Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » After the storm, hopefully
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418965 is a reply to message #418917] Mon, 06 February 2023 06:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris

On 02/02/2023 22:53, D.J. wrote:
>>
>> Jim, you have two spaces after your two dashes. It confued my TBird.
>
> Now there is one. I thought two spaces was how it should be.

That's better. Thanks.
--
Andy
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418966 is a reply to message #418941] Mon, 06 February 2023 07:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris

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
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.

Andy
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418967 is a reply to message #418966] Mon, 06 February 2023 08:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418968 is a reply to message #418967] Mon, 06 February 2023 10:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> 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

Back of the envelope calculation indicates a
requirement for about 30,000 1Gw nuclear power
plants to completely supply the annual 20TW
world-wide electricity consumption.

(which will be 30TW by the time the plants could be built
at the current rate of 2.5% annual energy growth).

There's not enough known obtainable reserves (by several orders of
magnitude) of fissionables to support that many active
reactors, whether based on Uranium or Thorium fuels.

Yes, there is a lot of U235 in the ocean. No, it's not
economically possible to recover it in sufficient quantities
to support 30,000 active reactors.

> - 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).

Storage in many forms, molten salts, hydro storage, batteries.

Efficiency improvements across the board (particularly in the
heating and air conditioning fields) are key. More mass
transit, long-distance trains instead of jet aircraft,
etc. et alia.

All of of which require energy themselves to create and implement, energy
that can't be used for the current purposes.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

> * Something new
> - We might get lucky.

I shouldn't like to bet my life on it, but it seems that
people[*] still aren't taking any of this seriously.

[*] Mainly those in the sorry-ass GOP.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418969 is a reply to message #418968] Mon, 06 February 2023 13:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2023-02-06, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
>>
>> They have great geography for it.

So does British Columbia. Unfortunately, a lot of our projected
output is earmarked for producing LNG for export, while the rest
is being sold to California (with bitcoin factories sucking up
the remainder).

>> * Something new
>> - We might get lucky.
>
> I shouldn't like to bet my life on it, but it seems that
> people[*] still aren't taking any of this seriously.
>
> [*] Mainly those in the sorry-ass GOP.

A recent survey said that of all the provinces in Canada,
B.C. had the highest percentage (14%) of people whose
retirement planning included winning the lottery.

That's the kind of planning we're dealing with.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418970 is a reply to message #418968] Mon, 06 February 2023 12:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 15:07:05 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000

>> * An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
>> - Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
>
> Storage in many forms, molten salts, hydro storage, batteries.

For sure there's nowhere near enough lithium to depend on that and
everything we can think of may well not be enough. We're pretty much maxed
out on hydro storage anyway, there are only so many good sites but there
are some oddball ideas around in that area.

Molten salts is an interesting one, especially when heat is what is
wanted and is available - generating electricity is far from efficient no
matter how you do it. I worry a bit about the above ground designs though -
the first time one of those leaks it will be NIMBY for ever unless the leak
containment is really good.

The only current battery design for which there is definitely no
shortage of materials for is the iron-iron redox (iron and salt water are in
plentiful supply) design for which someone (ICBA to look them up again) has
a long life electrode in production. IIRC it runs about 50Wh per litre so
useless for portable applications but good enough for long term grid
storage.

To use renewables alone we need storage for about a week, say
around 5000 terawatt hours.

To use iron-iron redox alone I make that around 100,000 billion
litres or perhaps better 100 million tanks of a million litres (swimming
pool size) - plus of course 30 terawatts of electrodes. This is at least
possible (I doubt we could even measure the impact on the ocean level
harvesting that much chloride to make ferric/ous chloride solution) but we
could certainly do with better options.

No matter how we do it getting off fossil fuels will be a huge
undertaking unless we go the population reduction route which is the
inevitable consequence of not doing better.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418971 is a reply to message #418965] Mon, 06 February 2023 14:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 11:58:31 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 02/02/2023 22:53, D.J. wrote:
>>>
>>> Jim, you have two spaces after your two dashes. It confued my TBird.
>>
>> Now there is one. I thought two spaces was how it should be.
>
> That's better. Thanks.

