On Tue, 9 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 17:23:04 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Terrorist and criminals use what they can get their hands on
>>
>> The hexamine fuel used by camping stoves and model steam engines is now
>> outlawed, the bad guys figured out how to make a well known military
>> explosive from it
>
> That must be an European thing. Amazon still shows Coghlan's hexamine
> tablits for my Esbit stove. If I use Tor, which comes out of the rabbit
> hole in the Netherlands today it says they can't be delivered to my
> address.
>

I think this could be due to the fact that the DHS has successfully fought
all terrorists, so now the public can be trusted with model steam engines
again! ;)

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 21:49:25 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I think making gun powder is very simple. There's loads of youtube
>> videos,
>> and I imagine that a couple of pipe bombs would be far easier and more
>> explosive than car battery bombs.
>
> When I was a kid I could walk down the street to the local pharmacy and
> buy potassium nitrate and flowers of sulfur. The pharmacist probably knew
> what I was up to but kids were expected to blow things up back then. I
> could also get iodine crystals for my nitrogen triiodide experiments. It's
> too unstable to be very useful but it does make a nifty purple cloud when
> it blows.

Amen! Never dared to go back to my experiments with iodine crystals after
one of my experiment spontaneously caught fire. But yes, blowing things up
is a healthy youth activity, and effectively separates the wheat from the
chaff. ;)

> I only remember one kid getting injured and that was from the low rent
> activity of stuffing match heads into a CO2 capsule. Darwinian selection
> at work.

I did a few experiments with match heads to see if I could use them as
primer in home made ammunition. Never completed my experiment, but at
least the match head part worked beautifully. You could set it off by
whacking a small pile with a spoon.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:44:32 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> Then there is the problem that most hydrogen comes from processing
>>> natural gas rather than green alternative energy sources.
>>>
>>>
>> Very interesting! Had no idea! I find it funny that this is somehow
>> never meantioned by the green crowd.
>
>
> https://www.brightgreenlies.com/book
>
> 'Bright Green Lies' by Derrik Jensen.
>
> Jensen is not a fossil fuels industry apologist by any means. He is one of
> the founders of Deep Green Resistance that is considered too radical by
> some environmentalists.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Green_Resistance
>
> The book gets somewhat redundant as he works his way through the various
> green technologies. For each he starts with the extractive industries that
> are required. Solar cells? There are two prevalent technologies for PV
> cells. One uses cadmium and tellurium and the other copper, gallium, and
> indium, plus silicon. What is the impact of producing these materials? How
> are they mined, transported, and processed? How much heavy equipment must
> be produced? How much energy is used during the smelting or other
> processing? What other materials are needed for completed PV panels?
>
> After the PV panels are produced, what is required for site preparation?
> What are the ecological impacts of huge solar projects? What is required
> to produce and install the distribution network?
>
> The same analysis is done for wind, hydro, and so forth. The 'renewable
> energy' technology is the tip of a huge iceberg of antecedent processes
> studiously ignored by the bright green environmentalists.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_green_environmentalism
>
> They parallel the cornucopians that believe there will always be a
> technological solution to allow our comfortable life style without taking
> any hard decisions.

For another realistic perspective on climate change, I always recommend
ex-green peace member (and founder in Denmark) Björn Lomborg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUPBSRs067w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RxCkQtE-P0

He is generally hated by the eco-fascists, which is always a signal to me
that here might be an interesting thought or two. One of his big ideas is
that CO2 taxes are largely completely ineffective at making any change at
all.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 21:51:48 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Germany managed to help the extreme left and the extreme right with
>> their ridiculous nuclear policy. Given their history, I'm surprised they
>> didn't see it coming.
>
> There is a lot of that going around. The French managed to get the RN and
> NFP on the same page while Trump has collected a menagerie of strange
> bedfellows.
>

I guess it's the spirit of the age. Our elite politicians have lost touch
with the people and have pissed them off too much. The people then,
naturally, overreact. The rest of the chain of causation is left as an
exercise for the reader. ;)

rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 17:23:04 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Terrorist and criminals use what they can get their hands on
>>
>> The hexamine fuel used by camping stoves and model steam engines is now
>> outlawed, the bad guys figured out how to make a well known military
>> explosive from it
>
> That must be an European thing.

