Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote

There are just an amazing amount of new battery possibilities when vehicles finally move away from the inefficient,
polluting, and heavy ICEs, and towards an era of clean electric drive.

I keep hearing that phrase, "clean electric drive". Electricity is not clean.

But A LOT cleaner than gasoline and diesel burned in ICEs ?

And it we ramp up electric power from renewables, and phase out coal,

That last isnt going to happen.

then it gets even a lot better.

Nope, because we arent going to phase out coal.

Go work in a wire manufacturing factory for a while.

I actually did. Worked in a high-voltage cable manufacturing plant in the Netherlands for a while. It was pretty clean
there )

What are you trying to say ?

That you dont have a clue.

 

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <48a1e1ff$0$24546$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net>,
Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote:

The Chevy Volt is supposed to go 40 miles on a charge. My commute is 30

The EV1 could do better than that. Another lost technology...

--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006

 

[Tom Biasi]

<kat_phill61@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b9ca6fe2-c4eb-492e-9184-60768125e46e@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

What are the cause/causes of dead battery problems in the lancer ck2?

What is a lancer ck2?

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:5r04a4d87bh0u33c9ka5ns617r62fg03tn@4ax.com...

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:28:03 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


There are just an amazing amount of new battery possibilities when vehicles
finally move away from the inefficient, polluting, and heavy ICEs, and
towards an era of clean electric drive.

Except that everything else, so far, is less efficient, more
polluting, and heavier. Not to mention way more expensive.

This is not true.

Electric drive is 4X more efficient (not even counting regenerative braking), zero-pollution at the tailpipe (it has none), and is
much lighter than an ICE.

More expensive ? Prototypes are always more expensive.
But let's see :

ICE : Complicated engine with lots of rotating and moving parts, with oil + water cooling system, with emission control (incl
catalytic converter with precious metals), with transmission and a differential and exhaust system and a massive amount of pipes
and sensors.

Electric drive : a few melon-size electric motor/generators and a power control unit.
Add a small (40hp) auxiliry power unit and you drive a 80mpg vehicle.

Mmmm. What would be cheaper in mass production ?

Batteries cost ?
If you are an average American, you spend around $3,000/year in gasoline right now.
I bet that for $3,000/year you can lease a top-of-the-line battery pack. Even at current low-volume prices.

What is cheaper ?
What is cleaner ?
What is more efficient ?
What is better prepared for the post Peak-Oil era that we just entered ?

Rob

John

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:4014a45sdfa98aeogq2fg0vp8ovi6kv1km@4ax.com...

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:05:33 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:



Peak Oil and the continuation of high oil prices until we use less of it creates all kind on new business opportunities.



People keep finding more oil. And the price is down lately, $113
today.

Great ! That means that we now ONLY pay $1.6 billion per day to the Saudi's et al.
ONLY 5% of our GDP flows right out of the country.

Rob

John

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:rja4a4h09trf53mdoh6jbjdac0pjam04pj@4ax.com...

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:17:24 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:5r04a4d87bh0u33c9ka5ns617r62fg03tn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:28:03 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


There are just an amazing amount of new battery possibilities when vehicles
finally move away from the inefficient, polluting, and heavy ICEs, and
towards an era of clean electric drive.

Except that everything else, so far, is less efficient, more
polluting, and heavier. Not to mention way more expensive.

This is not true.

Electric drive is 4X more efficient (not even counting regenerative braking), zero-pollution at the tailpipe (it has none), and is
much lighter than an ICE.

Only if the electricity magically comes from somewhere free, and you
lug enough batteries for 20 miles of travel.

But the electricity sas to be generated somewhere, at thermal
efficiency levels. Transport, chargers, and batteries throw a bunch of
it away. Batteries are heavy and full of nasty chemicals.




More expensive ? Prototypes are always more expensive.
But let's see :

ICE : Complicated engine with lots of rotating and moving parts, with oil + water cooling system, with emission control (incl
catalytic converter with precious metals), with transmission and a differential and exhaust system and a massive amount of pipes
and sensors.

And it all works great. I can load up 200 HP-hours worth of energy in
about 2 minutes at a gas pump. That's about a 5 megawatt equivalent
charging rate. And I can drive coast-to-coast on about an hour of pit
stops.

You seem to confuse electric drive with EVs.
Electric drive with a small auxiliry power unit will give you all the benefits of the current gasoline (or another fuel)
infrastructure.
Like in the Volt (the only model with electric drive that GM actually has a plan for)....

Sometimes I get into my Rabbit in the morning, start it up, drive away
5 seconds later, turn on the radio and the heater, ignore the steep
hills and the cold rain, and marvel at the whole process. And that
hundreds of millions of other working people can afford to do the same
thing.

