On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:33:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Nuclear ships were in fact tried, but the economics and regulations made
> them not cost effective. At the time. The rather larger number of
> expensive 'nuclear engineers' required was a dominant factor.

Nuclear subs had advantages and war toys aren't subject to economics. A
friend served on a nuke. His comment on the experience was Holy Loch,
Scotland was the only place in the world that could make being submerged
for up to three months look good.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:23:53 +0100, D wrote:

> Wow, that's quite a different between the easter and western parts. Yes!
> A potential benefit of "global warming" all democrats will be washed
> away.

Quite typical for the US. Many in upstate New York wish that Sodom on the
Hudson would break off and float out to sea and western Massachusetts
feels the same about Boston.

On 2024-12-12, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> Try the IBM "portable" PC ... if you don't throw out
> yer back lifting it :-) DID use one - but did most of
> the software on a 286 box.

I did a lot of work on an Olivetti M18, their luggable answer
to the IBM PC. To fit between the expansion slots, the handle
had to be mounted at 90 degrees to a comfortable carrying angle.
I once took it to a customer site and had to park several blocks
away - I think one arm is longer than the other now due to this.

> EVER see an actual 8086 system ? I never did. Kinda
> had to wait for the 286/386 era to see the promised
> perks. I think Compaq had an 8086.

I used one once. It had a pair of 8-inch floppies mounted
to the right of the (full-sized) screen.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 2024-12-12, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> I wonder if they could use the model from some SMR startup for ships? A reactor
> that is preloaded and welded shut. Then it operates for its entire lifetime
> until the fuel is used up, and then you change to a new reactor.

That is sort of the model used on the submarines ... and on the NS
Savannah in the early 1960s. From what I have read, it could be
commercially viable today (with the improvements in relevant technology
in the last 60 years).

On 2024-12-12, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> Ah, what was that show, "Red Dwarf", where the spaceship
> computer lamented that he'd tried to date a Zed-X 80 but
> she just didn't get him :-)

Holly was one of my favourite characters. One of my favourite
quotes was when they broke lightspeed and he couldn't see
where they were going. See my .sig.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Even with an IQ of 6000 it's
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | still brown trousers time.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | -- Holly (ship's computer
/ \ if you read it the right way. | on Red Dwarf)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:54:28 -0800, John Ames wrote:

> Some of the later Tandy 1000 series did as well, before they eventually
> pivoted from being a vastly improved PCjr to being Yet Another VGA 386.

That was a strange interlude. I'm from the generation where you went to
Tandy Leather to get the materials for your hand tooled wallet Boy Scout
project. Then when they wanted to distance themselves from the Trash-80
they jumped from handicrafts to 'serious' computers.

There's a joke about the BATF that 'Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' should
be the name of a convenience store. There was a store in a small Maine
town that did all that and more, adding Tandy computers to the mix. They
also had general hardware and some food. One stop shopping. A friend
moonlighted setting up Tandy systems for local government, schools, and
small businesses.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:34:04 +0100, D wrote:

> True. My jokes about feminism and the unequality of men and women
> sometimes lands me in dangerous territory with my wife. She is a lawyer!

My wife became more religious after the divorce. About 20 years after the
fact she said if she'd followed Paul's advice for women to sit down, shut
up, and follow their husband's lead it might have worked out better. I
didn't pursue the thought.

On 12/12/24 4:35 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/24 5:08 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/10/24 8:38 AM, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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! ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Awwww .... OUGHT to be an interesting topic, especially
>>>>  as we're bumping up against Moore's end-point. One or
>>>>  two more gens and we're literally at the atomic scale ;
>>>>  where to go from there ?
>>>
>>> Quantum computing of course! Otherwise, we'll just continue to scale
>>> out I assume.
>>
>>  "Quantum" has NOT been going well. People are finding
>>  ways to REDUCE the error rate, but it's still too much.
>>  Cyro is also kinda required.
>
> The thing that puts me off quantum is that media loves to hype it. That
> to me, is a sign that it is nowhere near being ready for anything
> productive. But I am not a physicist! But based on this group it does
> seem I am more right than wrong.

Google just blew its horn today about it's new quantum
chip - solved some 1000x-age-of-the-universe math
problem in about five minutes.

https://blog.google/technology/research/google-willow-quantum-chip/

BUT, that particular problem was especially easy
to address with quantum methods ....