Maybe even just a UK thing, retailers complaining nobody told them about
it, Mamod claim it's the reason they went bust (could use meths, not ideal)

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:30:02 +0100, D wrote:

> I guess it's the spirit of the age. Our elite politicians have lost
> touch with the people and have pissed them off too much. The people
> then, naturally, overreact. The rest of the chain of causation is left
> as an exercise for the reader. ;)

But not a reader here, because you and your ilks' political missives
have fsck-all to do with Linux.

On that note, fresh Linux:

_[/home/scott]_(scott@lm)🐧_
$ uname -a
Linux lm 6.12.4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Dec 9 09:09:32 PST 2024 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

real 375.52
user 17582.03
sys 3456.69

Using NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-565.77.run for graphics drivers, and
selecting the MIT/GPL licensed branch. This binary blob is
a new, new-feature release.

Also built vlc so I could test some features, and included projectM
with it. Visualization goodness working, once I added a symlink
for the font that the projectM module was looking for

--
-Scott System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.12.4 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Recovery program for excessive talkers: On-and-on-Anon."

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:53:54 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new, working
>> nuclear power in 10 years.
>>
>> I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.
>
> If Sweden is like the US it will still be in litigation in 10 years.
>

Yes, I agree. Politics alone has the possibility of consuming that time
span. There was talk about restarting 2 old reactors that were shut down
by the left, but as a strange conincidence, the manager of the plant had
basically thrown away all spare parts and documentation, and claimed
therefore it was impossible. Naturally, it was never questioned or asked
why he did it and the story was quickly forgotten in the media.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
>>>> AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>>>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
>>>> combusting as part of the pressure release.
>>>
>>> I've seen the results of a 200-bar scuba tank letting go.
>>> And that's just a little 80-cubic foot tank filled with air.
>>
>> How did this happen? In sweden, there is an epidemic of bombings for the
>> past couple of years, since crazy drug dealing arabians are waging some
>> kind of war with hand grenades, and car battery bombs in the bigger
>> cities.
>>
>> Would using scuba tanks be a cheaper way for them to bomb each other?
>
> Likely not as cheap as a car battery. I see a 2.3L mini scuba tank on
> Amazon for $299 (no idea how big a 2.3L mini tank really is). I can
> get a car battery for about $100 at the local auto-store.
>
> And the scuba tank will not also spray sulfuric acid over everyone when
> it goes "bang". And short of an armor peircing slug, it is probably
> more difficult to get a new scuba tank to go "bang" vs becoming a brief
> high speed rocket or spinner.
>
>> Also, how does a car battery bomb work?
>
> Perhaps google would answer your question... Or perhaps google would
> report you to the authorities for even asking the question?

I did, and my conclusion was that a pipe bombs with gun powder would be
lighter, cheaper and more dangerous.

So that's why I ask you knowledgeable guys, since to me, it seems there
are _way_ better ways to cause mayhem than car battery bombs.

>> I'ev seen videos of exploding lithium batteries, but that does not
>> look as efficient to me as just producing good, old, gun powder at
>> home and making your own.
>>
>> So with that in mind, what would be the advantage of a car battery bomb
>> over regular gun powder plus a pipe?
>
> Lack of education maybe? They can buy the car battery at an auto parts
> store (no education required, just the local currency) and they likely
> have a "script" passed down that they have no idea how/why it works,
> but if the do x, y, and z, it does work.
>
> Making gunpower does require some knowledge and skill -- although
> presumably it too could be scripted. So perhaps the 'authorities' are
> watching the gunpowder precursor purchases, but not watching 'car
> battery' purchases?
>
>

