Chip with simple program for Toy

[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.

Where are they selling this biodiesel?

The farmer grows it himself, stupid.

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.

By how much?

By quite a few orders of magnitude.

What does make sense in that situation is rechargeable batterys.

What is the lifetime cycling?

Try that again in english.

But not for big power users like tractors.

Show your calculations.

Dont need any, thats clearly been done by those who design stuff like that.

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.

Who cares?

Anyone stupid enough to propose the use of batterys in tractors.

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

Well that's gonna change.

Nope. They'll just use biodiesel instead.

 

[Bill Reif]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:328e6158-7cfe-4418-82d4-8535ee091b9c@y19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

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.

I understand there's promising research on using capacitors constructed
using nanotubes.

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.

Where would flywheels fall in this calculation? They can store a fair
amount of energy, and can be resupplied quite quickly.

Bill

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6g2719FdqdbbU1@mid.individual.net...

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.

Where are they selling this biodiesel?

The farmer grows it himself, stupid.

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.

By how much?

By quite a few orders of magnitude.

What does make sense in that situation is rechargeable batterys.

What is the lifetime cycling?

Try that again in english.

But not for big power users like tractors.

Show your calculations.

Dont need any, thats clearly been done by those who design stuff like
that.

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.

Who cares?

Anyone stupid enough to propose the use of batterys in tractors.

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

Well that's gonna change.

Nope. They'll just use biodiesel instead.

I doubt that a farm, where most of the land is already used for food crops,
could produce enough extra crops to supply its own biodiesel. With surging
population, we will need most of our cropland to feed people, not tractors,
cars, and trucks. We need to reduce consumption, increase efficiency, and
live cooperatively. Perhaps enough electrical energy can be provided for
our needs with nuclear power, but I'm not sure I want to trust the design,
operation, maintenance, and security of these potentially dangerous
installations to the latest crop of poorly educated, illiterate, and
morally bankrupt people who will be filling positions of responsibility.

Paul

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Bill Reif" <billreif@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:60Xmk.20892$N87.4026@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:328e6158-7cfe-4418-82d4-8535ee091b9c@y19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
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.

I understand there's promising research on using capacitors constructed
using nanotubes.

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.

Where would flywheels fall in this calculation? They can store a fair
amount of energy, and can be resupplied quite quickly.

Flywheels can be quite dangerous when they are very massive and spinning at
high RPMs. Also, I think there are problems with efficiency in the storage
and retrieval of energy over a wide range of speeds. There is also the
problem of angular inertia causing difficulties with movement of a mobile
machine in certain directions. Small flywheels, and fairly small
capacitors, are useful for providing short term storage and retrieval of
energy.

I wonder how much energy can be stored and retrieved, and what efficiency
could be obtained, by pumping water to a higher elevation (either a water
tower or a lake on a hill), and then releasing it through hydroelectric
generators when needed. This uses simple, inexpensive, and proven
technology, and is certainly quite safe. It would not be practical for
portable storage, but could possibly be used instead of storage batteries
in permanent installations. And stored water is always a good thing to have
in case of drought.

Paul

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rod Speed wrote:

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


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.

Then, its not a new idea, which contradicts the premise of the claim being
made.

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.

None of this constitutes a new idea, hence you haven't shown that new ideas
are not due to a random process. You are simply giving more examples where a
supposed "new" idea, is in fact, just something derived from prior art.

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.

Exactly my point. They are usually just variations of an existing,
replicated trait.

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

It is not derivable,

Corse its mostly derivable.

Aaa?

I said either something is derivable or not 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.

Oh dear... I knew that was coming. Of course, its trivial that not being
able to predict something does not make it random. It may well be just to
complex. However, if it is random, it is non predictable, by definition. We
are thus led to the logical conclusion, that only a randam event satifies
the contraint that something new is not derivable from existing knowledge.

Please explain a method that produces new information, that does not rely on
a random process. Hint: the measure of information is based on probability.

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.

Oh?.

I got 1,740,000 hits in google for "genetic algorithm"

You might as well start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm to
get the basics.

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.

Oh dear...

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.

Err... its not my claim. I am simple reporting that which is an already
accepted fact by those that study brain operation. Unfortunately, you seem
quite ignorant of the prior art.

You know, I am not going to contiue with this. It is clear that you have no
knowleged on this subjct, nor the ability or desire to gain such knowledge.
Denial of the facts does not change the facts.


