On 2024-08-04 7:31 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:58:37 -0400
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>> According to Bing, replacing a battery in a used EV car will cost
>> between $5,000 to $20,000. Does that price seem appropriate for a used
>> car which would itself be worth about $3k? Additionally, each
>
> This is why it is usually said that for all practical purposes an
> EV is a battery on wheels, once the battery is dead so is the EV.

Which makes EVs the worst possible car purchase a hippy can make since
the battery won't get recycled and neither will the car since recycling
such a car is dangerous because of the battery.

> Now a quick look at ten year old EVs on the second hand market show
> a lot of original model (24kWh) Nissan Leaf with displays indicating better
> than 100km of range. Still quite viable for a good many people.

Sure, people living in metropolitan areas going no farther than 10km a
day might find a use to them... unless they believe there is a chance
they might get stuck in traffic where the battery will deplete.

> When the current crop of EVs are ten years old they will be much
> more practical than those ten year old Leafs since they'll be degraded
> 60+kwH batteries not degraded 24kWh batteries. They'll be viable options
> for most people.

Wishful thinking.

>> manufacturer makes batteries in a radically different way. You can't
>> even be sure that the battery you'll need will be available a decade
>> after the initial purchase of the car. The absolute _least_
>> manufacturers can do is make a standard form for the battery.
>
> There's no point because as you rightly observe nobody will put a
> $20k battery in a $3k car - it's far more effective to essentially build
> the battery into the car and optimise the overall design.

No, it is far more efficient to keep the gasoline car and encourage
development of a synthetic fuel which would be compatible yet cleaner.
If that is not yet possible, encourage a system that injects hydrogen
into the burning process making sure that gasoline is burned at 100% to
become not only cleaner but ten times more efficient. Your 28mpg vehicle
immediately becomes a 280mpg one which makes it far and beyond more
environmentally-friendly than any electric vehicle since it is also
recyclable when it is no longer useful to a driver.

There is _no_ scenario where an electric car is good for the environment
if it uses a lithium battery which is finite and never recycled.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 8:13 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:59:07 -0400
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>> I'm going by what I learned from the 8-bit guy but I believe you will
>> first have to connect the solar panels to your existing grid which will
>
> No you don't - but that is the easiest and cheapest way. Off grid
> works just as well but the battery costs are prohibitive for all but
> survivalists.
>
>> then supply the charging station. However, the amount of electricity
>> produced by the solar panel is a fraction of what the electric car needs
>> to charge.
>
> That rather depends on how many solar panels you have.
>
> Realistically on a good day you'll get about 200W/m^2 so if you
> want to charge at 7kW (standard domestic charger) you'll need at least
> 35m^2 of solar panels, it would probably be a good idea to go to 50m^2 and
> get a decent (but not full) charge in winter.
>
> If the car is not parked at home during the day you'll also need a
> battery to hold the charge until the car is there.

So it would be a lot more complicated than to try to produce biodiesel.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 13:03:09 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 04/08/2024 11:16, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > It is socially impossible to build anything like enough nuclear
> > plants to get off fossil fuels. There are also questions about how long
> > the available nuclear fuels will last - suffice it to say that
> > estimates vary even more wildly than those about how long the oil will
> > last.
>
> This is actually not so
>
> The total energy consumption of Great Brtiain, *including* indiustrial
> and transport use of gas an oil, could be covered by somewhere between
> 100 and 300 medium sized nuclear plants.

The UK is currently constructing one nuclear reactor, five years
ago it was predicted to go online in 2026 but it is recently reported that
the project expects a "multiyear delay" and the cost estimate has risen to
£46B. The decision to build this plant was made in 2016 after three years
of negotiations. So let's be generous about that multiyear delay and call
the whole project 15 years to build a plant with a 60 year planned lifespan
on a site that already holds nuclear plants. There is also talk of emplying
25,000 people but I haven't foiund out what they're doing (probably mostly
building it). At this rate the UK can only build four Hinkley C sized
plants before it must decomission one.

So pray tell me how on earth do you think it is socially possible to
go from one plant in fifteen years (for an easy case) maybe to at least two
plants per year (in order to keep up with the replacements). First thought
is that if it takes 25,000 peoople ten years to build a plant then there
would need to be at least half a million people in the nuclear plant
building industry permanently.