You're welcome.
--
Jim
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418972 is a reply to message #418967] Mon, 06 February 2023 15:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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.
--
Jim
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418975 is a reply to message #418972] Mon, 06 February 2023 15:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418976 is a reply to message #418970] Mon, 06 February 2023 15:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 15:07:05 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
>
>>> * An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
>>> - Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
>>
>> Storage in many forms, molten salts, hydro storage, batteries.
>
> For sure there's nowhere near enough lithium to depend on that and
> everything we can think of may well not be enough.

There is some work on sulfer-flow batteries that looks promising.

https://www.altenergymag.com/article/2018/09/are-sulfur-flow -batteries-the-answer/29441


> We're pretty much maxed
> out on hydro storage anyway, there are only so many good sites but there
> are some oddball ideas around in that area.

Some of the existing seasonal storage hydro reservoirs could be
used daily for power production (pump in at night and release
during the day). I'm thinking of San Luis, for example, which
currently stores in during the winter and releases during the
summer. I suspect there would be enough storage in the forebay
to support daily release/nightly pumping if they had a surplus
of wind energy for example. There are a number of (rather old)
windmills in the immediate vicinity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Luis_Reservoir

LA wants to do something similar at Lake Mead/Hoover dam, see
the article above.

>
> Molten salts is an interesting one, especially when heat is what is
> wanted and is available - generating electricity is far from efficient no
> matter how you do it. I worry a bit about the above ground designs though -
> the first time one of those leaks it will be NIMBY for ever unless the leak
> containment is really good.

There are some in operation.

https://www.aalborgcsp.com/business-areas/csp-power-plant-te chnologies/solar-tower-receiver-molten-salt

>
> The only current battery design for which there is definitely no
> shortage of materials for is the iron-iron redox (iron and salt water are in
> plentiful supply) design for which someone (ICBA to look them up again) has
> a long life electrode in production. IIRC it runs about 50Wh per litre so
> useless for portable applications but good enough for long term grid
> storage.
>
> To use renewables alone we need storage for about a week, say
> around 5000 terawatt hours.
>
> To use iron-iron redox alone I make that around 100,000 billion
> litres or perhaps better 100 million tanks of a million litres (swimming
> pool size) - plus of course 30 terawatts of electrodes. This is at least
> possible (I doubt we could even measure the impact on the ocean level
> harvesting that much chloride to make ferric/ous chloride solution) but we
> could certainly do with better options.

To many people out there don't bother to do the math. Those that
do get rather depressed by the results :-(.

>
> No matter how we do it getting off fossil fuels will be a huge
> undertaking unless we go the population reduction route which is the
> inevitable consequence of not doing better.

It's probably inevitable anyway, the earth is well beyond its
steady-state carrying capacity.

Until our economic systems no longer require growth to be healthy,
we're basically screwed in the long run.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418977 is a reply to message #418976] Mon, 06 February 2023 16:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.

On 2023-02-06 21:55, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 15:07:05 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

....

>> No matter how we do it getting off fossil fuels will be a huge
>> undertaking unless we go the population reduction route which is the
>> inevitable consequence of not doing better.
>
> It's probably inevitable anyway, the earth is well beyond its
> steady-state carrying capacity.
>
> Until our economic systems no longer require growth to be healthy,
> we're basically screwed in the long run.

Indeed.

Even China now wants to increase their population, because it is decreasing.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418978 is a reply to message #418975] Mon, 06 February 2023 21:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418980 is a reply to message #418976] Tue, 07 February 2023 02:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:55:28 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

>> To use renewables alone we need storage for about a week, say
>> around 5000 terawatt hours.
>>
>> To use iron-iron redox alone I make that around 100,000 billion
>> litres or perhaps better 100 million tanks of a million litres (swimming
>> pool size) - plus of course 30 terawatts of electrodes. This is at least
>> possible (I doubt we could even measure the impact on the ocean level
>> harvesting that much chloride to make ferric/ous chloride solution) but
>> we could certainly do with better options.
>
> To many people out there don't bother to do the math. Those that
> do get rather depressed by the results :-(.