Kevin Aylward

www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Paul E. Schoen" <pstech@smart.net> wrote in message
news:489c8f96$0$19657$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net...

"Bill Reif" <billreif@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:60Xmk.20892$N87.4026@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:328e6158-7cfe-4418-82d4-8535ee091b9c@y19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
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.

I understand there's promising research on using capacitors constructed
using nanotubes.

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.

Where would flywheels fall in this calculation? They can store a fair
amount of energy, and can be resupplied quite quickly.

Flywheels can be quite dangerous when they are very massive and spinning
at high RPMs. Also, I think there are problems with efficiency in the
storage and retrieval of energy over a wide range of speeds. There is
also the problem of angular inertia causing difficulties with movement of
a mobile machine in certain directions. Small flywheels, and fairly small
capacitors, are useful for providing short term storage and retrieval of
energy.

I wonder how much energy can be stored and retrieved, and what efficiency
could be obtained, by pumping water to a higher elevation (either a water
tower or a lake on a hill), and then releasing it through hydroelectric
generators when needed. This uses simple, inexpensive, and proven
technology, and is certainly quite safe. It would not be practical for
portable storage, but could possibly be used instead of storage batteries
in permanent installations. And stored water is always a good thing to
have in case of drought.

Paul

While looking for more specific information, I found the following
interesting concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_tower

It was not exactly what I was looking for, but it seems like a worthwhile
project to investigate for actually generating electricity by converting
solar to wind and then electricity.

Here is a bit of discussion on harvesting energy from a water supply:
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Faucet_20Energy_20Collection

According to the data given, 1 square meter of water pumped up to a height
of 30 meters weighs 1000 kg, and has a potential energy of 30 kJoules. This
is enough energy to power a 30 watt lamp for 3.3 hours. But if you
increased the volume stored, and/or could store it at a higher elevation,
it might have some benefit. But apparently there is a lot of friction, and
hence losses, in plumbing, so efficiency might be a problem.

When I lived in an apartment, we had free hot water. I (not really
seriously) considered running the water through a radiator to extract heat,
and then also operating a water wheel to run a small generator for
lighting. I wonder how long before the maintenance people noticed?

Paul

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Paul E. Schoen" <pstech@smart.net> wrote in message
news:489c96df$0$19662$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net...

Here is a bit of discussion on harvesting energy from a water supply:
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Faucet_20Energy_20Collection

According to the data given, 1 square meter of water pumped up to a
height of 30 meters weighs 1000 kg, and has a potential energy of 30
kJoules. This is enough energy to power a 30 watt lamp for

(correction) about a half hour. But if you

increased the volume stored, and/or could store it at a higher elevation,
it might have some benefit. But apparently there is a lot of friction,
and hence losses, in plumbing, so efficiency might be a problem.

Paul

 

[Rod Speed]

Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote

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

Where are they selling this biodiesel?

The farmer grows it himself, stupid.

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.

By how much?

By quite a few orders of magnitude.

What does make sense in that situation is rechargeable batterys.

What is the lifetime cycling?

Try that again in english.

But not for big power users like tractors.

Show your calculations.

Dont need any, thats clearly been done by those who design stuff like that.

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.

Who cares?

Anyone stupid enough to propose the use of batterys in tractors.

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

Well that's gonna change.

Nope. They'll just use biodiesel instead.

I doubt that a farm, where most of the land is already used for food
crops, could produce enough extra crops to supply its own biodiesel.

More fool you. They already are, its just currently used as veg oil.

With surging population, we will need most of our cropland to feed people, not tractors, cars, and trucks.

Nope, we already know how much land is needed to produce the oils
currently, and what was being discussed there was whats used to fuel
TRACTORS, not the entire transport fleet. With gasoline engines it
makes more sense to use LPG or CNG when the gasoline is too
expensive to be viable and to use nukes to generate electricity to
heat houses etc and stop wasting the LPG and CNG on heating.

We need to reduce consumption, increase efficiency, and live cooperatively.

Nope, just move away from gasoline and diesel when
the price of those stay high enough for long enough.

Perhaps enough electrical energy can be provided for our needs with nuclear power,

No perhaps about it, France has been doing that for a long time now.

but I'm not sure I want to trust the design, operation, maintenance, and security of these potentially dangerous
installations to the latest crop of poorly educated, illiterate, and morally bankrupt people who will be filling
positions of responsibility.