Yes. me too.
The ICE has served us greatly over the past 100 years that oil was abundant and cheap, and the engineering advances made are
magnificent.
The ICE also enabled an astounding economic growth that we (as the people of this planet) have created for ourselves.
It also created a number of really big problems, which start to become apparent, increasingly difficult and pressing as well as more
and more expensive.
More expensive for individuals, as well as nations, as well as the planet's eco systems.
It's time for change (before another 2 billion people join in our lifestyle).

Electric drive : a few melon-size electric motor/generators and a power control unit.
Add a small (40hp) auxiliry power unit and you drive a 80mpg vehicle.

Mmmm. What would be cheaper in mass production ?

What *is* cheaper?

Want to bet ?
In mass production, I want to bet that electric drive is significantly cheaper to produce than ICEs.

If electric cars are cheaper and more efficient,
why aren't they popular? Conspiracy?

John, I don't believe in conspiracies. In a free market the most cost efficient solution wins. But big changes take time.
The incentives are there now (to start moving to electric drive, away from oil and towards electricity), but only for the last
couple of years.
Also the political will to change (to start moving away from oil and fossil fuels) has not been there.
We are just getting started (with PHEVs).
This process is going to take a while (to move vehicles away from oil and towards electricity).
15-20 years is my estimate.

Batteries cost ?
If you are an average American, you spend around $3,000/year in gasoline right now.
I bet that for $3,000/year you can lease a top-of-the-line battery pack. Even at current low-volume prices.

What is cheaper ?
What is cleaner ?
What is more efficient ?
What is better prepared for the post Peak-Oil era that we just entered ?

The peak oil point is always 10 years away.

That is impossible.
Oil will peak at some point if it did not already.

Hey, build yourself an electric car and save a bundle. There are lots
of conversion kits on the market.

I might just do that, although retrofits are very seldom cost-effective.
I pretty much have to throw away half the vehicle (ICE/drivetrain etc etc you know it).
And the other half (chassis) got crumbled on I 238 last week (

There just aren't any good batteries.

After all we talked about, this is what you say ?
It seems to me that you have made up your mind on this subject.

Not that we have much choice right ? There are no production electric drive vehicles around today, so no framework to install
batteries on.
No business possibilities right ? So just wait, I guess. See what happens.

John

 

[Phil Allison]

"Tom Biasi"

What is a lancer ck2?

** A car, made by Mitsubishi.




.... Phil

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:rja4a4h09trf53mdoh6jbjdac0pjam04pj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:17:24 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:5r04a4d87bh0u33c9ka5ns617r62fg03tn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:28:03 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


There are just an amazing amount of new battery possibilities
when vehicles finally move away from the inefficient, polluting,
and heavy ICEs, and towards an era of clean electric drive.

Except that everything else, so far, is less efficient, more
polluting, and heavier. Not to mention way more expensive.

This is not true.

Electric drive is 4X more efficient (not even counting regenerative
braking), zero-pollution at the tailpipe (it has none), and is much
lighter than an ICE.

Only if the electricity magically comes from somewhere free, and you
lug enough batteries for 20 miles of travel.

But the electricity sas to be generated somewhere, at thermal
efficiency levels. Transport, chargers, and batteries throw a bunch
of it away. Batteries are heavy and full of nasty chemicals.




More expensive ? Prototypes are always more expensive.
But let's see :

ICE : Complicated engine with lots of rotating and moving parts,
with oil + water cooling system, with emission control (incl
catalytic converter with precious metals), with transmission and a
differential and exhaust system and a massive amount of pipes and
sensors.

And it all works great. I can load up 200 HP-hours worth of energy in
about 2 minutes at a gas pump. That's about a 5 megawatt equivalent
charging rate. And I can drive coast-to-coast on about an hour of pit
stops.

You seem to confuse electric drive with EVs.

Nope, you do.

Electric drive with a small auxiliry power unit will give you all the
benefits of the current gasoline (or another fuel) infrastructure.

Nope, lousy range for starters. Lousy 'recharge' time in spades.

Like in the Volt (the only model with electric drive that GM actually has a plan for)....

Pathetic compared with a real car.

Sometimes I get into my Rabbit in the morning, start it up, drive
away 5 seconds later, turn on the radio and the heater, ignore the
steep hills and the cold rain, and marvel at the whole process. And
that hundreds of millions of other working people can afford to do
the same thing.

Yes. me too.
The ICE has served us greatly over the past 100 years that oil was
abundant and cheap, and the engineering advances made are magnificent.

And will continue to work fine with LPG and CNG and biodiesel.

The ICE also enabled an astounding economic growth that we (as the people of this planet) have created for ourselves.

And will continue to do that with LPG and CNG and biodiesel.

It also created a number of really big problems,

Nope, not one.

which start to become apparent, increasingly difficult and pressing as well as more and more expensive.

Not if you have enough of a clue to change to LPG and CNG and biodiesel.