>>> Is there an established Moores end point?
>>
>>  I'm gonna say it's "at the few atoms" zone. However
>>  you still need to make room for the connecting leads.
>>  Gotta be able to FAB such things too ... and you're
>>  well into the X-ray zone there.
>>
>>  So ... I think we're approaching A Problem here.
>>
>>  The kind/meaning of 'computing' has kinda shifted
>>  recently due to 'AI' - Nvidia rules there - but
>>  the chips are faster at "AI" sorts of stuff, not
>>  general/all-purpose.
>>
>>
>>> I would imagine once we hit that end point in terms of regular cpus,
>>> the only direction left would be purpose built cpus on other
>>> technologies for niche use cases such as biological computing,
>>> quantum computing, optical etc.
>>
>>  Bio is gonna be too SLOW. Quantum, we've discussed that.
>
> Isn't the idea behind bio massiev parallelism? So yes, the computation
> might be slow, but if you have millions of molecules performing it in
> parallel you do get fantastic results if the problem you are trying to
> solve fits the nature of bio computing?

But again ... NOT all problems are especially well
solved with massive parallelism any more than all
problems can be Q-computed worth a damn.

So we're back to the more modern question of what
"computing" MEANS. All was clear with UNIVAC, but
since then ...

>>  Pure photonic - including some rough analog of photonic
>>  transistors ... MAYbe. I keep hearing bits of news which
>>  suggest those MIGHT be practical someday. Still, don't
>>  see them being THAT much faster - the S-o-L in crystals
>>  and fiber and such is a limiting factor. Who'd have ever
>>  imagined the S-o-L would be TOO SLOW eh ? Indeed it's
>>  already a communications pain in the ass.
>>
>>  Photonic switching elements don't switch instantly
>>  either ... MAYbe some different def/tech that's not
>>  really so much 'switching' per-se ? Interference
>>  patterns ?
>>
>>  Now something that will properly support, say, deca-state
>>  logic ... ? Transistors don't do that well, but smart
>>  photonic design, perhaps. A lot more 'getting it done'
>>  per gigahertz  :-)
>
> Seems like photonic is the winner for the moment.

Don't see any other direction. We're already kinda
bumping-up against Moore even now with conventional
electronics. For anything needing linear calx, I think
we MIGHT get a 10x improvement and that's IT forever
with transistor-like electronics.

USED to take "Photonics Spectra", aka "Photonics"
mag back in the day. MANY promises - but VERY VERY
slow realization. Is still published :
https://www.photonics.com/

Useful photonic 'circuits' are NOT easy to realize.
Some of the new "AI" stuff MIGHT make some of that
easier by looking at a zillion solutions/variants
a second and finding exploitable patterns.

Again, 'circuits' as we think of them may not be
the best way to use photonic tech - still have
this weird vision of using interference patterns
rather then ph "transistors". Light has some odd
properties that are easier to get at than by
using electrons.

>>> Could regular cpu:s get some extended life by a change of materials
>>> or some other tweaks to the current design?
>>
>>  Could ... but instead they'll make new chips.
>>
>>  Oh, news today ... if you have an AMD box DO look into
>>  the "BadRAM" exploit - a sneaky back-door way for Vlad
>>  to spy on your 'protected' data.
>>
>>>>  Better innovate SOMETHING, otherwise we're gonna see
>>>>  'peak computing' when it's become clear we need thousands
>>>>  of times that for the Really Cool Stuff.
>>>>
>>
>>

On 12/12/24 3:44 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:14:48 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> As a small business owner, I say... this is the truth! It is absolutely
>> incredible the shit big companies can do, and still survive and thrive!
>
> That's a discussion I had with the company president several times. One of
> the VPs was always chasing the big sales. My argument was a company like
> Lockheed Martin could win the bid, fuck it up completely, get sued, and
> shrug it off; we couldn't.
>
> That came to realization when Lockheed won the bid for an emergency
> dispatch system for the City of London. They failed to deliver, were sued
> for breach of contract and non-performance, and went on to their next
> scam.

Gotta GREASE THE POLITICIANS/REGULATORS.

Remember the anti-trust stuff against M$ back in
the day ? It was because Bill forgot to grease
his politicians. As soon as he learned that all
the legal problems went away .....

Having a diverse-enough finance base also helps.
This means that even if you DO fuck it up, DO
get sued, you can still borrow lots more money
to continue.