Whatever you are neurotic about, it works fine in France.

All we really need is more work on nukes that cant be used to produce weapons so
the countrys that dont already have nuke weapons can use those to produce electricity.

 

[Rod Speed]

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote

Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
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.

Where are they selling this biodiesel?

The farmer grows it himself, stupid.

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.

By how much?

By quite a few orders of magnitude.

What does make sense in that situation is rechargeable batterys.

What is the lifetime cycling?

Try that again in english.

But not for big power users like tractors.

Show your calculations.

Dont need any, thats clearly been done by those who design stuff like that.

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.

Who cares?

Anyone stupid enough to propose the use of batterys in tractors.

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

Well that's gonna change.

Nope. They'll just use biodiesel instead.

I doubt that a farm, where most of the land is already used for food
crops, could produce enough extra crops to supply its own biodiesel.

My view is that the farmers may well produce crops for their own fuel, individually
or through a co-op, where they already work to achieve common goals.

You dont need to change the current arrangements, plenty already produce veg oils currently.

With surging population, we will need most of our cropland
to feed people, not tractors, cars, and trucks.

But the farmers have to weigh their cost of buying fuel, regardless
of type, against the costs of "growing their own." It's the farmer
who will make the decisions about THEIR farm economics.

Indeed, and it isnt even hard to grow.

We need to reduce consumption, increase efficiency, and live
cooperatively. Perhaps enough electrical energy can be provided
for our needs with nuclear power, but I'm not sure I want to trust
the design, operation, maintenance, and security of these
potentially dangerous installations to the latest crop of poorly
educated, illiterate, and morally bankrupt people who will be
filling positions of responsibility.

Right on. Scary, at best.

Nope, works fine in France and Japan etc.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

Nope. They'll just use biodiesel instead.

I doubt that a farm, where most of the land is already used for food
crops, could produce enough extra crops to supply its own biodiesel.

The tech illiterate media have been running shows and articles
on some sparsely populated Danish farm island in the N. Sea
that is completely sustainable. They do indeed run their
tractors off of biodiesel they recover from their farms.

Yep, completely routine. Some did that in the 70s too.

Each farmer's carbon footprint is small but his _land_
foot print is massive -- off shore wind turbines, etc.

Thats utterly mangled. Wind turbines dont need to be offshore
and when they are on the land used for agriculture, they have
no real effect on the use of that land for agriculture.

And you dont have to bother with that anyway, just provide
the electricity from the grid, using nukes etc if you dont like
the CO2 produced by coal fired power stations.

-- that just isn't available to most Europeans,

Nukes are tho.

or, for that matter, most Americans

Wrong again with nukes.

or anyone else except maybe the Australians as a nation.

It makes no economic sense there either.

See the economist Henry George on land which
will monkey wrench a lot of sustainability notions.

Not that one it doesnt.

With surging population, we will need most of our cropland to feed
people, not tractors, cars, and trucks. We need to reduce consumption,
increase efficiency, and live cooperatively. Perhaps enough electrical
energy can be provided for our needs with nuclear power, but I'm not
sure I want to trust the design, operation, maintenance, and security
of> these potentially dangerous installations to the latest crop of
poorly educated, illiterate, and morally bankrupt people who will be
filling positions of responsibility.

Geologists are fairly certain there will be a big earth quake
in California in 30 years, less than the life time of a nuke.

Then have the nukes outside the earthquake zone and use what
we have used for well over half a century now, transmission lines,
to get the power into the parts of CA that are eathquake prone.

Its perfectly possible to do earthquake proof nukes too.

Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

In fact, some of the nukes that are operating in CA
today will probably be still operating when they get hit.

Wont be a problem because they were designed to withstand them.

A cost-benefit risk analysis would be difficult enough

Wrong again.

without the politics of where to locate new nukes.

See above.

It's a lot easier in CA to just go geothermal,
and solar, wind, PV, solar thermal or algae.

Wrong, as always.

And hope for a better battery.

No need for one.

 

[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.

I understand there's promising research on using capacitors
constructed using nanotubes.

Supposedly you can store energy at the same density as liquid
fuel simply by stretching the material like a long rubberband.

Rubber bands dont even work very well for toy planes, let alone tractors.

Maybe that's an indication that it'll make a high energy density cap.

Or maybe not.

But that's far too expensive and I wouldn't want to be around either when it "failed."

