Chip with simple program for Toy

[Phil Allison]

<jalbers@bsu.edu>

I have a few questions about feedback. For discussion consider an
inverting op amp configuration with R2 feedback @ 4K ohms and R1
(connected to V-) @ 1K at 1K ohms. The open loop gain to be 200,000 .

Assume that Vin is at 2 volts, according to my calculations using Vout
= (V+ - V-)*200,000 and V- = (Vin-Vout)*R2/(R1+R2)+Vout, V- should be
around .0003999 volts and Vout should be around -7.9980005 volts.

My question is in what fashion does Vout get to -7.9980005? I know it
happens but it seems like magic. I have looked at the schematic
diagram of a 741 for example. It will probably take decades before I
would be able to understand something like that. Is it instantaneous
or does the op amp spend some time hunting for this value? If it
hunts, does it swing low to the negative rail and move towards the
upper rail or do something else?

** You can imagine an op-amp (with negative feedback applied) to be a
creature with a one track mind. It has just one goal which is to keep the
voltage levels at the V+ & V- inputs exactly the same. It has only one way
to do this which is to vary the voltage on its output.

In your example, the op-amp was initially in a stable condition with input
and output sitting at 0 volts. Then you suddenly apply +2 volts to the 1k
resistor and instantly the voltage at the V- input rises to +1.6 volts,
since the 1k and the 4k act as a simple voltage divider.

The V+ input remains at 0, so there is a big drive signal to the V- input to
the op-amp causing its output voltage to swing as fast as it can in the
negative direction. The speed of this swing ( in volts per micro-second) is
limited by the need to charge a small capacitance inside the op-amp with a
restricted source of current.

As the output swings negative, the voltage at the V- input reduces from +1.6
volts towards the desired value of 0 volts. When the output reaches -8
volts, the V- input will be restored to 0 volts, matching the V+ input and
the op-amp is stable again.

Using your figure of 200,000 for the DC gain of the op-amp, the actual
voltage at the V- input will then be 8 / 2exp5 = 40 micro-volts.



...... Phil

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

when you perceived that you were, by accepting that "some"
is more appropriate than "all" in the stated case against you.

More of your mindless wanking.

Then you are requesting that the quantification remain vague?

Nope, that you wank elsewhere.

No, I won't allow it,

You dont get to 'allow' or disallow a damned thing. Ever.

as long as you don't reveal how often...

More of your mindless wanking.

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

...your position remains in check, if not checkmate.

More of your mindless wanking.

The idea is that there is a plural field of items and
then method is applied and some are eliminated.
Thats nothing like what the fool claimed.

But you claimed that;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.
Just like in evolution.

Nope, not on the generation of the items it isnt.

So your making some claim about all scientists and
researchers and what they do every time they get ideas?

Nope. Just pissing on his stupid claim from a great height.

When you said

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

that is taken to mean that "no ideas are ideas that are
absolutely ever in any way similar to random variations"

I never ever said anything like that.

Then lets see a clear statement of what you mean when you say;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

You've ripped that from its context. The original was completely clear.

Whatever the context the proposition refers to either "some"
or "all" times that evolution is similar to brain processes or not.

Wrong, as always.

and this would first off imply omniscience by you
since all ideas have not been thought or had yet,

Wrong again.

If you mean that it is at all times in the past and future the case
that "Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works"

Nope, never ever said anything like that either.

But then your not willing to reformulate what you said in clear words,

I already did. You ripped that from its context.

something fishy about that position, something dishonest.

More of your mindless wanking.

 

[Rod Speed]

T-minus108 <foltzted@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote

It worked again.

Yep, you face down in the mud, as always.

Now I need a way to house train 'em by the dozen.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed mud stained fantasys, child.

Which project?

All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I specifically had in mind

How do you know with seeing them?

Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't
occasionally have bad ideas? To the contrary, the bad ideas of
most successful inventors greatly out number the good ideas.

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and choose the good ones.

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge
the question about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.

Bret Cahill

"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

Do you get some kind of kick out of calling people 'child'?