Actually I was rather encouraged by those ones - all too often the
results are clearly completely impossible to achieve. These were the first
ones I've done that actually come out with something possible and probably
even feasible.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418981 is a reply to message #418978] Tue, 07 February 2023 04:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: greymaus

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.

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 #418982 is a reply to message #418981] Tue, 07 February 2023 05:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 7 Feb 2023 09:54:21 GMT
greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

There are nearly three times as many people in the world now. A
surprisingly large proportion of whom have all of these things - progress
is wonderful.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418983 is a reply to message #418981] Tue, 07 February 2023 06:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andy Leighton is currently offline  Andy Leighton
Messages: 203
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 7 Feb 2023 09:54:21 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Solar Power only works when the sun shines.

Well conventional PV certainly.

I think there has been some work in harvesting the differential
in temperature between the panel and ambient air to continue
generating power. Although I am not sure that will work everywhere.

CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) as the input to a thermal energy
storage solution (either salt or sand) can provide electricity
overnight (and indeed over a long winter in Finland).


--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418984 is a reply to message #418983] Tue, 07 February 2023 06:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 11:13:25 +0000
Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2023 09:54:21 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Solar Power only works when the sun shines.
>
> Well conventional PV certainly.
>
> I think there has been some work in harvesting the differential
> in temperature between the panel and ambient air to continue
> generating power. Although I am not sure that will work everywhere.

Probably not for long, there can't be much energy stored in the
thermal mass of the panel.

> CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) as the input to a thermal energy

The problem with CSP is that it needs a clear sky, diffuse sunlight
gets nowhere.

> storage solution (either salt or sand) can provide electricity
> overnight (and indeed over a long winter in Finland).

Batteries also work - modern roadworks lights come with batteries
and a solar panel instead of a diesel generator.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418986 is a reply to message #418975] Tue, 07 February 2023 11:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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.
--
Jim
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418987 is a reply to message #418986] Tue, 07 February 2023 12:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: greymaus

On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:46:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>
>>> 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
>

nd a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis solved that
problem some years ago?

Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
the henhous is shorter.

One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).

--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418988 is a reply to message #418986] Tue, 07 February 2023 12:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 10:04:23 -0600
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:

> Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
> happen.

This is true, however this does not help determine *which*
conceivable 'scientific breakthroughs' are actually possible and which are
just wishful thinking.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418989 is a reply to message #418986] Tue, 07 February 2023 14:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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.

Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...

--
Dan Espen
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418990 is a reply to message #418987] Tue, 07 February 2023 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2023-02-07, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:46:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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.

At which time they're seen as obvious.

The three stages of an idea:
1. It won't work.
2. It's impractical.
3. I knew it was a good idea all along.

> And a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
> I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis
> solved that problem some years ago?

:-) At least he went through with it rather than selling out the planet.

> Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
> Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
> The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
> the henhous is shorter.

I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
to be made fun of."

> One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
> all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
> and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).

That's an inevitable result of the interaction between con artists
and suckers.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418991 is a reply to message #418988] Tue, 07 February 2023 15:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 17:14:31 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 10:04:23 -0600
> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>
>> Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
>> happen.
>
> This is true, however this does not help determine *which*
> conceivable 'scientific breakthroughs' are actually possible and which are
> just wishful thinking.

I realize that, I have a science education.

But things many millions of people use everyday, were thought to be
impossible before 1955.
--
Jim
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418992 is a reply to message #418987] Tue, 07 February 2023 15:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 7 Feb 2023 17:35:56 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:46:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>
> nd a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
> I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis solved that
> problem some years ago?

There is more than one asteroid in our solar system.

> Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
> Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
> The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
> the henhous is shorter.
>
> One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
> all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
> and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).

Millions of peple have died to not getting the vaccine. No scam aobut
it.
--
Jim
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418993 is a reply to message #418990] Tue, 07 February 2023 15:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-02-07, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:46:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > 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.
>
> At which time they're seen as obvious.
>
> The three stages of an idea:
> 1. It won't work.
> 2. It's impractical.
> 3. I knew it was a good idea all along.
>
>> And a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
>> I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis
>> solved that problem some years ago?
>
> :-) At least he went through with it rather than selling out the planet.
>
>> Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
>> Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
>> The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
>> the henhous is shorter.
>
> I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
> come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
> which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
> to be made fun of."

There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
again.

>> One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
>> all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
>> and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).
>
> That's an inevitable result of the interaction between con artists
> and suckers.

Yup, those con artistats who pretend a planet wide pandemic isn't
happening.
--
Jim
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418994 is a reply to message #418989] Tue, 07 February 2023 15:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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. 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.
--
Jim
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418995 is a reply to message #418993] Tue, 07 February 2023 16:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
>> come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
>> which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
>> to be made fun of."
>
> There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
> planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
> size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
> again.

If you haven't watched _Don't Look Up_, you should. It is only
superficially about and "asteroid", actually it is an allegorical tale.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418996 is a reply to message #418994] Tue, 07 February 2023 16:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 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.

Perhaps not rediculous, but certainly ridiculous.

>
>> 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 "thought to be impossible", just an extension of
existing portable radio technology.

> 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.

Even when such statements were made, they were made by small
numbers of ignorant individuals. They were never universally
accepted "truths".

None if this has any bearing on the fictional technology behind
Heinlein's Shipstones.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418997 is a reply to message #418993] Tue, 07 February 2023 16:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: greymaus

On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-07, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:46:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> 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.
>>
>> At which time they're seen as obvious.
>>
>> The three stages of an idea:
>> 1. It won't work.
>> 2. It's impractical.
>> 3. I knew it was a good idea all along.
>>
>>> And a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
>>> I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis
>>> solved that problem some years ago?
>>
>> :-) At least he went through with it rather than selling out the planet.
>>
>>> Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
>>> Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
>>> The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
>>> the henhous is shorter.
>>
>> I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
>> come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
>> which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
>> to be made fun of."
>
> There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
> planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
> size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
> again.
>
>>> One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
>>> all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
>>> and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).
>>
>> That's an inevitable result of the interaction between con artists
>> and suckers.
>
> Yup, those con artistats who pretend a planet wide pandemic isn't
> happening.

Millions have died, choking in their own blood, massives amount of
healthcare uniforms were a part of the con, Hospitals jammed with panicking
victims who choked and died in the corridors.. NOT.

I read a repert about the real 1918 flu. One week, in a local graveyard,
they were so behind in burials that all available roofed-in areas were filled
unburied coffins. By the end of the next week, it was over. I remember a
vairly severe flu about 1756 or so. Dw Pombal, the person in charge of Lisbon
after the earthquake, persisted in cremating bodies after that earthquake,
in spite of the church telling him he would be sent to Hell.

He avoided an epidemic.


--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418998 is a reply to message #418994] Tue, 07 February 2023 16:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: greymaus

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.

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.

t That was trains. It had an effect here, as when one of first
car races was planned, the rule in England that a man with a flag
precede each car was in operation, so the Gordon Bennett race
had to take place here.

>

Space flight to the moon. Was in one of J.Vernes books, giant
gun fires a shell with people in it to the moon, and somehow,
it still has enough jizz to return to earth. Verne was usually
plauible, but the g-forces to send a shell to the moon would
kill everyone inside.

Enclopedia salesmen were a pest in the late 40's. People bought
tem, put them on shelves, and never consulted them.


>
> I didn't even have to do a web search.

A tip about web searches. Ignore the first pages of results.