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.

Where would flywheels fall in this calculation? They can store a
fair amount of energy, and can be resupplied quite quickly.

Compressed air as well as flywheels may have higher energy density
than caps. They present bigger coupling or transfer problems than a
wire, however.

Have there have ever been any applications for short
term [< few seconds] _completely_ disconnected caps?

Yes, they were routinely used for very low drain current backup, now replaced by flash ram.

Up until now a switch, mechanical or electronic, always seems
to be permanently connected to a "stationary" power source.

Thats just because of where it was useful.

cap - LED
circuits can be designed to be recharged "on the bounce."

Just another useless toy.

Each assembly has fins on top to fall down upright into a two
layer wire mesh. A short wire on the bottom is insulated except
for the bottom tip which contacts the lower mesh. The other
contact is the bottom of the assembly itself for the top mesh.

Air pulses upward through the mesh for safe indoor "fireworks."

A lot of easy money has been made where the only design
point is whatever will do something visually new. The cost
of small circuits is incredibly low with the high copy volume
production runs unique to the Christmas light industry.

And the power levels are nothing like what a tractor needs.

"The world revolves, not around the inventors of new noises,
but around the inventors of new values. It revolves _inaudibly_."

-- Nietzsche

Wota wanker.

 

[Rod Speed]

Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote:

"Bill Reif" <billreif@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:60Xmk.20892$N87.4026@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:328e6158-7cfe-4418-82d4-8535ee091b9c@y19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
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.

I understand there's promising research on using capacitors
constructed using nanotubes.

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.

Where would flywheels fall in this calculation? They can store a
fair amount of energy, and can be resupplied quite quickly.

Flywheels can be quite dangerous when they are very massive and
spinning at high RPMs. Also, I think there are problems with
efficiency in the storage and retrieval of energy over a wide range
of speeds. There is also the problem of angular inertia causing
difficulties with movement of a mobile machine in certain directions.
Small flywheels, and fairly small capacitors, are useful for
providing short term storage and retrieval of energy.

I wonder how much energy can be stored and retrieved, and what efficiency could be obtained, by pumping water to a
higher elevation (either a water tower or a lake on a hill), and then releasing it through hydroelectric generators
when needed.

TWs. Its been done that way for well over half a century now, usually part of hydro systems.

This uses simple, inexpensive, and proven technology, and is certainly quite safe.

Yep.

It would not be practical for portable storage, but could possibly be used instead of storage batteries in permanent
installations.

Yep, the SE grid in Australia has been doing it for over half a century now, the Snowy Scheme.

And stored water is always a good thing to have in case of drought.

It is indeed, and that was the primary motivator for the Snowy Scheme.
The storage capacity for the grid was essentially a bonus.

 

[Rod Speed]

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. You might have mistated a number here or there but, in general
your premise is accurate.

The point was that as long as all surface transportation was on liquid fuel

The real point is that its completely routine to use nukes to power
ships if that makes economic sense, so that wont happen.

then spiraling fuel costs would cause all three modes
of transport, sea, road or rail, to approach certain
distance ratios which are fixed in the laws of thermo
would not change with still higher liquid fuel costs.

It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if the price did change that.

Higher energy costs increases localization but does not stop globalization.

That was always obvious. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

In spades when nukes are feasible for ships but not with other more local transport.

Railroads can be electrified which would decrease localization.

And have been for centurys now.

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

Guessing wildly maybe $5,000 for the fuel and maybe another $5,000 for labor, capital, etc.

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

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.

I was interested in the limit as fuel costs dominated everything else.

That wont happen, most obviously with his dram example.

In spades with illegal drugs.

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.

North Carolinians call the Tar Heel state a "valley of humility
between two mountains of conceit."

Why? They had no great plantations like VA or SC.

Why? They had no navigatable rivers. Check it out on a map sometime.

And then the world moved on, just like it always does.

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.

For liquids a pipeline will beat anything.

Not when the volume isnt high enough.

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.

At least near the jet stream.

There is no jet stream at sea level.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

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

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.

Then, its not a new idea,

No ideas ever are in that sense.

And even with say the discovery of electricity, thats nothing even
remotely resembling anything like a random process either. It happens
by observation and looking for an explanation for what is observed.

which contradicts the premise of the claim being made.

Nope.

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.

None of this constitutes a new idea,

There are no new ideas in that sense.

hence you haven't shown that new ideas are not due to a random process.