Nope. I call a spade a spade and a child a child.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

when you perceived that you were, by accepting that "some"
is more appropriate than "all" in the stated case against you.

More of your mindless wanking.

Then you are requesting that the quantification remain vague?

Nope, that you wank elsewhere.

No, I won't allow it,

You dont get to 'allow' or disallow a damned thing. Ever.

Actually I do.

Nope.

You see you have been challenged,

Nope.

have not met the challenge,

You're lying now.

therefore you are not entitled to your original position.

More of your mindless wanking.

as long as you don't reveal how often...

More of your mindless wanking.

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

...your position remains in check, if not checkmate.

More of your mindless wanking.

The idea is that there is a plural field of items and
then method is applied and some are eliminated.

Thats nothing like what the fool claimed.

But you claimed that;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.
Just like in evolution.

Nope, not on the generation of the items it isnt.

So your making some claim about all scientists and
researchers and what they do every time they get ideas?

Nope. Just pissing on his stupid claim from a great height.

When you said

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

that is taken to mean that "no ideas are ideas that are
absolutely ever in any way similar to random variations"

I never ever said anything like that.

Then lets see a clear statement of what you mean when you say;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

You've ripped that from its context. The original was completely clear.

Whatever the context the proposition refers to either "some"
or "all" times that evolution is similar to brain processes or not.

Wrong, as always.

and this would first off imply omniscience by you
since all ideas have not been thought or had yet,

Wrong again.

If you mean that it is at all times in the past and future the case that
"Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works"

Nope, never ever said anything like that either.

But then your not willing to reformulate what you said in clear words,

I already did. You ripped that from its context.

Then please provide some context that will help us establish that your
contention about likeness applies neither sometimes nor at all times.

Nope. Go back to the post that had the context yourself.

Seems that your position is the mindless wanking because
your position is that it doesn't apply to likeness ever.

You need to get your seems machinery seen to.

something fishy about that position, something dishonest.

More of your mindless wanking.

 

[Rod Speed]

T-minus108 <foltzted@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

Once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains,
however unlikely, is the truth
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Wrong.

Sounds correct to me,

More fool you.

unless ANYTHING is possible.

The other obvious possibility is that there are a number of possibilitys
that arent impossible and that only one of those is actually the truth.

You can implode between the ears now.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

when you perceived that you were, by accepting that "some"
is more appropriate than "all" in the stated case against you.

More of your mindless wanking.

Then you are requesting that the quantification remain vague?

Nope, that you wank elsewhere.

No, I won't allow it,

You dont get to 'allow' or disallow a damned thing. Ever.

Actually I do.

Nope.

If you claim that 2+2=3 and I contend that most good evidence
shows that theory to be weak and you continue claiming that
2+2=3 on bad evidence, I am allowed in logical discourse to
reclaim your entitlement to make such claim rationally.

Wrong, as always.

Now you have a right to continue making the claim

So you didnt get to disallow anything.

but evidence subtracts you entitlement to claim it is true without further evidence.

Wrong, as always.

You see you have been challenged,

Nope.

You said something like;

New ideas are nothing like random variations...
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

Again, ripped from its context.

And I gave evidence that sometimes new ideas can be like random variations

Nope, not a shred.

and how the brain works.

And that in spades. ALL you ever did is posted some CLAIMS
about how the brain works, a different matter entirely. Without
a shred of evidence that it actually works like that with ideas either.

Then you come back with all this "no" business without any evidence to back it up.

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence that supports the claim.

THATS how it works.

have not met the challenge,

You're lying now.

How am I lying?

Using your keyboard presumably.

Please explain, or the comment remains meaningless.

Wrong, as always.

therefore you are not entitled to your original position.

More of your mindless wanking.

Logic is not mindless wanking,

Thats just mindless wanking, nothing like logic.

you yourself are attempting to use logic each nd every time you contend my proposals.

Wrong, as always.

Arguing is a sub- genre of logic and if you respond your arguing.

Wrong, as always.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

More mindless irrelevant wanking.

as long as you don't reveal how often...