Did you do any sums ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 09:23:27 -0400
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> into the burning process making sure that gasoline is burned at 100% to
> become not only cleaner but ten times more efficient. Your 28mpg vehicle
> immediately becomes a 280mpg

If you can make a device that will do that then please do so and
put it on the market. It will probably net you billions and a Nobel.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 09:26:34 -0400
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> On 2024-08-04 8:13 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:59:07 -0400
> > CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm going by what I learned from the 8-bit guy but I believe you will
> >> first have to connect the solar panels to your existing grid which will
> >
> > No you don't - but that is the easiest and cheapest way. Off
> > grid works just as well but the battery costs are prohibitive for all
> > but survivalists.
> >
> >> then supply the charging station. However, the amount of electricity
> >> produced by the solar panel is a fraction of what the electric car
> >> needs to charge.
> >
> > That rather depends on how many solar panels you have.
> >
> > Realistically on a good day you'll get about 200W/m^2 so if you
> > want to charge at 7kW (standard domestic charger) you'll need at least
> > 35m^2 of solar panels, it would probably be a good idea to go to 50m^2
> > and get a decent (but not full) charge in winter.
> >
> > If the car is not parked at home during the day you'll also
> > need a battery to hold the charge until the car is there.
>
> So it would be a lot more complicated than to try to produce biodiesel.

Going the PV route is complicated once - all the work is in setting
it up then you can forget about it until the batteries need replacing in a
decade or so.

Producing biodiesel also has some complex setup (building a
biodiesel reactor requires skill) as well as developing a steady supply of
oil, methanol and sodium hydroxide. Perhaps a little less complex but there
are specialists who will come and put your solar setup in for you, explain
all the options and so on. Biodiesel you have to do it all yourself unless
you want to trust a plastic reactor bought off eBay.

Producing biodiesel also means regularly dealing with large
quantities of toxic chemicals (methanol, methoxide) and flammable chemicals
(methanol, vegetable oil, biodiesel) and a moderately finicky bit of
chemical processing. There are also the byproducts to dispose of - the crud
you filtered out of the oil, the glycerol that gets produced as a byproduct
of the reaction, everything that gets washed out of the equipment between
runs. Putting any of this down the drain will not be popular.

I know which I think is easier.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 8/4/24 01:30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 15:30:28 -0700
> Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh sounds like sweet setup but not for the apartment-dwelling urban
>> resident. Some of the building in San Francisco were not built with
>> roofs capable of solar panel support but some are flaunting solar
>> panels and gardens.
>
> A common trend in Europe for apartments is to hang some panels
> (usually two or four) over the balcony attached to a grid-tie microinverter
> that simply plugs in. There are any number of outfits selling balcony solar
> kits the cheap ones hang the panels vertically the more expensive have
> angled sluminium brackets. Either way it's a dead easy DIY job.
>

That is nice for people who have balconies or even adequate solar
exposure under windows. Many do not have such nor do I. I look
forward to eventually buying a window mounted heat exhanger as
recently deployed in NYC public housing.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 8/4/24 02:50, D wrote:
>
>

[snip]

>
> Fear not! Let yourselves be inspired by swedens unregulated and
> unrestricted immigration! ;) This created many new millionaires among
> the socialist party, because the government would pay for the immigrants
> to live somewhere, so crafty socialists started immigration housing
> companies extracting millions and millions of dollars from the
> government for something which should not have happened in the first place.
>
> But this is very common in sweden.
>
> When they privatized schools (which was a wise decision) over night,
> plenty of socialist politicians popped up in school company boards
> getting nice extra salaries on top of their party salaries, and on top
> of the parliament salary (which is corruption and should have landed
> them in prison).
>
> When it comes to the housing situation in Stockholm, a new graduate from
> univeristy would not be able to afford a small 1 room apartment á 25 m^2
> in the city center without parents helping out with the cash needed and
> with the security for loans.
>
> I think, if you work hard, that it should be possible to save for a
> 1 room apartment in about 4-5 years or so if you don't live too freely.