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/12/2024 09:51, D wrote:
>>>> So with that in mind, what would be the advantage of a car battery bomb
>>>> over regular gun powder plus a pipe?
>>> It's easier and legal to get a car battery.
>>>
>>> These gentlemen are not very scientific.
>>> Making gunpowder from chickenshit is quite complex.
>>>
>>> Did you know that acetone - a highly useful solvent used extensively by
>>> people who make glass fibre components, is also used by people who brew up
>>> and purify various drugs. Beware ordering a gallon of it...
>>> The IRA used ammonium nitrate, because it was at that time a legal
>>> fertilizer. Today it is controlled and comes mixed with something that stops
>>> it going bang.
>>>
>>> We used to use sodium chlorate - a weedkiller that is now also banned
>>>
>>> Terrorist and criminals use what they can get their hands on
>>>
>>> Only the government gets to use the good stuff.
>>
>> I think making gun powder is very simple. There's loads of youtube videos,
>> and I imagine that a couple of pipe bombs would be far easier and more
>> explosive than car battery bombs.
>
> Perhaps then it is easier to cart the car battery bomb in somewhere
> that a large pipe with caps on both ends and a wire out one end would
> raise suspision?

Maybe! Let's see if we have a terrorist as a member of the group who can
tell us! ;)

>> Fun fact... a swedish wanna be terrorist was caught because he went into a
>> hardware store bought 20 car batteries and the store thought it was
>> suspicious that a bearded gentleman from the middle east should suddenly
>> buy 20 car batteries! =D
>
> Not the sharpest knife that was ever in the drawer.

This is the truth. But I would expect the sharper tools to be the leaders
who sent the less sharp tools to their death with crappy, home made bombs.
;)

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 12/9/24 8:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:58:47 -0800, John Ames wrote:
>>
>>> Any chance of this conversation returning to anything even *slightly*
>>> more relevant to *nix, computers in general, or, like, *anything* else?
>>> Maybe I should dig up some old Francis E. Dec rant for a more coherent/
>>> relevant refresher course...
>>
>> Feel free to start a thread.
>
>
> Ummmmm ... I just TRIED with the "Bit-Slice" topic.
> Jumped IMMEDIATELY back to 'non-OS/Computer stuff' :-)
>
> Was HOPING for discussion/insight into 'alternative'
> schemes for 'CPU's and such derived from older solutions.
>
> Houston, we have a problem .............
>

Your thread was perhaps not interesting enough? Try again! ;)

On 09/12/2024 20:50, D wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/2024 09:53, D wrote:
>>> Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new,
>>> working nuclear power in 10 years.
>>>
>>> I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.
>>
>> I'm not so sure.
>> At the moment Rolls Royce is going through the red tape box ticking
>> exercise on their reactors.
>> They want to deploy the first ones by 2030.
>> The Czech Republic is working with RR on this as well
>>
>> There is a huge potential market for the first companies to put
>> together scalable small modular reactors that are in mass production.
>>
>> Build your concrete structures, pop in a boiler and turbines and some
>> generators and ship a complete reactor in, and plug it in to a factory
>> produced control system, and that's it.
>>
>> 5 years top's is the aim
>
> This is the government. No SMR:s in sight. They are thinking about
> "safe" traditional ones.
>
> If they get it done in 10 years, and if they dare to explore SMR:s, I
> will be happily proven wrong.

Sweden is small enough to be reasonably governed by people who don't
get too puffed with self importance.

I think the salient points for Europe are:-

- Net Zero is pie in the sky. It ain't gonna happen.
- Renewable energy is pie in the sky, and massively expensive overall.
It ain't gonna happen either.
- further reliance on fossil fuels is fraught with danger since by and
large Western Europe doesnt have any.
- All the Nordic hydro is pretty much exploited as well as alpine and in
the Iberian peninsula.
- All that is left is nuclear, and the point of SMR is to reduce build
time and hence cost.

We have to use what fossil is left to bootsrtap the nuclear economy.

Note I didn't use the phrase 'climate change' anywhere above. It is
*supremely irrelevant.'