There are no new ideas in the sense you are using the term.

Name even just one. You cant.

You are simply giving more examples where a supposed "new" idea, is in fact, just something derived from prior art.

They ALL are.

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.

Exactly my point.

Nope, you havent established that there is anything like a new idea in the sense you are using the term.

They are usually just variations of an existing, replicated trait.

And there is nothing else.

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

And if that isnt a new idea in your terms, have fun listing anything that is.

It is not derivable,

Corse its mostly derivable.

Aaa?

Sorry, dont speak gibberish.

I said either something is derivable or not derivable.

Nothing is not derivable.

it must be random.

Wrong again. Even Einsteins general relativity aint random.

You cant ignore that, it wont go away.

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.

Oh dear... I knew that was coming.

SURE you did.

Of course, its trivial that not being able to predict something does not make it random. It may well be just to
complex.

So your original was just plain silly.

However, if it is random, it is non predictable, by definition.

Yes, but thats irrelevant to the silly claim that all new ideas are random.

We are thus led to the logical conclusion, that only a randam event satifies the contraint that something new is not
derivable from existing knowledge.

There is no such thing with ideas.

You cant list even a single one. Even Einstein's general relativity doesnt qualify.

Please explain a method that produces new information,

No such animal in the sense that you are mindlessly using that term.

that does not rely on a random process. Hint: the measure of information is based on probability.

Like hell it is.

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.

Oh?.

Fraid so.

I got 1,740,000 hits in google for "genetic algorithm"

You'll get even more with 'aliens that bite cows bums'

Doesnt mean that there is any such animal.

You might as well start at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm to get the basics.

Just a complete wank of a name.

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.

Oh dear...

Oh cheap... in your case.

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.

Err... its not my claim.

You were the one waving it around.

I am simple reporting that which is an already accepted fact

Its nothing of the sort with new ideas.

by those that study brain operation.

Who have never made that stupid claim that YOU made about NEW IDEAS.

Unfortunately, you seem quite ignorant of the prior art.

Nope.

You know, I am not going to contiue with this.

Great, we've seen enough of your mindless silly shit.

It is clear that you have no knowleged on this subjct, nor the ability or desire to gain such knowledge. Denial of the
facts does not change the facts.

Claiming something is a fact doesnt make it a fact, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6g3mobFe4qcmU1@mid.individual.net...

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote

We need to reduce consumption, increase efficiency, and live
cooperatively. Perhaps enough electrical energy can be provided
for our needs with nuclear power, but I'm not sure I want to trust
the design, operation, maintenance, and security of these
potentially dangerous installations to the latest crop of poorly
educated, illiterate, and morally bankrupt people who will be
filling positions of responsibility.

Right on. Scary, at best.

Nope, works fine in France and Japan etc.

They actually value education and sensible morality.

Paul

 

[Rod Speed]

Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote
Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote

We need to reduce consumption, increase efficiency, and live cooperatively. Perhaps enough electrical energy can be
provided for our needs with nuclear power, but I'm not sure I want to trust the design, operation, maintenance, and
security of these potentially dangerous installations to the latest crop of poorly educated, illiterate, and
morally bankrupt people who will be filling positions of responsibility.

Right on. Scary, at best.

Nope, works fine in France and Japan etc.

They actually value education

So does the US for those that matter.

and sensible morality.

Have fun explaining WW2 in the pacific.

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Viel Spass" <andy77017@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:77710b2d-6f07-4ce7-af58-76127d82b70f@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 7, 8:29 am, "Tom Biasi" <tombiasi...@optonline.net> wrote:
"Viel Spass" <andy77...@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.

You didn't answer my question, just complained.

Sorry it sounded like complaining, you received several replies that

essentially said the same thing that I did but you didn't seem to care.
Best Regards,
Tom

 

[Rod Speed]

m II <C@in.the.hat> wrote

Paul E. Schoen wrote

According to the data given, 1 square meter of water pumped
up to a height of 30 meters weighs 1000 kg, and has a potential
energy of 30 kJoules. This is enough energy to power a 30 watt
lamp for (correction) about a half hour.

The question becomes: "How much power did it take to pump
it up there in the first place?" If we can only get back 25
percent of what we had originally, it wouldn't be worth it.

Depends on where the energy comes from. It can be with nukes particularly.

 

[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

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

Actually I do.

Nope.