Due to the Financiers buying up homes and apartment houses all over the
USA the prices of a first home even as a rental are being driven into
un-affordability. In San Francisco where I live in a Studio apartment
under rent control the price since I moved in in 1974 has moved up to 6
times what my original rent was. This has been due to Speculation and
inflation. Speculation conned at least a dozen buyers in my tenancy to
try to make more money. Inflation of about 10 X in my lifetime.
Due to the failure of the corporations and the very well compensated
to take care to honestly pay taxes on the profits they made in the
exploitation of War and of Economic War resulting in Recession and
Depression. While the recent Pandemic continues the big companies
have increased the profits skimmed off by their billionaire owners.
Now you can find some few properties in San Francisco that are less
than $1,000,000 but generally not livable spaces. If you have
that million it would be best to save it and live elsewhere but
if you are bound and determined to live in the beautiful tip
of the Peninsula between the Ocean and the Bay where we have
natural air conditioning you can spend a much larger fortune on
finding and upgrading a older place to modern standard of
living.

In ancient times the rich feared the poor which they called the Mob
gaining control and voting themselves benefits but in the modern
USA the wealthy have been in control and of course pay their elected
legislators since the Kennedy regime. He was a rich man and of
course he cut the taxes on the rich. Trump was just the latest
to do the same. As soon as he did so I anticipated the present
inflation though of course the Covid-19 and Putin's war on the
Ukraine have added to that. The Rich are the Mob these days. And
the rich benefit most from the Government they seem to hate.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:03:24 -0400
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> On 2024-08-04 9:46 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 09:23:27 -0400
> > CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> >
> >> into the burning process making sure that gasoline is burned at 100% to
> >> become not only cleaner but ten times more efficient. Your 28mpg
> >> vehicle immediately becomes a 280mpg
> >
> > If you can make a device that will do that then please do so and
> > put it on the market. It will probably net you billions and a Nobel.
>
> Can I submit a Wikipedia page and win a Nobel prize? I mean, Obama did
> far less when he won his:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle>

A simple quote from the middle of that article

"The efficiency of a hydrogen combustion engine can be similar to that of a
traditional combustion engine."

So I don't see any support for your claim of getting ten times the
efficiency. Also that article talks about engines converted to burn
hydrogen instead of petrol not some kind of hydrogen injection which is
what you seemed to be on about.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 8/4/24 02:41, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 03/08/2024 11:56, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 11:16:55 +0100
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you DO Sums?
>>>
>>>     Yes.
>>>
>>>> Can you calculate how much 'battery' is needed, and how much actually
>>>
>>>     Yes done that - with a generous overhead.
>>>
>>>> exists in the real world?
>>>
>>>     There's plenty of iron and chlorine easily available everywhere. If
>>> we wanted to build enough tanks we could hold a year's supply of
>>> electricity
>>> for the planet without impacting the availability of raw materials -
>>> but we
>>> only need about ten days (that's still about a competition sized
>>> swimming
>>> pool of tanks per 100k poeople - that's the answer I got when I did the
>>> sums). I'm not so sure about Vanadium but it's not in short supply.
>>> Now if
>>> we had to depend on Lithium for storage we'd be in trouble.
>>>
>>>> Can you calculate how many Hiroshima sized nuclear  explosions the
>>>> energy in the battery would need to be to keep just a small country
>>>> going overnight?
>>>
>>>     The Battery ??? You call yourself an engineer ? Reminds me of the
>>> time when people thought there would be *a* computer. District scale
>>> (and
>>> downwards) batteries make a lot more sense.
>>>
>>
>> So no mathematical refutation, just an ad hominem attack?
>>
>>>     There are already a *lot* of batteries distributed around the
>>> world's power grids and there will be more as fast as they can be built
>>> because they make money for their owners. On top of all the grid scale
>>> batteries many homes now have some battery storage (usually only about a
>>> day's worth but larger flow batteries are appearing) which lets them buy
>>> cheap night rate electricity and use it in the day time or ignore an
>>> outage
>>> of a few hours. Some EVs and chargers support V2L and can power the
>>> house
>>> from the car.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. I calculated we have enough energy storage  to keep the worlds
>> grid up for nearly three minutes
>>
>> You havent done the sums. You use words like 'a lot'  . Yiu even think
>> an 'outage pf a few gpurs is acceptable'
>> Try telling that to a patient on a life support machine.
>>
>>
>>>     It all adds up - but we do need to build a *lot* of batteries
>>> (swimming pool per 100k with current commercial offerings) before we can
>>> depend on intermittent sources alone, rather fewer batteries if we bring
>>> some nuclear into the mix but even with 100% nuclear we need enough
>>> batteries to handle the fast peaks and troughs.
>>>
>>
>> Oh dear. We need to build 'a lot' of batteries.
>> Or nuclear power stations.
>> Oh Nuclear power stations are *cheaper* than renewables plus
>> batteries., Whoda  thunk it?
>>
>> Not you, apparently.
>>
>> Your post contains not one quantity. It is full of *qualitative*
>> statements.
>>
>> "Yes done that - with a generous overhead." I know you havent. Because
>> I *have* That's simply bullshit.
>>
>> Never confuse carefully crafted bullshit with carefully calculated
>> engineering solutions.
>>
>
> Another interesting question is... _if_ as climate hysterics love to
> say, it is so easy to just store all the worlds electricity needs from
> solar and wind, in a few batteries, why haven't we done so?