The greater issue is the growing scarcity of fossil fuel

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On 09/12/2024 20:51, D wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>
>> If they had simply taxed carbon fuels  we would be all nuclear by
>> now...and be making synthetic diesel
>
> Is electricity the primary cost driver of synthetic diesel?
>
I think it would be, yes.

Lets say you can get to a 30% conversion ration of whatever energy
drives the synthesis, to the final diesl.

Diesel and natural gas is around (UK money) 50p a litre or 5p /kWh

Expected renewable electricity is 3-4 times that
Historic nuclear is a bit less - say 4p /kWh

That puts synthetic diesel at a minimum of around 12p/kWh Which is what
we pay at the pumps but that is all tax.

> Germany managed to help the extreme left and the extreme right with
> their ridiculous nuclear policy. Given their history, I'm surprised they
> didn't see it coming. ;)

The trouble with Germany is that the Greens got into coalition, and the
price of that was Germany's energy policy.
The problem seems to be that the broad political choice is between neo
Marxists and pro Russian Neo Nazis.

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
>>>>> AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>>>>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
>>>>> combusting as part of the pressure release.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen the results of a 200-bar scuba tank letting go.
>>>> And that's just a little 80-cubic foot tank filled with air.
>>>
>>> How did this happen? In sweden, there is an epidemic of bombings for the
>>> past couple of years, since crazy drug dealing arabians are waging some
>>> kind of war with hand grenades, and car battery bombs in the bigger
>>> cities.
>>>
>>> Would using scuba tanks be a cheaper way for them to bomb each other?
>>
>> Likely not as cheap as a car battery. I see a 2.3L mini scuba tank on
>> Amazon for $299 (no idea how big a 2.3L mini tank really is). I can
>> get a car battery for about $100 at the local auto-store.
>>
>> And the scuba tank will not also spray sulfuric acid over everyone when
>> it goes "bang". And short of an armor peircing slug, it is probably
>> more difficult to get a new scuba tank to go "bang" vs becoming a brief
>> high speed rocket or spinner.
>>
>>> Also, how does a car battery bomb work?
>>
>> Perhaps google would answer your question... Or perhaps google would
>> report you to the authorities for even asking the question?
>
> I did, and my conclusion was that a pipe bombs with gun powder would be
> lighter, cheaper and more dangerous.
>
> So that's why I ask you knowledgeable guys, since to me, it seems there
> are _way_ better ways to cause mayhem than car battery bombs.

Maybe try over on "alt.terrorists.r.us" :)

Unless one of the lurkers is also playing in this field (and willing to
speak up) you'll likely get "I dunno" as the answer from the rest of
us. There's probably "some" reason, but you might have to infiltrate a
cell to actually find out, and when you did, the "reason" may seem
totally crazy in and of itself.

On 09/12/2024 21:34, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> have proven that it is possible. Just do it, eventually. We have to do
> it to survive. I'm lucky to have no descendants.

It is also possible to fly an aeroplane using a steam engine powered by
coal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8

Oddly enough it never became a commercial success.

When you do the sums,,. renewable energy comes out at something like
$250-$400/MWh overall, Gas its around $50/MWh , coal is around
$40-$50/MWh, as is old pre-existent nuclear., and traditional strangled
'new' nuclear is up around $150/MWh.
But new nuclear that evades the regulatory overburden looks set to be in
the $50-$60/MWh

If you want to have a competitive industry of any sort you need cheap
reliable energy.
Renewables are absolutely the worst way to achieve that.

Fossil fuel prices are rising. Nuclear power done right should not. It
is the energy of the future. If civilisation is to continue.

Renewables belong in a museum.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 09/12/2024 21:35, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-12-09 17:52, Andy Burns wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." wrote:
>>
>>> there are countries that sell more electric cars than IC, so it works
>>> for them.
>>
>> But neither .uk or .es have ~90% hydroelectric power
>
> Excuses.
>
No. Its you who make excuses. Its all 'can be done, so must be done'
with no mention of cost or benefit. And no alternatives explored

> Now, back to Linux?
>
Losing the argument huh?