More of your mindless wanking.

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

...your position remains in check, if not checkmate.

More of your mindless wanking.

The idea is that there is a plural field of items and
then method is applied and some are eliminated.

Thats nothing like what the fool claimed.

But you claimed that;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain
works. Just like in evolution.

Nope, not on the generation of the items it isnt.

So your making some claim about all scientists and

researchers and what they do every time they get ideas?

Nope. Just pissing on his stupid claim from a great height.

When you said

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

that is taken to mean that "no ideas are ideas that are
absolutely ever in any way similar to random variations"

I never ever said anything like that.

Then lets see a clear statement of what you mean when you say;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

You've ripped that from its context. The original was completely clear.

Whatever the context the proposition refers to either "some"
or "all" times that evolution is similar to brain processes or not.

Wrong, as always.

and this would first off imply omniscience by you
since all ideas have not been thought or had yet,

Wrong again.

If you mean that it is at all times in the past and future the
case that "Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the
brain works"

Nope, never ever said anything like that either.

But then your not willing to reformulate what you said in clear words,

I already did. You ripped that from its context.

Then please provide some context that will help us establish that your
contention about likeness applies neither sometimes nor at all times.

Nope. Go back to the post that had the context yourself.

You then concede then that you were vague or ambiguous on the point of
quantity in relation to the similarity of some brain functions and evolution?

Nope, my original was completely clear.

Seems that your position is the mindless wanking because
your position is that it doesn't apply to likeness ever.

You need to get your seems machinery seen to.

Seems i as I am using it means, "the way it appears to me"

Wrong, as always.

and this machinery is working fine.

Wrong, as always.

something fishy about that position, something dishonest.

More of your mindless wanking.

Your approach appears to be dishonest.

Then you need go get your eyes tested too.

I am not saying you are in any way dishonest but you positions and responses do.

More of your mindless wanking.

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Viel Spass" <andy77017@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c71ab56e-ebb2-4f40-aadc-06214f00e933@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 7, 3:06 am, mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 4, 2:37 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:



On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT), Viel Spass

andy77...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am looking for some ideas. I have an answering machine runnning off
a 12 VDC transformer.

---
There is no such thing; you must be referring to an AC to DC
wall-wart, yes?
---

Whenever power goes out, I have to turn it back on. (Recording is
still kept)

It draws 200 ma of current which I calculate to be V x A = 6 watts.

Could I use 8 D size 1.5 V batteries?
Do they make a 12 volt UPS ?

---
You can.
Do you have any test equipment?

Assuming your answering machine doesn't draw 200 mA all the time, why
not use a sealed lead-acid battery and a couple of Schottky diodes
instead and use your wall-wart to charge the battery and run the
answering machine at the same time?

Then when the mains go down, battery power will be steered into the
answering machine seamlessly and the answering machine will stay on
for as long as the battery can keep it on.

That's a 12V UPS.

View in Courier:

WALL ANS.
WART MACH
+----+ +----+
MAINS>--|~ +|--[1N5817>]-+-[1N5817>]--|+ |
| | |+ | |
| } [BAT] | |
| | | | |
MAINS>--|~ -|------------+------------|- |
+----+ +----+

JF

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought the minimum float
voltage for an SLA is 2.25V per cell, to avoid irreversible damage
from sulfation. That's 13.5V for a 12V nominal, 6-cell battery. But,
13.5V could cook his answering machine.

http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-13.htm

???

Michael

Couldn't I use some Zener diodes to keep the voltage at 12.0 on the
ouput?

Andy

For the last time. All you need is a battery and a charger.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rod Speed wrote:

Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

I am stunned with this answer. Its trivially obvious that by most
random variations (i.e. new ideas) are detrimental variations,

That isn't trivially obvious at all, or even true, depending on the
context. Most variations in the evolutionary context are probably
neutral.

I doubt it.

Your problem.

I would say it is yours. Logic does not seem to be a strong point of yours.

How many correct ways are there to order a stack of books on a shelf?
How many ways are there to disorder a stack of books on a shelf?
What's the probability that books will become disordered or ordered?