More expensive for individuals, as well as nations,

Not if you have enough of a clue to change to LPG and CNG and biodiesel.

as well as the planet's eco systems.

True in spades of the humans, stupid.

It's time for change (before another 2 billion people join in our lifestyle).

Yep, to LPG and CNG and biodiesel when the price of oil makes that sensible.

Electric drive : a few melon-size electric motor/generators and a power control unit. Add a small (40hp) auxiliry
power unit and you drive a 80mpg vehicle.

Mmmm. What would be cheaper in mass production ?

What *is* cheaper?

Want to bet ?
In mass production, I want to bet that electric drive is significantly cheaper to produce than ICEs.

Pity that doesnt do a damned thing about the main problem, pathetic lack of range.

If electric cars are cheaper and more efficient, why aren't they popular? Conspiracy?

John, I don't believe in conspiracies. In a free market the most cost efficient solution wins.

Which is why we only see EVs used for very short ranges.

But big changes take time.

It takes a hell of a lot more than time, it takes a viable alternative.

The incentives are there now (to start moving to electric drive, away
from oil and towards electricity), but only for the last couple of years.

Nope, only to hybrid vehicles.

Also the political will to change (to start moving away from oil and fossil fuels) has not been there.

Because it makes no sense.

We are just getting started (with PHEVs).

And that will go nowhere, you watch.

This process is going to take a while (to move vehicles away from oil and towards electricity). 15-20 years is my
estimate.

Taint gunna happen unless the range can be fixed.

We'll just change to LPG and CNG and biodiesel when the
price of oil makes that sensible and a few will use hybrids.

Batteries cost ?
If you are an average American, you spend around $3,000/year in
gasoline right now. I bet that for $3,000/year you can lease a top-of-the-line battery
pack. Even at current low-volume prices. What is cheaper ?
What is cleaner ?
What is more efficient ?
What is better prepared for the post Peak-Oil era that we just
entered ?

The peak oil point is always 10 years away.

That is impossible.

It does however mean that the current predictions on peak oil are ALWAYS just plain wrong.

Oil will peak at some point if it did not already.

Corse it aint already if its always 10 years away.

Hey, build yourself an electric car and save a bundle. There are lots
of conversion kits on the market.

I might just do that, although retrofits are very seldom cost-effective. I pretty much have to throw away half the
vehicle (ICE/drivetrain etc etc you know it). And the other half (chassis) got crumbled on I 238 last week (

Perfect time to put your money where your mouth is and go EV right now. Bet you dont.

There just aren't any good batteries.

After all we talked about, this is what you say ?

Yep, its the reason the range is lousy.

It seems to me that you have made up your mind on this subject.

Corse you havent, eh ?

Not that we have much choice right ?

Corse we do, we just change to LPG and CNG and biodiesel when the price of oil makes that sensible.

There are no production electric drive vehicles around today,

Because LPG and CNG and biodiesel make a lot more sense when the price of oil makes that sensible.

so no framework to install batteries on. No business possibilities right ? So just wait, I guess. See what happens.

Yep, watch use change to LPG and CNG and biodiesel when the price of oil makes that sensible.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

HOW NEW IDEAS SHOW UP.

The activities of the brain is how they show up,...

Doesnt mean that there is any RANDOM process involved in new ideas,...

It doesn't mean that there necessarily is or isn't any random process involved in new ideas,

HE made the claim that that process is random.

HE gets to show what evidence there is to support that claim.

THATS how it works.

but if some ideas result from random events,

There isnt a shred of evidence that any of them do.

unrelated to train of deliberate thought and experimentation,

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

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"tiger" <cedric.ubiq@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b35192b-1814-428a-98bc-bf8d34b9a6e4@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...

I have 2 questions.

I have 1Gbps ethernet card.
(1)If i can rewrite ethernet device driver for OS, can i use the
ethernet card as square waveform generator(signal generator)???


(2)If it is possible, How fast can i send square waveform? I mean what
frequency?
I know "1Gbps" do not actually mean "1Ghz". then 1Gbps card has
maximum what frequency?

I doubt you can do this directly because I don't think you can assess the
physical layer. (if you can then its a piece of cake)

I doubt you also have control of the clock frequency(I imagine it's fixed)
and your not going to be able to send data in such a way to get a clock.

If no one else has any more knowledge about it then the first thing to do is
look at the chips used on such cards and try and get their datasheet(or just
go to some sites and get datasheets for chips). There might be some
information on the chip and how you can use it for such a thing... or not...

Seems like a strange way to go about getting such a thing though...

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

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

...You didnt provide ....evidence [of] HOW NEW IDEAS SHOW UP.

The activities of the brain is how they show up,...

Doesnt mean that there is any RANDOM process involved in new ideas,...

It doesn't mean that there necessarily is or isn't any random process involved in new ideas,

HE made the claim that that process is random.