--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #418999 is a reply to message #418995] Tue, 07 February 2023 16:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:03:02 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
>>> come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
>>> which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
>>> to be made fun of."
>>
>> There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
>> planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
>> size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
>> again.
>
> If you haven't watched _Don't Look Up_, you should. It is only
> superficially about and "asteroid", actually it is an allegorical tale.

No longer showing in my area, but I do realize it is about people who
pretends facts aren't.
--
Jim
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419000 is a reply to message #418998] Tue, 07 February 2023 17:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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.


> 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.
>
> t That was trains. It had an effect here, as when one of first
> car races was planned, the rule in England that a man with a flag
> precede each car was in operation, so the Gordon Bennett race
> had to take place here.

Shiloh Military Park still had such a law on the book in the 1970s.
Some people refused to leave the park, it closed at sunset, so the
Park rangers gave them a ticket for not obeying one of the laws there.
A flag bearer must proceed all motor vehicles across the one lane
bridge in the possible case that a horse and buggy is coming the other
way.

> Space flight to the moon. Was in one of J.Vernes books, giant
> gun fires a shell with people in it to the moon, and somehow,
> it still has enough jizz to return to earth. Verne was usually
> plauible, but the g-forces to send a shell to the moon would
> kill everyone inside.

It was considered fictional until the Apollo astronauts went.
Scientists were claiming it wasn't possible in the 1950s. Then the
Soviets put Gagarin up, then everyone started complaining about why
didn't the US have astronauts up in orbit ?

> Enclopedia salesmen were a pest in the late 40's. People bought
> tem, put them on shelves, and never consulted them.

Articles in them are typically out of date.

>> I didn't even have to do a web search.
>
> A tip about web searches. Ignore the first pages of results.

It varies.
--
Jim
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419001 is a reply to message #418997] Tue, 07 February 2023 17:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 7 Feb 2023 21:07:42 GMT, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-07, greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-02-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:46:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> 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.
>>>
>>> At which time they're seen as obvious.
>>>
>>> The three stages of an idea:
>>> 1. It won't work.
>>> 2. It's impractical.
>>> 3. I knew it was a good idea all along.
>>>
>>>> And a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
>>>> I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis
>>>> solved that problem some years ago?
>>>
>>> :-) At least he went through with it rather than selling out the planet.
>>>
>>>> Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
>>>> Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
>>>> The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
>>>> the henhous is shorter.
>>>
>>> I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
>>> come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
>>> which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
>>> to be made fun of."
>>
>> There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
>> planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
>> size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
>> again.
>>
>>>> One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
>>>> all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
>>>> and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).
>>>
>>> That's an inevitable result of the interaction between con artists
>>> and suckers.
>>
>> Yup, those con artistats who pretend a planet wide pandemic isn't
>> happening.
>
> Millions have died, choking in their own blood, massives amount of
> healthcare uniforms were a part of the con, Hospitals jammed with panicking
> victims who choked and died in the corridors.. NOT.

Covid isn't a con. It killed millions of people who refused to get
vaccinated after they watched some fool on youtube claim they didn't
need the vaccination.

> I read a repert about the real 1918 flu. One week, in a local graveyard,
> they were so behind in burials that all available roofed-in areas were filled
> unburied coffins. By the end of the next week, it was over. I remember a
> vairly severe flu about 1756 or so. Dw Pombal, the person in charge of Lisbon
> after the earthquake, persisted in cremating bodies after that earthquake,
> in spite of the church telling him he would be sent to Hell.
>
> He avoided an epidemic.

People who didn't wear masks in the US during the 1918 flu pandemic,
were arrested and jailed. Same thing should have happened to the
people who even refused, I hear them first hand, to wash their hands.
--
Jim
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419002 is a reply to message #418999] Tue, 07 February 2023 17:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:03:02 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
>>>> come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
>>>> which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
>>>> to be made fun of."
>>>
>>> There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
>>> planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
>>> size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
>>> again.
>>
>> If you haven't watched _Don't Look Up_, you should. It is only
>> superficially about and "asteroid", actually it is an allegorical tale.
>
> No longer showing in my area, but I do realize it is about people who
> pretends facts aren't.