Now, what's the probability that a mutation will be more or less successful
at replication?

Kevin Aylward

www.anasoft.co.uk
superspice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Immortalist wrote:

Nope. Go back to the post that had the context yourself.


New ideas are nothing like random variations...
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

And I gave evidence that sometimes new ideas can be like random
variations and how the brain works.

Indeed. What other way can a "new idea" be generated, if not by a random
process? As I noted, if it is derivable from something else, then it is not
intrinsically new. It is not derivable, it must be random. There is no
process, other than a random process that can generate a non predictable
outcome.

You then concede then that you were vague or ambiguous on the point of
quantity in relation to the similarity of some brain functions and
evolution?

Well, if we rule out the soul, and gods etc, we are left with, essentially,
only one choice of what we are and how we achieve what we are, and the
algorithm, is called a genetic algorithm (GA). Extensive work has been done
on this type of process as a method of computing, and it seems to work quite
well.

Our brain is a Darwinian Machine, residing in a Darwinian Universe. Any
other explanation, well as Richard Dawkins says, without Evolution (i.e.
replication, random variation, and selection) we have no explanation at all
of "why" humans.

If Mr. Speed has a better explanation for the brains function, maybe he
could enlighten us all.

Kevin Aylward

www.anasoft.co.uk
superspice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Bret Cahill wrote:

e.g. I belive that its a fact that of the order of 90% of new
products introduced, fail so... 90%, by my book is detrimental

If you consider a patented invention a "new" product then over 99.9%
fail.

er.. as many 0.1% of patents are usefull?



Kevin Aylward

www.anasoft.co.uk
superspice

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Kasterborus" <kasterborus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f945507b-3cb3-4b1c-8016-dc777e009b18@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

I need to find a way to couple the AC mains signal to my low voltage
scope input. I'm adjusting a rotary spark gap and need to get the
"bangs" on the up and downswing of the AC cycle.

Is there something I can build with a transformer / optoisolator - or
is it easier than that?

Dave
Hi Dave,

I'm not quite sure what you are doing.
You can couple AC to your scope by connecting a coil to the input and moving
it close to the AC signal.

Tom

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

"It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to lose momentum.

Nope.

High and holding fuel prices

Another lie.

-- shipping a 40-foot container from Shanghai to the
U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today than a decade ago

Just another number plucked from your arse. We can tell that from the smell.

And thats a small part of the value of the contents with some contents anyway.

-- are making global supply chains look far less attractive."

Pity about call centers that dont have that problem. And since
services are FAR more important to modern first world economys
than manufactured goods, globalisation will continue, you watch.

And if the cost of the fuel for ships ever becomes are serious problem,
even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that nuke powered
ships have been perfectly feasible for close to half a century now and
that they close to eliminate the fuel costs for ships.

-- Solar Living Inst.

Just another mindless packa wankers.

$5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.

Just another number plucked out of someone's arse. We can tell from the smell.

A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of the ship

Just another number plucked out of someone's arse. We can tell from the smell.

so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. The
ship engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is
1/2 the cost of diesel so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.

Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

Moving a container from China to LA requires the same
expenditure on fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.

Wrong, as always. Pity about the different cost of producing whats in
the container and pity about what a nuke powered ship can move it for.

Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for 0.07 cents/lb-mile.

Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.

Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/ lb-mi.
You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go to China.

Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your town
you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles from
China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel cost basis.

Wrong, as always.

The reason this is true is the economies of scale for vessel transportation.

Wrong, as always.

The engine might be 100,000 hp but since it's hauling 200,000
tons the specific power of a ship is very low, < 1/2 hp/ton.

Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

Only a pipeline is more effective.

Now try a nuke powered ship.

Conclusion:

No conclusion is possible from your mindless silly shit above.

Spiraling fuel costs may increase localization in some
respects, i. e., more consumption of local produce,

Pity about the labor cost of that. Which completey dominates the price of local produce.

but it won't really stop globalization.

Corse it wont.