On 12/12/24 4:01 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:33:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Nuclear ships were in fact tried, but the economics and regulations made
>> them not cost effective. At the time. The rather larger number of
>> expensive 'nuclear engineers' required was a dominant factor.
>
> Nuclear subs had advantages and war toys aren't subject to economics. A
> friend served on a nuke. His comment on the experience was Holy Loch,
> Scotland was the only place in the world that could make being submerged
> for up to three months look good.

Armies have almost unlimited budgets/resources. If
they want nuke ships/subs they can GET 'em.

But COMMERCIAL operations - nope.

Good, large, diesel/oil engines are still the
solution for large commercial carriers.

Saw an engine on some TV show ... it had a
people-sized door at the base of each cylinder
so you could climb in there and check/fix stuff.
I *think* individual cylinders could be detached
from the crank so, in theory, you could work on
one while the engine kept running. That sounds
very unpleasant though ....

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 01:54:05 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> Ummmmm ... I just TRIED with the "Bit-Slice" topic.
>> Jumped IMMEDIATELY back to 'non-OS/Computer stuff'
>
> How about that bubble memory?

What I recall was all the hype about how bubble memory was going to
surpass everything else and the shift was "just around the corner".

Thirty years later and few even remember "bubble memoriess" were ever a
thing.

On 12/12/24 4:05 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:23:53 +0100, D wrote:
>
>
>> Wow, that's quite a different between the easter and western parts. Yes!
>> A potential benefit of "global warming" all democrats will be washed
>> away.
>
> Quite typical for the US. Many in upstate New York wish that Sodom on the
> Hudson would break off and float out to sea and western Massachusetts
> feels the same about Boston.

Note the large uptick in seismic activity, esp along
the Pacific rim, the past couple of years. More and
more, and stronger and stronger, quakes. It is NOT
impossible to get a giant tsunami that washes away
the US west coast ... the geologists have seem signs
of those happening before.

NYC ... I think they're all gonna wind up killing
each other. Whatever's left, well, John Carpenter
had it pretty much right ....

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 04:37:50 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 01:54:05 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> Ummmmm ... I just TRIED with the "Bit-Slice" topic.
>>> Jumped IMMEDIATELY back to 'non-OS/Computer stuff'
>>
>> How about that bubble memory?
>
> What I recall was all the hype about how bubble memory was going to
> surpass everything else and the shift was "just around the corner".
>
> Thirty years later and few even remember "bubble memoriess" were ever a
> thing.

The memory hole is deep and dark. I think I still have the preliminary
datasheets for the iAPX 432 that was going to be Intel's real 32 bit
processor. The iAPX 86 was a stop gap until they got the bugs worked out.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:42:41 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> Note the large uptick in seismic activity, esp along the Pacific rim,
> the past couple of years. More and more, and stronger and stronger,
> quakes. It is NOT impossible to get a giant tsunami that washes away
> the US west coast ... the geologists have seem signs of those
> happening before.

The last real tsunami a photographer went out on the sandbar at the mouth
of the Klamath River to get a really impressive shot. I forget if they
ever found him. Go lemmings, go!

On 13/12/2024 04:42, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>   Note the large uptick in seismic activity, esp along
>   the Pacific rim, the past couple of years. More and
>   more, and stronger and stronger, quakes. It is NOT
>   impossible to get a giant tsunami that washes away
>   the US west coast ... the geologists have seem signs
>   of those happening before.

Something else to ascribe to man-made-climate-change :-}

Or rather is something in the core changing and driving climate change?
IIRC there's a growing magnetic anomaly in the Atlantic.

But what's this do with bit-slice chips or c.o.l.m.?

--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England

On Thu, 13 Dec 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> But by the mid 1970s they had become competitive with the rise in fuel
>>> prices, and today's level of computer systems and long range networking would
>>> probably result in just a couple of people to manage any routine issues on
>>> the power plant and satellite comms back to the nuclear power plant builder
>>> to tell them what to do if anything went outside operational norms
>>
>> I wonder if they could use the model from some SMR startup for ships? A reactor
>> that is preloaded and welded shut.
>
> Yes, and the reactor model for ships is basically the model for SMR
> start-ups, except with the vague idea that they're suddenly going
> to be much cheaper somehow (I'll believe it when they "hit the
> shelves").