Not a few batteries but as many batteries as it takes and
flow batteries which are wonderful and would restore the service
station where the old electrolyte would be dumped for reprocessing
and new electrolyte would fill the tank. The technology is still
being developed for manufactur and distribution.

>
> Surely we would no longer bother with nuclear, but just throw a few
> batteries here and there and the problem is solved.

Why do you find it needful to say a few batteries? We may end
up with a Wall of Batteries and the equipment to charge them along
the Southern border.
>
> Or could it be that it is actually financially and physically impossible
> with current technology?
>
> Or is it that climate rationalists like the Philosopher and myself are
> somehow engaged in a conspiracy to keep this technology off the market?

You define yourself as rationalist and yet you keep up
Denialist objections to the ongoing conversion to electrical
vehicles and stoves. Well you are likely just old farts with
some money in the game of fossil fuel production but we will
likely end up with more battery farms than current number of Oil
Refineries. At 87 I hope to see coffin lining or crematory
long before most of the sea level rise which is likely eventually
to flood the Central Valley of California and best of all,
Los Angeles. I feel for your descendants who will have to endure
the result of the pursuit of Convenience without thought of the
consequences.
bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
> much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
> time to really get into writing it.

Whatever happened to Plan 9?

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
> and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
> current western lifestyle for 10,000 years

Existing population when? Now? Or... now?

Up until recently, global population was doubling about every 40 years.
This wasn't enough for many politicians, who view a stable population
as a major disaster. In some areas, they've gotten the doubling time
down to 25 years. Nothing we can do will keep up with exponential
growth, and encouraging still more growth will only hasten the coming
of the real disaster.

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-- Edward Abbey

And Mackay's calculation assumes that we'll be able to convince the
people who currently want nothing to do with anything NOOK-yoo-lur.
As one hayseed was quoted, "We don't want no damn atoms around here."

> Which should be long enough to make fusion work.

Ah, that beautiful word "should". Someone once pointed out that fusion
has been 10 years away for the past 50 years. Basing plans on it being
available by a given date makes about as much sense as basing your
retirement plans on winning the lottery.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 17:10:41 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
> > And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
> > much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
> > time to really get into writing it.
>
> Whatever happened to Plan 9?
>
Psurely they'd be up to Plan 119 by now?

http://www.9front.org/releases/2024/04/28/0/

(Seems to be targetting the Raspberry pi)

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 17:10:41 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
> > And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
> > much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
> > time to really get into writing it.
>
> Whatever happened to Plan 9?

Inferno happened to Plan 9 then they both ground to a halt.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 04/08/2024 14:03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 13:03:09 +0100
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2024 11:16, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> It is socially impossible to build anything like enough nuclear
>>> plants to get off fossil fuels. There are also questions about how long
>>> the available nuclear fuels will last - suffice it to say that
>>> estimates vary even more wildly than those about how long the oil will
>>> last.
>>
>> This is actually not so
>>
>> The total energy consumption of Great Brtiain, *including* indiustrial
>> and transport use of gas an oil, could be covered by somewhere between
>> 100 and 300 medium sized nuclear plants.
>
> The UK is currently constructing one nuclear reactor, five years
> ago it was predicted to go online in 2026 but it is recently reported that
> the project expects a "multiyear delay" and the cost estimate has risen to
> £46B. The decision to build this plant was made in 2016 after three years
> of negotiations. So let's be generous about that multiyear delay and call
> the whole project 15 years to build a plant with a 60 year planned lifespan
> on a site that already holds nuclear plants. There is also talk of emplying
> 25,000 people but I haven't foiund out what they're doing (probably mostly
> building it). At this rate the UK can only build four Hinkley C sized
> plants before it must decomission one.
>
> So pray tell me how on earth do you think it is socially possible to
> go from one plant in fifteen years (for an easy case) maybe to at least two
> plants per year (in order to keep up with the replacements). First thought
> is that if it takes 25,000 peoople ten years to build a plant then there
> would need to be at least half a million people in the nuclear plant
> building industry permanently.
>
> Did you do any sums ?
>
Yup.