--
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift

On 09/12/2024 21:35, D wrote:
> I could argue that solar is great in the sahara,
> but that does not make it feasible at scale, so bad example.

Not at night.

And, guess what, no one lives in the sahara. So what is the point?

--
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift

On 09/12/2024 21:40, D wrote:
> We currently do not have the technology, so it would be refreshing if
> the EU socialist nobility could stop pissing away our money. But that's
> not likely to happen any time soon. I am happy that the UK left, and I
> do hope that after Starmer has failed, that the UK can work to become
> the financial power house of the world again.

I read that Spain decided not to subsidise its windfarms as directed by
the EU, as it was cheaper to pay the fine the EU imposed. Except they
haven't paid that, either.
I think some other country did the same.

Germany has revoked Shengen. Not the EU. Finland and Sweden joined
NATO. Not the EU.

People are finding the EU is simply not as appropriate as individual
nations behaving as if they were sovereign are letting the EU go fuck
itself.

Euratom is the agency in charge of preventing new nuclear plants being
built.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On 09/12/2024 21:58, John Ames wrote:
> Any chance of this conversation returning to anything even *slightly*
> more relevant to *nix, computers in general, or, like, *anything* else?
> Maybe I should dig up some old Francis E. Dec rant for a more coherent/
> relevant refresher course...
>
Well just kill the whole thread. You dont have to read it.

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On 10/12/2024 01:02, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:53:54 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new, working
>> nuclear power in 10 years.
>>
>> I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.
>
> If Sweden is like the US it will still be in litigation in 10 years.

Fortunately Sweden is not.

There seem to be (compared with the UK and US) people who can count
beyond ten with their socks on in government

They are still singing the renewable hymn sheet but money is going into
piloting nuclear power.

IIRC the majority of many European countries are now in principle not
opposed to nuclear if the price is right.

And once one country goes nuclear, the rest will get lost in a crush to
follow.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 10/12/2024 01:05, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:55:37 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Build your concrete structures, pop in a boiler and turbines and some
>> generators and ship a complete reactor in, and plug it in to a factory
>> produced control system, and that's it.
>
> Where were you planning to build your concrete structures? Have you done a
> complete environmental analysis and responded to the lawsuits by
> environmentalists and groups that don't want a nuke in their particular
> back garden?

Broadly speaking you do it where the old nuclear power stations were
built, that still have gigawatt grid connections... But its no more
intrusive than a gas powered station so any large industrial estate is
suitable. 'Brown field' is the idea. Old coal and nuclear become new
nuclear.

The government drove a coach and horses through planning law with wind
farm development. They can do the same for nuclear if the political will
is there.

Once the electorate are clamouring for it, it suddenly seems easy to do
to get re-elected...

People in the UK have had nukes in their back yards for 40 years or
more. No one minds.

I was walking on a beach and passed some people and got chatting 'do you
know what that is?' they asked. 'That's Britain's biggest and newest
nuclear power station'. 'oh..'..was all they said.

The NIMBYs are not NIMBYs at all - they are carefully orchestrated,
fully paid up, probably by Russia or other gas interests, climate and
energy activists. Bussed in from big cities.

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 10/12/2024 04:41, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-12-09, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Renewables aren't dead yet, but they are beginning to smell..
>>
>> I agree. Nuclear is the future. There will be smaller niche cases for
>> solar and wind, in country side homes during the summer, or by using tax
>> subsidies to get some extra solar into data centers, but as you say, once
>> our nuclear knowledge has been rebuilt and regained, it should be
>> possible, in theory, to build traditional nuclear in 3-5 years (I think
>> south korea is doing it in 5 currently) and SMR:s will hopefully be even
>> faster.
>
> It's going to be a hard sell, though. The peepul want nothing to do
> with that nook-yu-lur stuff. As one hayseed said, "We don't want
> no damn atoms around here."
>
Ah well that's a different experience from Europe. We don't have
hayseeds sadly, We have Greens and other useless idiots.

