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 #419009 is a reply to message #418967] Tue, 07 February 2023 22:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bob Martin is currently offline  Bob Martin
Messages: 157
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
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 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 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 #419017 is a reply to message #419007] Wed, 08 February 2023 11:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:

> 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.

Tautological if you define impossible as "not known about yet".

I don't know about you, but I rarely think about things I don't know about.

--
Dan Espen
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419018 is a reply to message #418967] Wed, 08 February 2023 11:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> * A 90% population reduction
> - No volunteers among those in favour it seems.

No volunteers needed. Just a birth rate like the one developed
countries are currently running.

90% would take some time but it would sure solve a LOT of these problems
if not all of them.

--
Dan Espen
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419019 is a reply to message #418906] Wed, 08 February 2023 12:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419020 is a reply to message #419019] Wed, 08 February 2023 13:29 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 Wed, 08 Feb 2023 17:15:55 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) 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.

However in this he was completely correct, however he missed the
real problem with knowns and unknowns to-wit:

"It ain't what we don't know that's the trouble, it's what we know
that ain't so".

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419021 is a reply to message #418906] Wed, 08 February 2023 13:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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

Good one.

No, great one!

--
Dan Espen
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419022 is a reply to message #419019] Wed, 08 February 2023 13:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Niklas Karlsson is currently offline  Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  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 #419025 is a reply to message #419024] Wed, 08 February 2023 13:58 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 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.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419026 is a reply to message #419023] Wed, 08 February 2023 14:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 #419031 is a reply to message #419030] Wed, 08 February 2023 16:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: snipeco.2

greymaus <greymaus@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-contact_transistor>

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

Google Groups posters using User-Agent: G2/1.0 are now
automatically marked read here; email me to be whitelisted.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419032 is a reply to message #419026] Wed, 08 February 2023 17:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
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 #419038 is a reply to message #419035] Thu, 09 February 2023 02:06 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 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.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419039 is a reply to message #419025] Thu, 09 February 2023 02:16 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 Wed, 08 Feb 2023 18:58:45 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> 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.

Quite - it may well be reasonable to say that every scientific or
technological break through was once widely considered impossible - that's
what makes it a break through. However it is far from reasonable to assume
that just because something is considered impossible today it will one day
be achieved and it is totally unreasonable to expect that it will happen in
time to solve current problems.

We *might* get lucky and we might not. I'm sure we will see things
deemed impossible or unlikely today but I have no idea which things or when
and nor does anyone else.

Cold fusion might have worked (few said it was impossible) - but it
didn't, many less well known ideas fail to pan out.

Engineering is the art of solving problems with what we have *now*.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419040 is a reply to message #419038] Thu, 09 February 2023 04:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
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 #419043 is a reply to message #419042] Thu, 09 February 2023 09:41 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 Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:37:35 -0500
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:

> I certainly saw it coming.
> I remember when we had red only, then green, and a fairly long time
> until blue.

With a lot of solid state physicists saying it wasn't going to
happen and presenting pretty convincing arguments.

> It was pretty clear it was only a matter of time.

Then you failed to notice that as the frequency of light emitted
went up the efficiency of the LED went down and that most physicists
expected blue LEDs to be *very* inefficient if/when they were ever produced.

What nobody should have expected was that blue LEDs with extremely
high efficiency were possible - the people who discovered this unexpected
effect got awarded a Nobel - that does not happen for achieving the
inevitable.

It was not the ability to produce blue light that was blocking LED
lighting, it was the low efficiency - that there was an LED with greater
efficiency than any other form of lighting was a *big* surprise.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419045 is a reply to message #418945] Thu, 09 February 2023 10:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Kurt Weiske

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.

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 #419046 is a reply to message #418947] Thu, 09 February 2023 10:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 #419047 is a reply to message #419043] Thu, 09 February 2023 11:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:37:35 -0500
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I certainly saw it coming.
>> I remember when we had red only, then green, and a fairly long time
>> until blue.
>
> With a lot of solid state physicists saying it wasn't going to
> happen and presenting pretty convincing arguments.
>
>> It was pretty clear it was only a matter of time.
>
> Then you failed to notice that as the frequency of light emitted
> went up the efficiency of the LED went down and that most physicists
> expected blue LEDs to be *very* inefficient if/when they were ever produced.
>
> What nobody should have expected was that blue LEDs with extremely
> high efficiency were possible - the people who discovered this unexpected
> effect got awarded a Nobel - that does not happen for achieving the
> inevitable.
>
> It was not the ability to produce blue light that was blocking LED
> lighting, it was the low efficiency - that there was an LED with greater
> efficiency than any other form of lighting was a *big* surprise.

Do a search for "blue leds are impossible". All those physicists
managed to not leave any trace of their proclamations of impossibility.


--
Dan Espen
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419050 is a reply to message #419045] Thu, 09 February 2023 13:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Pfeiffer is currently offline  Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"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.
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419051 is a reply to message #419050] Thu, 09 February 2023 13:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 #419052 is a reply to message #419042] Thu, 09 February 2023 14:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2023-02-09, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:

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

And at first the blue LEDs were much more expensive.
I remember going to a local electronics supplier,
where I found red and green LEDs for 25 cents each.
The corresponding blue ones were $6.00.

And then they became commonplace, and like any novelty were
horribly overused. Obnoxious bright blue lights were everywhere.
I remember running a sound board in a theatre production -
the pilot light was a blue LED that was so bright that I
couldn't see the rest of the board; I had to cover it with
three layers of masking tape to make things manageable.

"If it can be done, it should be done." Feh.

--
/~\ 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 #419053 is a reply to message #419040] Thu, 09 February 2023 14:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2023-02-09, 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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alfred Falk is currently offline  Alfred Falk
Messages: 195
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 #419056 is a reply to message #419054] Fri, 10 February 2023 00:57 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 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.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419057 is a reply to message #419056] Fri, 10 February 2023 05:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
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 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Anonymous
Karma:
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.
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 02:59:00 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05896 seconds