I don't believe it was ever in theaters, or if it was, it was very
limited release. It is a Netflix production and is still available
thereupon.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419003 is a reply to message #418986] Tue, 07 February 2023 20:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> 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.

ZPE

--
Pete
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419004 is a reply to message #418989] Tue, 07 February 2023 20:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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.
>
> Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
>

That’s why it’s a “breakthrough” instead of a simple matter of engineering.
Most, however, don’t seem to come about as a result of huge government
programs, but from one “mad scientist” in a lab. Government gave us the
Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program - both worthy, but neither was
breakthrough science

--
Pete
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419005 is a reply to message #418991] Tue, 07 February 2023 20:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 17:14:31 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 10:04:23 -0600
>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
>>> happen.
>>
>> This is true, however this does not help determine *which*
>> conceivable 'scientific breakthroughs' are actually possible and which are
>> just wishful thinking.
>
> I realize that, I have a science education.
>
> But things many millions of people use everyday, were thought to be
> impossible before 1955.

The transistor was the breakthrough. Everything since has just been
refinement.

--
Pete
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419006 is a reply to message #419000] Tue, 07 February 2023 20:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> 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.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>> t That was trains. It had an effect here, as when one of first
>> car races was planned, the rule in England that a man with a flag
>> precede each car was in operation, so the Gordon Bennett race
>> had to take place here.
>
> Shiloh Military Park still had such a law on the book in the 1970s.
> Some people refused to leave the park, it closed at sunset, so the
> Park rangers gave them a ticket for not obeying one of the laws there.
> A flag bearer must proceed all motor vehicles across the one lane
> bridge in the possible case that a horse and buggy is coming the other
> way.
>
>> Space flight to the moon. Was in one of J.Vernes books, giant
>> gun fires a shell with people in it to the moon, and somehow,
>> it still has enough jizz to return to earth. Verne was usually
>> plauible, but the g-forces to send a shell to the moon would
>> kill everyone inside.
>
> It was considered fictional until the Apollo astronauts went.
> Scientists were claiming it wasn't possible in the 1950s. Then the
> Soviets put Gagarin up, then everyone started complaining about why
> didn't the US have astronauts up in orbit ?
>
>> Enclopedia salesmen were a pest in the late 40's. People bought
>> tem, put them on shelves, and never consulted them.
>
> Articles in them are typically out of date.
>
>>> I didn't even have to do a web search.
>>
>> A tip about web searches. Ignore the first pages of results.
>
> It varies.

Cell phones, etc. were impossible until electronics got small enough to put
the required intelligence into them.

--
Pete
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419007 is a reply to message #418989] Tue, 07 February 2023 22:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Pfeiffer is currently offline  Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>>
>> Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
>> happen.
>
> I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
>
> Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...

Rather than ridiculous, I'd be inclined to regard this as almost
tautological. It's almost the very definition of a scientific
breakthrough.

There are exceptions, like everybody knows P != NP and when somebody
either proves it's true or proves it can't be proved we'll all say "at
last!", but not many.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419008 is a reply to message #418969] Tue, 07 February 2023 22:40 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Dave Yeo

Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> A recent survey said that of all the provinces in Canada,
> B.C. had the highest percentage (14%) of people whose
> retirement planning included winning the lottery.
>
> That's the kind of planning we're dealing with.

It seems close to impossible to save the required C$1.7 million required
to retire according to today's news, which also mentioned that something
like 70% of earnings (in Victoria) goes to the mortgage.
What BC should have started investing in many years back is wind and
solar, perfect compliment to hydro.
Meanwhile the previous government never bothered to put in the power
lines to Prince Rupert area to support the natural gas industry, so
they're going to use gas to power the compressors.
Dave
Pages (10): [ «    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: CLASS 2023 commercial
Next Topic: CTOS/BTOS
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 07:38:47 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.12878 seconds