The disaster of French engineering and European atomic regulation that
is Hinkley point will never reoccur.

In the 70s the French completed 2-3 reactors every year for a decade.

That EDF reactor has successfully been built on time and on budget
everywhere but in Europe.

4 other vendors walked away from the UK because of the hostile
regulatory environment.

Rolls royce and others are floating SMRs precisely to overcome the
regulatory barriers by getting *type approval* so that they can put the
reactors together on a factory assembly line and kick 10+ standardised
units a year.

the way the renewable industry and the oil industry captured the
government and placed massive barriers in the way of nuclear to prove
it was 'too expensive' and 'took too long' is an utter disgrace.

Shame on you for believing in them

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 04/08/2024 17:36, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>    You define yourself as rationalist and yet you keep up
> Denialist objections to the ongoing conversion to electrical
> vehicles and stoves.

Objection to EVS is not based on emotion, but on rational principles. I
would be delighted to run an EV with a 600 mile range that could be
recharged from sunbeams and unicorn farts in less than 5 minutes.

The problem is I am an electrical/electronic/software engineer and I
understand what that would actually take in terms of hardware and what
it would cost.
If it were indeed possible.

All I have to say to you is:paraphrasing Lennon
"you think your so clever and modern and free
but your still fucking peasants as far as I can see'

You are the ones who want the emotional narrative you have been sold of
EVS and windmills and solar panels to work, but its lipstick on a pig.
It's last century and mediaeval technology dressed up to look
futuristic, like tail fins on a car.

You are the ones in denial. You are the ones standing in the way of
progress. You are the ones endangering the next generation. Not me.

You and the renewable/oil and gas industries desperately trying to
maximise profits at the expense of the consumer.

--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 2024-08-04 12:28 p.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:03:24 -0400
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-04 9:46 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 09:23:27 -0400
>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>
>>>> into the burning process making sure that gasoline is burned at 100% to
>>>> become not only cleaner but ten times more efficient. Your 28mpg
>>>> vehicle immediately becomes a 280mpg
>>>
>>> If you can make a device that will do that then please do so and
>>> put it on the market. It will probably net you billions and a Nobel.
>>
>> Can I submit a Wikipedia page and win a Nobel prize? I mean, Obama did
>> far less when he won his:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle>
>
> A simple quote from the middle of that article
>
> "The efficiency of a hydrogen combustion engine can be similar to that of a
> traditional combustion engine."
>
> So I don't see any support for your claim of getting ten times the
> efficiency. Also that article talks about engines converted to burn
> hydrogen instead of petrol not some kind of hydrogen injection which is
> what you seemed to be on about.

I found this article
<https://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/29/read-carefully-before-you-retrofit-your-car-with-hydrogen-fuel-i/>
which confirms that at the beginning of the 21st century, they really
thought that adding hydrogen to the burning process was going to
increase efficiency. I remember, at the time, that ten-fold was the
estimate. Apparently, the eventual tests determined that the hypothesis
was wrong. I guess they have to go back to the drawing board.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 9:46 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 09:23:27 -0400
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>> into the burning process making sure that gasoline is burned at 100% to
>> become not only cleaner but ten times more efficient. Your 28mpg vehicle
>> immediately becomes a 280mpg
>
> If you can make a device that will do that then please do so and
> put it on the market. It will probably net you billions and a Nobel.

Can I submit a Wikipedia page and win a Nobel prize? I mean, Obama did
far less when he won his:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle>

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 8/4/24 10:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
>> and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
>> current western lifestyle for 10,000 years
>
> Existing population when? Now? Or... now?

Then as he passed on in 2016 and likely did the calculation
a lot earlier.