Yes, I do if I can present a stronger case that logic applies here.

Nope. The most you ever do is CLAIM that you have a stronger case.

So do you.

Nope. The most I ever do is rub your nose in the fact that I have a stronger case.

Actually in all your illegal maneuvers below

You wouldnt know what a real illegal maneuver was if it bit you on your
lard arse and you dont get to rule on what is or is not illegal either. Ever.

you are attempting to do just that.

You're lying, as always.

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.

Then you concede that logic convicts you and withdraws your entitlement to those assertions.

Wrong, as always.

Therefore every time you attempt to use them you are in logical violation of commonly accepted protocols.

Wrong, as always.

You are however wrong anyway. As always.

I may or may not be wrong

Wrong, as always.

but you have not shown how that is the case.

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

Do you really think that just saying so means anything?

Your shit in spades.

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.

If I can present a more probable argument than you about the protocols of logic

Which you never ever can.

then logic will allow or disallow.

Wrong, as always. Its never about probabilitys.

I will present the case against you

Nope, just wank yourself blind, as always.

and logic itself will deal with you.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed desperate wanker fantasys.

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.

In my metaphor

Taint a metaphor.

I never claimed to be the judge.

No one ever said you did.

That possibility was undetermined,

Wrong, as always.

I might have meant that or not,

Wrong, as always.

but you have not presented much evidence either way it is determined.

No evidence required on that.

In the metaphor,

Taint a metaphor.

logic is the judge,

Wrong, as always.

the most I could possibly do is get you banned from the internet

Nope, you dont have a hope in hell of ever doing that.

and that is probably not likely.

Absolutely guaranteed actually.

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.

My claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about me

Wrong, as always.

and this attack

Taint an attack, its rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that you aint no judge.

is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument I was making,

More fool you. Its nothing of the sort.

but the reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)

You wouldnt know what real ad hominem was if it bit you on your lard arse.

is a fallacy is that my character, circumstances, or actions of
a person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the
claim being made or the quality of the argument being made.

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

Besides I never claimed to be a judge,

No one ever said you did.

that assumption

There is no such assumption.

was contingent upon your presuppositions, stereotypes and bullying style,

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed desperate wanker fantasys.

which I am perfectly immune to

You obviously aint.

and will challenge till the cows come home.

They came home LONG ago, wanker.

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

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.

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

I never claimed that this was a debating class.

No one ever said you did.

I merely explained what happens in a debating class.

Pity thats completely irrelevant.

You seem to be jumping to conclusions that bear the weight of very little warrant.

Like I said, your seems machinery needs seeing to, BAD.

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.

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

After I succeeded in removing your entitlement

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

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

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.

I merely made a stronger case that logic convicts you

You're lying, again.

and removes your entitlement.

Wrong again.

Its like in grammar class,

Nope nothing like grammar class.

And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that this aint a grammar class.

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

And it isnt anyway, whatever you claim.

Please explain more what you mean by "it isn't anyway"

Already did.

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.

I only presented a stronger argument than you,

You're lying, as always.

which appealed to logic

You're lying, as always.

which removes your entitlement to further sustain of those premises.

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.

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.

You have not explain how much context is permissible.

Dont need to.

Until then you appeal to context is meaningless.

Wrong, as always.

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

Actually some of these researchers think that concentration
and focus and any thought progression is a miniature
replication of millions of years of evolution, in seconds.

More fool them. And there isnt a shred of evidence that even if it
was, that that has any relevance what so ever to what is being
discussed, 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.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GGYF8hc70Y

More mindless irrelevant wanking.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6g4lilFe0bffU1@mid.individual.net...

m II <C@in.the.hat> wrote
Paul E. Schoen wrote

According to the data given, 1 square meter of water pumped
up to a height of 30 meters weighs 1000 kg, and has a potential
energy of 30 kJoules. This is enough energy to power a 30 watt
lamp for (correction) about a half hour.

The question becomes: "How much power did it take to pump
it up there in the first place?" If we can only get back 25
percent of what we had originally, it wouldn't be worth it.

Depends on where the energy comes from. It can be with nukes
particularly.

I'm still not a big fan of nukes, but I'm not totally opposed. Maybe steam
can be created from passive solar, and it can power a combination of
electrical generator and pump to store any excess energy during the day,
which can then be recouped at night or during periods of low insolation.
All components of such a system are inexpensive, safe, and proven.

Paul