Ahhhhh! The pieces of the puzzle are starting to come together! I had no
idea. Thank you for highlighting this. =) Makes perfect sense.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:14:48 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> As a small business owner, I say... this is the truth! It is absolutely
>> incredible the shit big companies can do, and still survive and thrive!
>
> That's a discussion I had with the company president several times. One of
> the VPs was always chasing the big sales. My argument was a company like
> Lockheed Martin could win the bid, fuck it up completely, get sued, and
> shrug it off; we couldn't.
>
> That came to realization when Lockheed won the bid for an emergency
> dispatch system for the City of London. They failed to deliver, were sued
> for breach of contract and non-performance, and went on to their next
> scam.

Oh... the many storage companies that promised (and sold) the wonders of
compression and deduplication, and thanks to them, a tiny little
installation would suffice. A few months on, and the customer had to
expand the system massively because the estimate figures did not hold.
Storage company happy, rich, and the customer continuing to commit the
same mistakes again and again and again. ;)

So you know the company president? You must indeed be a powerful man! Or
the president must be a special president who actually talks to employees?
Or a bit of both perhaps!

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:27:58 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I thought the police actually thought it was funny and were reminded of
>> their own childhood (although of course they didn't show any of this).
>>
>> Ahh, those were better, more innocent times!
>
> It didn't come to fruition but I hatched a plan to brew up a batch of
> thermite and weld a draw bridge closed. I doubt anyone would have found it
> funny.

Boys will be boys! ;)

> Being the '60s there was a radiation monitor on the roof od the high
> school. The scheme was to somehow acquire some radioactive material from
> the college lab and seed it. We got as far as acquiring the keys necessary
> for roof access but grabbing a hot sample didn't work out.

And you didn't try chewing Wrigleys chewing gum and breathing on the
detector? Rumours say it will have the same effect as a radioactive
sample. (or maybe not!) ;)

> It was only three stories but there was an elevator with keyed access for
> the faculty and handicapped students. The idea was to get the key, hit the
> emergency stop at a location when we could manually open the door and
> slither out from the partial opening. That one worked.

I see how you might have ended up in the military special forces! ;)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:32:11 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Sulfur is a bit more difficult to get though. I think it is on some kind
>> of "watch list" where you need a license or a specific reason to buy it.
>> =(
>
> Amazon to the rescue, at least in the US. 5 pounds for USD 25.65. However
> if I use the Tor exit point in the Netherlands it says it can't be shipped
> to my address.
>
> Europeans can't have any fun at all, can they?
>

Nope! Europe is too busy turning into the next soviet union to allow its
citizens any form of fun, or to have opinions which deviate from what the
politicians say.

Thankfully there is usenet which lives on, completely forgotten by the
secret police. ;)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:33:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Nuclear ships were in fact tried, but the economics and regulations made
>> them not cost effective. At the time. The rather larger number of
>> expensive 'nuclear engineers' required was a dominant factor.
>
> Nuclear subs had advantages and war toys aren't subject to economics. A
> friend served on a nuke. His comment on the experience was Holy Loch,
> Scotland was the only place in the world that could make being submerged
> for up to three months look good.
>

Are there any techniques to resupply a sub completely under water? Would
be fascinating if it could be managed and resupplied kind of like a space
station with rotating crews and all, being sent in smaller submarines
docking at the big one.

On the other hand, there's probably no use for that capability, but its an
interesting thought experiment to see if it could then remain submerged
for years at a time.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:23:53 +0100, D wrote:
>
>
>> Wow, that's quite a different between the easter and western parts. Yes!
>> A potential benefit of "global warming" all democrats will be washed
>> away.
>
> Quite typical for the US. Many in upstate New York wish that Sodom on the
> Hudson would break off and float out to sea and western Massachusetts
> feels the same about Boston.
>

Ahh... and I have heard that many are waiting for california to detach and
float out to sea as well! ;)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, Lars Poulsen wrote:

> On 2024-12-12, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> I wonder if they could use the model from some SMR startup for ships? A reactor
>> that is preloaded and welded shut. Then it operates for its entire lifetime
>> until the fuel is used up, and then you change to a new reactor.
>
> That is sort of the model used on the submarines ... and on the NS
> Savannah in the early 1960s. From what I have read, it could be
> commercially viable today (with the improvements in relevant technology
> in the last 60 years).
>

Thank you. Let's see... there is much interest in the SMR. Let's see who
will be the first to take the step among the EU members.