And we haven't even broached the issue of the effect of cheap communications on globalization.

Yep. That shit at the top is even more mindless than your silly shit.

 

[Rod Speed]

Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote

Immortalist wrote

Nope. Go back to the post that had the context yourself.

New ideas are nothing like random variations...
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

And I gave evidence that sometimes new ideas can be like random variations and how the brain works.

Indeed.

Nope, a lie.

What other way can a "new idea" be generated, if not by a random process?

By a non random process, stupid. Refining existing ideas as changes
in technology make new approaches economically feasible.

Like the miniaturisation of computers due to integrated circuits and single chip computers
made the automation of many things feasible and allows a level of computer control that just
wasnt practical to be so practical that it appears in stuff as simple as a radio or microwave etc.

And that allows a level of sophisticated control that was never economic with mechanical controls.

As I noted, if it is derivable from something else, then it is not intrinsically new.

Hardly any invention ever is. They're mostly refinements of prior art.

Even GM is just a different way of doing plant breeding.

It is not derivable,

Corse its mostly derivable.

it must be random.

Wrong again. Even Einsteins general relativity aint random.

There is no process, other than a random process that can generate a non predictable outcome.

Mindlessly silly. Predictability is an entirely separate matter to a new idea.

You then concede then that you were vague or ambiguous on the point of quantity in relation to the similarity of some
brain functions and evolution?

Well, if we rule out the soul, and gods etc, we are left with,
essentially, only one choice of what we are and how we achieve what we are, and the algorithm, is called a genetic
algorithm (GA).

No such animal.

Extensive work has been done on this type of process as a method of computing, and it seems to work quite well.

Irrelevant to how ideas are developed.

Our brain is a Darwinian Machine,

Nope.

residing in a Darwinian Universe.

You did manage to get that bit right, presumably by accident.

Any other explanation, well as Richard Dawkins says, without
Evolution (i.e. replication, random variation, and selection) we have no explanation at all of "why" humans.

Irrelevant to how ideas are developed.

If Mr. Speed has a better explanation for the brains function, maybe he could enlighten us all.

Just because we dont currently understand how ideas are developed doesnt mean
that your crackpot claim that the brain is a Darwinian Machine has any validity.

YOU made that stupid claim.

YOU get to substantiate that stupid claim.

THATS how it works.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed
in the patent office.
How does that make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
You have no calculations or reasoning.
You in spades, child.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question:
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
How does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question.
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
A pathetic dodge.

You wouldnt know what a real dodge was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

Again, how does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

We'll determine the extent of your larnin' disability.

We'll assign a number to this wacko.

5 dodges and counting.

6 dodges and counting!

You wouldnt know what a real dodge was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

You certainly will get in the Guiness Book of World Records at this rate.

Nope, you watch.

Record # of dodges for a single thread!

No such guiness record, child.

 

[Rod Speed]

Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote

I am stunned with this answer. Its trivially obvious that by most
random variations (i.e. new ideas) are detrimental variations,

That isn't trivially obvious at all, or even true, depending on the context. Most variations in the evolutionary
context are probably neutral.

I doubt it.

Your problem.

I would say it is yours.

More fool you. Its no problem for me if you havent got a clue about the basics of evolution.

Logic does not seem to be a strong point of yours.

You wouldnt know what logic was if it bit you on your lard arse.

How many correct ways are there to order a stack of books on a shelf?

Irrelevant to evolution.

How many ways are there to disorder a stack of books on a shelf?

Irrelevant to evolution.

What's the probability that books will become disordered or ordered?

Irrelevant to evolution.

Now, what's the probability that a mutation will be more or less successful at replication?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you wouldnt know what logic was if it bit you on your lard arse.

 

[Bob Eld]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:99dfab9f-ce0b-4abf-9fbd-fcaed2db84af@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

"It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to
lose momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot
container from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today
than a decade ago -- are making global supply chains look far less
attractive."

-- Solar Living Inst.

$5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.

A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. The ship
engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of diesel
so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.

Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.

Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for
0.07 cents/lb-mile.

Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.