--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

On 10/12/2024 04:46, Rich wrote:

> For a 'motor fuel' it is difficult to replace the benefits of liquids
> that do not need pressure vessels (beyond their own evaporation
> pressure, which is usually quite mild). We have an entire setup in
> place for transporting, storing, and dispensing liquids (gas/diesel
> pumps).
>
+1

> But, to avoid more 'carbon' in the air, the liquids have to be
> synthesized somehow from carbon already in the air. And that we don't
> have on a scale large enough to be a source to replace our current
> liquid fuels.
>
Well What we need to look at is how much carbon we can fix from the air
using plants.
Once you have cellulose and carbohydrates, you can make alcohols, and
once you have alcohols you can make long chain hydrocarbons.

Of course you need to remove all the solar farms first to grow the crops.

And or use giant algal farms in marshes etc. Adding light to indoor
plants would make them work as well. Its all about having enough cheap
energy

--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

On 10/12/2024 04:55, Rich wrote:
> Making gunpower does require some knowledge and skill -- although
> presumably it too could be scripted. So perhaps the 'authorities' are
> watching the gunpowder precursor purchases, but not watching 'car
> battery' purchases?

IIRC gunpowder starts with bird shit, wood charcoal and sulfur.

--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 10/12/2024 13:34, D wrote:
> I did, and my conclusion was that a pipe bombs with gun powder would be
> lighter, cheaper and more dangerous.
>
A bit, but gunpowder is by no means the best explosive.

Ammonium nitrate is way better.

As is nitroglyerine - although that is notoriuously unstable.

> So that's why I ask you knowledgeable guys, since to me, it seems there
> are _way_ better ways to cause mayhem than car battery bombs.

--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 10/12/2024 06:11, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 12/9/24 11:46 PM, Rich wrote:
>> 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/8/24 7:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your AI's
>>>>> number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>>>>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself
>>>>> explosively combusting as part of the pressure release.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen the results of a 200-bar scuba tank letting go.  And
>>>> that's just a little 80-cubic foot tank filled with air.
>>>
>>>    I've seen that too - close up.  Blew out a reinforced CBC wall
>>>    ......  sheer dumb luck nobody was in the filling room at the time
>>>    or they'd have been Spam.
>>>
>>>>> Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
>>>>> 'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.
>>>>
>>>> <shudder>
>>>>
>>>
>>>    High-pressure containers - esp ones that have to 'cycle' often -
>>>    are a bomb waiting to go off.  Fatigue/corrosion take their awful
>>>    toll - then BOOM !
>>>
>>>    If the boom is a flammable gas ... far worse.
>>>
>>>    Hydrogen CAN have its uses - but at "industrial" sites, not out in
>>>    public.  You can feed it into expensive fuel cells, you can mix
>>>    x-percent with natural gas.
>>>
>>>    But as a general-purpose 'motor fuel' ...  NO !  Besides, no proper
>>>    infrastructure for it.
>>
>> For a 'motor fuel' it is difficult to replace the benefits of liquids
>> that do not need pressure vessels (beyond their own evaporation
>> pressure, which is usually quite mild).  We have an entire setup in
>> place for transporting, storing, and dispensing liquids (gas/diesel
>> pumps).
>>
>> But, to avoid more 'carbon' in the air, the liquids have to be
>> synthesized somehow from carbon already in the air.  And that we don't
>> have on a scale large enough to be a source to replace our current
>> liquid fuels.
>
>
>   The catalyst people ARE getting better with grabbing
>   CO2 and turning it into various 'fuel' hydrocarbons
>   again. If there's hope for "CO2 Capture" it's with
>   these scientists.
>
>   They don't even HAVE to "break even" - just kinda
>   sorta CLOSE. That'd be significant - "good enough"
>
>   Again, as for 'motor fuel', I suggest isopropanol,
>   and it has a decent 'octane rating' - around 112.

I'd prefer a clean diesel..better fuel efficiency

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.