloscope that had a function
to graph I/V for diodes and things. But it was bidirectional, so not
useful for radio.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419058 is a reply to message #419042] |
Fri, 10 February 2023 05:19 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-09 14:37, Dan Espen wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 20:29:06 -0700
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No one knew until the transistor was invented. Until then, everyone was
>>> thinking in terms of tubes, and the engineering was going into
>>> miniaturizing them more and more. None of this would be possible without
>>> the transistor, no matter how hard anyone worked.
>>
>> Quite so, this thread reminds me of one some time back where folks
>> were complaining about CFLs and how we should never have been conned into
>> using the dreadful things when "everyone knew" that LED lighting was just
>> round the corner.
>>
>> Efficient LED lighting was considered so unlikely by those in the
>> know that the team who pulled it off got a Nobel for their efforts! *Nobody*
>> could have seen it coming.
>
> Nobody?
>
> I certainly saw it coming.
> I remember when we had red only, then green, and a fairly long time
> until blue.
>
> It was pretty clear it was only a matter of time.
> So, at least one person saw it coming.
Investigators kept trying for many years. If they knew if was
impossible, they would not have tried. Waste of time and money.
When I studied electronics they certainly did not tell me that it was
impossible. Only that we have red and green leds. blue? White? Maybe
some time, they said.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