A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/
lb-mi.
You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go
to China.

In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles
from China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel
cost basis.

The reason this is true is the economies of scale for vessel
transportation. The engine might be 100,000 hp but since it's hauling
200,000 tons the specific power of a ship is very low, < 1/2 hp/ton.
Only a pipeline is more effective.

Conclusion:

Spiraling fuel costs may increase localization in some respects, i.
e., more consumption of local produce, but it won't really stop
globalization.

And we haven't even broached the issue of the effect of cheap
communications on globalization.


Bret Cahill

I see that the usual characters are giving you their typical pile of crap
over your transportation comments but I think they are pretty good. You
might have mistated a number here or there but, in general your premise is
accurate. What is the actual cost of moving a container from China to LA?

High volume transportation over water is the cheapest way to go followed by
rail on land with 18 wheelers and smaller trucks being the most expensive.
It's not only the fuel but also the labor, taxes and loading and off loading
that add to this fact.

A hundred and fifty years ago, water transportation was the ONLY way to move
heavy objects until the railroads were built. That's why ocean, river and
canal transportation was so important in the development of the country.
While not as important now as back then, water transportation remains the
preeminent method to move heavy and or high volumes of goods great distances
economically.

They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull container
ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed. This method may help
keep water transportation preeminent and competative.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bob Eld <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

"It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to lose
momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot container
from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today than a decade
ago -- are making global supply chains look far less attractive."

-- Solar Living Inst.

$5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.

A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. The ship
engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of
diesel so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.

Moving a container from China to LA requires the same
expenditure on fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.

Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for 0.07 cents/lb-mile.

Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.

A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/ lb-mi.
You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go to China.

In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before
noodles from China may start to become competitive on a
transportation fuel cost basis.

The reason this is true is the economies of scale for vessel
transportation. The engine might be 100,000 hp but since it's
hauling 200,000 tons the specific power of a ship is very low,
1/2 hp/ton. Only a pipeline is more effective.

Conclusion:

Spiraling fuel costs may increase localization in some respects,
i.e., more consumption of local produce, but it won't really stop globalization.

And we haven't even broached the issue of the effect of cheap communications on globalization.

I see that the usual characters are giving you their typical pile of crap
over your transportation comments but I think they are pretty good.

More fool you.

You might have mistated a number here or there

He just plucked them out of his arse, as always.

but, in general your premise is accurate.

Pity its absolutely no news and the numbers he plucked out of his arse dont help.

What is the actual cost of moving a container from China to LA?

High volume transportation over water is the cheapest way to go followed
by rail on land with 18 wheelers and smaller trucks being the most expensive.

No news tho.

It's not only the fuel but also the labor, taxes
and loading and off loading that add to this fact.

Waffle.

A hundred and fifty years ago, water transportation was
the ONLY way to move heavy objects until the railroads
were built. That's why ocean, river and canal transportation
was so important in the development of the country.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether globalization
will be stopping due to the increased fuel costs.

While not as important now as back then, water transportation
remains the preeminent method to move heavy and or
high volumes of goods great distances economically.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether globalization
will be stopping due to the increased fuel costs.

Of course it wont when shipping can use nuke power if it has to.

They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull
container ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed.

And that makes absolutely no sense compared with using nuke power instead.

This method may help keep water transportation preeminent and competative.

Not a chance, you watch.

Nuke power may well do tho if the cost of fuel continues to hike.

 

They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull container
ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed. This method may help
keep water transportation preeminent and competative.

Automated freight sailers and nuclear powered freighters just might be the
next step. The reactor just might be something that ITER does research.
I think there was a "robotic" freighter departed from Germany some months
ago. Anyone seen any progress report on this?

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

Some dreamer once wanted to use "super" capacitors to power a road EV
but the energy density is still too low. By one calculation a 100 ton cap
would be necessary to store the energy in a 15 gallon (100 lb) gas tank.

For electric farm tractors energy density is much less an
issue than the lifetime cost of the energy storage device.
With enough trolly wiring caps would work better than batteries.