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:34:04 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> True. My jokes about feminism and the unequality of men and women
>> sometimes lands me in dangerous territory with my wife. She is a lawyer!
>
> My wife became more religious after the divorce. About 20 years after the

Strange! This is not the first time I have heard this. An acquaintance
separated and after that, his ex became religious as well. Very strange.

> fact she said if she'd followed Paul's advice for women to sit down, shut
> up, and follow their husband's lead it might have worked out better. I
> didn't pursue the thought.

This is why women in sweden, the most "equal" and militantly feminist
country on the planet, are so unhappy. No man wants to be married with a
competing male, and the swedish women are doing their best to turn into
little males.

That is why I went to eastern europe, to find a woman, who actually wants
to be a woman and appreciates femininity.

It is an interesting trend. Out of my male friends, who all tend to be
university educated, white men, 90% are married to women from either south
american, southern or eastern europe, or asia.

Only 10% are married to swedish women, and I expect them to separate
within 5-15 years. I think one already has, but not quite sure. Usually a
classic breaking point is when the children reach the age of 15-18 or so,
since they reason that they have to "do it for the children" and life
about 15 years of miserable lives, with occasional cheating, and then
finally separate once the children as old enough to "take it".

Some days I am not sure at all if having a child is a good thing or not.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

>> The thing that puts me off quantum is that media loves to hype it. That to
>> me, is a sign that it is nowhere near being ready for anything productive.
>> But I am not a physicist! But based on this group it does seem I am more
>> right than wrong.
>
> Google just blew its horn today about it's new quantum
> chip - solved some 1000x-age-of-the-universe math
> problem in about five minutes.
>
> https://blog.google/technology/research/google-willow-quantum-chip/
>
> BUT, that particular problem was especially easy
> to address with quantum methods ....

Well, my measure of doing anything productive with it is... is anyone paying
google to solve that problem? If not, it is just intellectual masturbation and
of very little value.

>>>> I would imagine once we hit that end point in terms of regular cpus, the
>>>> only direction left would be purpose built cpus on other technologies for
>>>> niche use cases such as biological computing, quantum computing, optical
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>>  Bio is gonna be too SLOW. Quantum, we've discussed that.
>>
>> Isn't the idea behind bio massiev parallelism? So yes, the computation
>> might be slow, but if you have millions of molecules performing it in
>> parallel you do get fantastic results if the problem you are trying to
>> solve fits the nature of bio computing?
>
>
> But again ... NOT all problems are especially well
> solved with massive parallelism any more than all
> problems can be Q-computed worth a damn.

Well, that is why I said "niche use cases" in my original text. I agree, not all
use cases are suited for that, and my thesis was that when we hit a limit on
general cpu:s, bio, photonics, quantum, will be developed for niche cases, that
fit those technologies. Not, that those technologies will help with our every
day cases.

> So we're back to the more modern question of what
> "computing" MEANS. All was clear with UNIVAC, but
> since then ...
>
>> Seems like photonic is the winner for the moment.
>
> Don't see any other direction. We're already kinda
> bumping-up against Moore even now with conventional
> electronics. For anything needing linear calx, I think
> we MIGHT get a 10x improvement and that's IT forever
> with transistor-like electronics.

10x over todays figures? Nothing to scoff at, but I guess the question is, how
long will it take us to get those 10x?

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 12/12/24 4:01 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:33:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Nuclear ships were in fact tried, but the economics and regulations made
>>> them not cost effective. At the time. The rather larger number of
>>> expensive 'nuclear engineers' required was a dominant factor.
>>
>> Nuclear subs had advantages and war toys aren't subject to economics. A
>> friend served on a nuke. His comment on the experience was Holy Loch,
>> Scotland was the only place in the world that could make being submerged
>> for up to three months look good.
>
> Armies have almost unlimited budgets/resources. If
> they want nuke ships/subs they can GET 'em.
>
> But COMMERCIAL operations - nope.
>
> Good, large, diesel/oil engines are still the
> solution for large commercial carriers.

Subtract taxes, and compare only the raw cost, and the economics look even
better! On gasoline at least 50% is tax, so remove that, and we can
happily continue for at least a generation or two. =)

> Saw an engine on some TV show ... it had a
> people-sized door at the base of each cylinder
> so you could climb in there and check/fix stuff.
> I *think* individual cylinders could be detached
> from the crank so, in theory, you could work on
> one while the engine kept running. That sounds
> very unpleasant though ....
>