>
> Up until recently, global population was doubling about every 40 years.
> This wasn't enough for many politicians, who view a stable population
> as a major disaster. In some areas, they've gotten the doubling time
> down to 25 years. Nothing we can do will keep up with exponential
> growth, and encouraging still more growth will only hasten the coming
> of the real disaster.
>
> Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
> -- Edward Abbey
>
> And Mackay's calculation assumes that we'll be able to convince the
> people who currently want nothing to do with anything NOOK-yoo-lur.
> As one hayseed was quoted, "We don't want no damn atoms around here."

Fusion already works fine on the Sun and we might need
extraterrestrial power stations to get enough of it for AI which
would be a good place to stash those power hungry present day
models.

>
>> Which should be long enough to make fusion work.
>
> Ah, that beautiful word "should". Someone once pointed out that fusion
> has been 10 years away for the past 50 years. Basing plans on it being
> available by a given date makes about as much sense as basing your
> retirement plans on winning the lottery.

20 years away for the last 60 years.
According to some population reseachers the population has
nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 8/4/24 10:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
>> much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
>> time to really get into writing it.
>
> Whatever happened to Plan 9?
>

Possibly the same that happened to HURD or terrestrial
nuclear fusion but I expect HURD to eventuate. On the other
hand there is the OS for RISC chips, RISC OS waiting to be
ported to other than RISC machines. If you can get a RISC
powered computer you are in like Flynn.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 04/08/2024 18:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
>>> and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
>>> current western lifestyle for 10,000 years
>>
>> Existing population when? Now? Or... now?
>>
>> Up until recently, global population was doubling about every 40 years.
>> This wasn't enough for many politicians, who view a stable population
>> as a major disaster. In some areas, they've gotten the doubling time
>> down to 25 years. Nothing we can do will keep up with exponential
>> growth, and encouraging still more growth will only hasten the coming
>> of the real disaster.
>
> Global population is falling in many places.

s/Global/Local/ - the global population is over 8 billion and rising
fast, despite pockets where it has leveled off. And in those areas
the politicians are having fits and trying to get it rising again.

> we are not limited by energy, but by agriculture and water resources.
>
> Do9nt be hand-wavey. Look at te facts. This is about as many humans as
> the planet can sustain.

That's my point. We have more people than we can reasonably handle
already. No amount of conservation is going to help if population
keeps rising as fast as the ruling classes want it to. It's simple
math - cut per-capita consumption in half while doubling the population
and you're right back where you started.

Nuclear might solve our energy problems - in the near term at least -
but you still need to find food, water, and living space (Lebensraum?)
for the teeming masses.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> According to some population reseachers the population has
> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.

I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
step in and force it on them.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 8/4/24 16:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> According to some population reseachers the population has
>> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
>> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.
>
> I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
> provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
> rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
> step in and force it on them.
>

Same thing in California. Exclusive towns for the horsey set
and gentlemen farmers are strongly resisting. But compromises must
be made to accommodate the oncoming hordes. San Francisco is doing
something to homeless encampments thanks to the SCOUSA decision
against allowing sleeping in public. Less than 300 contacts in the
first week so quality of contacts is up but still no sleeping
in public. So pull the wings of those compromised-by-MBA Boeing
planes and make them sleeping spaces. If any of those homeless
are verging on psychosis this might push them over the edge.
I am insomniac and sleep on an irregular schedule but I get some
sleep and attempt to rest. Not being allowed to sleep is
highly stressful.
Meanwhile the wild fires are adding to the unhoused
a few humdred at a time. One Northern Californian survivor of
two towns burnings, a barber by trade has lost eveything again
for the second time. He had nice lttle businesses that were
burnt to rubble.
Another man lost his house but saved his livinng treasures
of animals and family. Now he has to find shelter for all.

And the Fire is choosey it will burn these two homes on
either side of an undamaged home and it causes the lucky owner
to ask "Why?" These stories have been running multiple times on CBS
and the Fox Local news station. ABC was off in the static last
time I checked and I do not get NBC at my antenna.
bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 8/4/24 6:07 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>>  I'm beginning to agree with 'D' ... that Linux has become
>>  too much of a 'business', that The Vision has been lost.
>>  Soon the Foundation will find a way to just sell it to M$
>>  and that's that.
>
> I would imagine a first step is to limit participation based on
> ideological grouns. I could imagine license requirements, more rules
> etc, and attempts to bend the foundation to the will of one or two
> bigger manufacturers at the expense of the rest.