Yes, but biodiesel would be much better again, requiring
no change to the tractors at all and no 'trolly wiring' either.

A spread sheet would determine the economic advantage.

It would be interesting to know if capacitors have _ever_
been used in any machinery where the cap is mechanically
disconnected and reconnected every few seconds or minutes.

Nope, because the power density is still much too low.

What does make sense in that situation is rechargeable batterys.

But not for big power users like tractors.

It does make sense for forklifts etc, but they dont use anything like the
power that tractors need to be able to provide for real world farming.

Which might just be why you do see electric forklifts used but not tractors.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

You dont get to 'allow' or disallow a damned thing. Ever.

Actually I do.

Nope.

If you claim that 2+2=3 and I contend that most good evidence
shows that theory to be weak and you continue claiming that
2+2=3 on bad evidence, I am allowed in logical discourse to
reclaim your entitlement to make such claim rationally.

Wrong, as always.

Commonly accepted protocols of logic have
nothing to do with whether I am right or wrong.

Never ever said they did.

You are however wrong anyway. As always.

Entitlement in logic is a stipulated term used to alert a debater
that they ether can or cannot continue making particular assertions.

You dont get to 'allow' or disallow a damned thing. Ever.

It is similar to how in a court of law,

Nope, nothing like it. The judge does indeed get
to allow and disallow some things. You dont, ever.

after an objection has been sustained if the party objected
to tries to use the information again the judge orders the
information stricken from the record and threatens to call a
mistrial if he/she attempts to use the refuted information again.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that you aint no judge.

In debate class you just lose a few points every time you
re-introduce the information as evidence for your thesis.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that this aint no debate class.

Now you have a right to continue making the claim

So you didn't get to disallow anything.

In logic and law there is a difference between a rights and entitlements.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that you aint no judge.

After I succeeded in removing your entitlement

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

you continued to have a right to the failed assertion.

You dont get to rule on what is or is not a failed assertion. Ever.

And it isnt anyway, whatever you claim.

but evidence subtracts you entitlement to claim it is true without further evidence.

Wrong, as always.

Unless you can refute, to some agreed upon degree, the evidence that
weakened your claims, your entitlement to those claims has been removed.

Wrong, as always.

You dont get to remove any entitlement. Ever.

You see you have been challenged,

Nope.

You said something like;

New ideas are nothing like random variations...
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

Again, ripped from its context.

In debate or rhetoric this is a common ploy easily caught by participants and observers.

In spades with ripping from the context as you have done repeatedly.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

And I gave evidence that sometimes new ideas can be like random variations

Nope, not a shred.

Actually Neural Darwinism is a well established theory.

Doesnt meant that it has anything useful to say about NEW IDEAS, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

If you have not heard of it,

Corse I have heard of it, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

and how the brain works.

And that in spades. ALL you ever did is posted some CLAIMS
about how the brain works, a different matter entirely. Without
a shred of evidence that it actually works like that with ideas either.

It is a well established theory.

Doesnt meant that it has anything useful to say about NEW IDEAS, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Though it has far less evidential support than the theory of gravity,
it qualifies as worthy of debate and research to test for falsifiability.

Doesnt meant that it has anything useful to say about NEW IDEAS, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

Then you come back with all this "no" business without any evidence to back it up.

YOU made the claim.

If I make a claim and the burden of truth is upon me, I do not "shift the burden
upon you" merely by requesting more information about your simple "no" rejection.

You're lying, as always.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

YOU get to provide the evidence that supports the claim.

That is better than a simple "no" contention.

You're lying about that, as always.

Please refer to the information about neural darwinism
above to satisfy your case against the theory.

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence that supports the claim.

THATS how it works.

have not met the challenge,

You're lying now.

How am I lying?

Using your keyboard presumably.

This notion continues to be vague since you have not specified the lie.

Your problem.

Please explain, or the comment remains meaningless.

Wrong, as always.

The comment was about you general rejection with
no explaination or supporting counter-argumentation.

You're lying, as always.

therefore you are not entitled to your original position.

More of your mindless wanking.

Logic is not mindless wanking,

Thats just mindless wanking, nothing like logic.

you yourself are attempting to use logic each nd every time you contend my proposals.

Wrong, as always.

When you claim I am wrong you are claiming that the proposition is false,

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist desperate wankers ?

therefore you are using logic plain and simple.

Wrong, as always.

As you you are also trapped with using grammar with subjects and predicates
when you explain your position, your position requires logic always.

Wrong, as always.

Please give an example where you did not use logic and grammer without using logic and grammar,

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence that supports the claim.

THATS how it works.

its contradictory and illogical.

Wrong, as always.

Arguing is a sub- genre of logic and if you respond your arguing.

Wrong, as always.

Arguments are always use logic else they are illogical arguments,

Wrong, as always.

your trapped on this one.

Wrong, as always.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

More mindless irrelevant wanking.

The youtube video was about some aspects of arguments, and was
therefore not mindless wanking but was relevant to the conversation.

More of your mindless irrelevant wanking.

In debate class you lose points for all these infractions
you know, and you would probably get a bad grade.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that this aint no debate class.

as long as you don't reveal how often...
More of your mindless wanking.
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.
...your position remains in check, if not checkmate.
More of your mindless wanking.
The idea is that there is a plural field of items and
then method is applied and some are eliminated.
Thats nothing like what the fool claimed.
But you claimed that;
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain
works. Just like in evolution.
Nope, not on the generation of the items it isnt.
So your making some claim about all scientists and
researchers and what they do every time they get ideas?
Nope. Just pissing on his stupid claim from a great height.
When you said
New ideas are nothing like random variations.
that is taken to mean that "no ideas are ideas that are
absolutely ever in any way similar to random variations"
I never ever said anything like that.
Then lets see a clear statement of what you mean when you say;
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain
works.
You've ripped that from its context. The original was
completely clear.
Whatever the context the proposition refers to either "some"
or "all" times that evolution is similar to brain processes or
not.
Wrong, as always.
and this would first off imply omniscience by you
since all ideas have not been thought or had yet,
Wrong again.
If you mean that it is at all times in the past and future the
case that "Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the
brain works"
Nope, never ever said anything like that either.
But then your not willing to reformulate what you said in clear
words,
I already did. You ripped that from its context.
Then please provide some context that will help us establish that
your contention about likeness applies neither sometimes nor at
all times.
Nope. Go back to the post that had the context yourself.

You then concede then that you were vague or ambiguous on the point of
quantity in relation to the similarity of some brain functions and evolution?

Nope, my original was completely clear.

Then your saying that thinking is "never" like evolutionary processes?

Nope, not saying anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Seems that your position is the mindless wanking because
your position is that it doesn't apply to likeness ever.

You need to get your seems machinery seen to.

Seems i as I am using it means, "the way it appears to me"

Wrong, as always.

I am not wrong about what "seems" means to me as I use it.

Wrong, as always.

When I say "seems" I mean "the way it appears to me".

Wrong, as always.

If you request that I change my usage in this conversaton I may or may not agree.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

and this machinery is working fine.

Wrong, as always.

Actually I seem to be doing fine

Wrong, as always.

and you are very easy to refute just typing off the top of my head.

Wrong, as always.

But if you desire I would look forward to many months
of these kinds of conversations with you, good practice.

You'll have wanked yourself completely blind LONG before that.

something fishy about that position, something dishonest.

More of your mindless wanking.

Your approach appears to be dishonest.

Then you need go get your eyes tested too.

When I say dishonest I mean that you appear to be defending a sinking ship, trying to save face.

Then you need go get your eyes tested too.

Maybe it says something about the caliber of the debating
skills of the people you converse with in these groups.

No maybe about the fact that they leave you for dead.

I am not saying you are in any way dishonest but you positions and responses do.

More of your mindless wanking.

You don't really think this wanking business really accomplishes anything do you?

With any luck you'll end up completely blind and there wont be any more shit from you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm_n76Dsl0c

More mindless irrelevant wanking.