Every subterfuge will be employed. M$ esp has LOTS
of lawyers ....

> I think everyone here also remembers disasters such as the linux
> foundations goals during corona, as another example of it going to
> pieces.
>
>>  The BSDs may be the last refuge - I think they're mostly
>>  tended by more 'academic' cultured people.
>>
>>  And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
>>  much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
>>  time to really get into writing it.
>
> I often wonder if a new genius will emerge for an OS reboot? Was Linus a
> one time thing, or would it be possible for it to happen again?

There were many operating systems floating around in
the 70s-90s. Most went nowhere - but that was not
necessarily because they were bad, just that writers
kind of wanted to concentrate efforts on the leading few.

Ever tried BeOS ? You CAN get an x86 version that is
still maintained and (slowly) growing. It was writ
with the GUI fully in mind - rather than an add-on
feature as with Win/Lin/(Apple). Has a kinda Win-98/2k
feel. Firefox and some other useful stuff has been
ported.

OS9 ... which you can still buy ... was meant for small
CPUs (6809) and microcontrollers. It has a "UNIX-ish",
flavor, but smaller/faster/smarter. Could easily be
upgraded to 32/64 bits. Used it a bit on a CoCo and
it wasn't bad at all.
https://www.microsys.de/en/products/software/os-9/

BOS - 'Business (or "Boss") OS' was fairly popular, esp
on the old Sage 68k boxes (always wanted one !).

In any case, through the 70s-90s there were MANY
experiments. Some were Unix-based, others were
kinda off-the-wall. There are also 'retired' systems
like VMS. This represents a pool of IDEAS today's
wannabe gurus can tap into - what worked well, what
didn't. They don't HAVE to start from scratch.

> Lacking that, I think perhaps that the people who do not like the
> direction of linux might rally behind one of the BSDs. The problem there
> is the HW support, but that could in theory be improved with more money
> and more funded developers.

I don't think the BSDs get much money/helpers. That
COULD change, esp if Linux decomposes like we kinda
expect.

But would the same chain of events happen again ?
Once something becomes prominent, seems profitable,
the same psychologies kick in. One of those
"human things". With Linus as "king" the Linux
kernel and ownership rules, we have remained
fairly consistent to "The Vision" - but how many
LIKE Linus are out there ???

On 8/4/24 1:10 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
>> much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
>> time to really get into writing it.
>
> Whatever happened to Plan 9?

P9 is still out there, still works, almost overkill
for single-user boxes/servers. It was really writ
for big clusters/distributed.

But there's not enough interest/$$$ to push it forward
very much or get developers to port newer code.

I'd love to see VMS revived for the 21st century.
It was a really good, versatile, advanced OS that
did 'net' back when 'net' was 110-baud modems.
Alas, so far, VMS is still "owned" - not freeware
or 'abandonedware' like P9.

Oh, DID come a across some pix from a several years ago
celebrating P9 being ported to the big IBM mainframes.
Nothing much seems to have COME from it, but it IS
there for the Big Computing world.

On 8/4/24 6:22 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 8/4/24 10:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>
>>>     And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
>>>     much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
>>>     time to really get into writing it.
>>
>> Whatever happened to Plan 9?
>>
>
>     Possibly the same that happened to HURD or terrestrial
> nuclear fusion but I expect HURD to eventuate.  On the other
> hand there is the OS for RISC chips, RISC OS waiting to be
> ported to other than RISC machines. If you can get a RISC
> powered computer you are in like Flynn.

As I said to 'D', there are a LOT of systems "out there",
newer or older. Each represents IDEAS ... which can make
something New easier.

RISC-OS is fairly good - tight. I think a big trick
though is ease/security when it comes to interfacing
with storage/vid/net devices. It those are TOO complex
or weird then nobody will bother.

"X" - as is - would never have made it. However it
started a bit more simple and everything evolved along
with it. As a "from scratch" GUI however - nope - too
much work. Wayland, well, it's never really gonna be
ready for prime time, so "X" wins by virtue of
being "grand-fathered".

Hmm ... I remember Linux with "X" ... a very old RH
distro. Took the whole day to get the "x" to show
up on the screen and almost that long to get the
damned mouse to work. Kinda Gnome v0.2 :-)

(MAY still have that CD in The Heap somewhere ...)