HE gets to show what evidence there is to support that claim.

THATS how it works.

I can be a witness for the defense.

Still having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys I see.

Kevin said;

I am stunned with this answer. Its trivially obvious that by most
random variations (i.e. new ideas) are detrimental variations,
noting the inherent Darwinian random variation, selection and
replication algorithm that the brain actually uses.

RodSpeed said

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

I agree that "some" new ideas are not based upon various errors in
pattern constancy functions. "Some" well thought out ideas are just that.

Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that last claim.

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

but if some ideas result from random events,

There isnt a shred of evidence that any of them do.

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

 

[Falko Rudolph]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:j3t2a4ti8bv3oi8qbn3kv90ho56vaols92@4ax.com...

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:58:24 +0200, "Falko Rudolph"
falkorudolph@gmx.de> wrote:

(snip)
Use PNP-Darlingtons instead of NPNand switch Supply with it instead of
GND. It's the easiest way.

(snip)

Unless you're driving the relays from a different +V.

Why? As long as they are based on the same GND you only need to adjust the
base resistor. That's what o.c. outputs are made for( and more, right).
As John suggested normal transistors may be better than darlingtons when
V+
is only 6V.
What do I not see?

---
The emitter of the PNP driver will be connected to the different V+.

.... and Base to controlling signal and collector to the relay. That's what I
thought of.

Falko

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

I agree that "some" new ideas are not based upon various errors in pattern constancy functions.

Wota fucking wanker...

"Some" well thought out ideas are just that.

Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that last claim.

"Just that means," some ideas are ideas that are well thought out and may not be due to copying errors.

You aint established that 'copying errors' are what matters with worthwhile new ideas.

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Kasterborus" <kasterborus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c3e34f52-0b01-48d1-b347-870bfd0816ae@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

I built this kit last night, and tapped the input across one of my
speakers.

http://www.velleman.be/images/tmp/MK114.jpg

It's their standard one channel light organ designed to work with low
voltage lamps.

It worked, but I had to crank the speaker really high to get the lamp
to flash. Looking at the circuit it seems that all I need to do is
find a way to flash one side of the optisolator to make it work. At
the moment it's using the power from the audio amplifier to do this,
but could I add a transistor from the 12v supply, connect this to the
OI input and feed in a lower power signal to do the switching?

Ideally I would like to run this from an audio line level signal, not
the speaker output of my amp.

Any input is always appreciated.

Dave


Essentially what you want to do is amplify your line out to drive the OI LED

to your desired level.



Tom

 

In sci.physics jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
The last thing my farmer relatives want to do is waste their
time refueling when doing the field work.
No one ever promised that post peak would be a rose garden.

Maybe algae diesel will work out. That's plan A.

If it doesn't then we need a plan B.

Plan C is oxen.

Nope. Horses.

Nah, lpg or synthentic fuel (whatever the feed stock).


You are assuming that there will be manufacturing and bottling
plants. I wasn't. My relatives would use horses, as they
did before, not oxen. I don't remember anybody using oxen.
I wonder why horses were the default.

We already have lots of gas and the support structure to produce and
deliver it, it just doesn't run in a diesel engine and the MPG is lower
than gasoline.

Modifying a gasoline engine to run on gas is trivial and dual fuel
cars are common in parts of the world.

Synthetic fuel becomes real when either the stuff in the ground runs out
or the cost to produce becomes on a par with the stuff in the ground,
whichever happens first.

Horses are smarter than oxen, you can train them and they are more
versatile.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:31 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its
chargable component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes.
Sure sounds like a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.
Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.
The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is
heavier than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and
reprocessed.
That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a
big problem ?
Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is
12,500. That's 34:1.
Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.
The battery drives a very lightweight electric motor, at 95%
efficiency or so. The gasoline drives a heavy ICE (+drivetrain/exchaust etc), at 20%
efficieny or so (if you are lucky).
Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X - 4X more
efficient than a diesel.
Only if you ignore the efficiency of whatever makes electricity. We
cannot just pump electricity out of the ground, nor does it fall from
the sky in a readily collectable form. It has to be converted from
some other energy. Our best option, efficiency wise, is natural gas
fired, combined cycle plants with thermal efficiencies advertised at
60% (GE H1), so the electric motor is limited to 57%, not counting
transmission losses, and assuming a connection from the power station
to the vehicle without having to store it in a battery.

It also puts food production into a single point failure condition.

No big deal when the grid is so reliable now.

It is? You really do need to clean those rose-colored glasses.


No functional power grid, no food nor meat.

But the functional power grid always comes back quickly.

No, it doesn't. It requires people who know how to work for
that to happen. There are no new power plants being built
that doesn't depend on the swear a.k.a. carbon fuels.


It would be extremely stupid to transform to electric power.

Have fun explaining how come factorys manage that fine.

What factories? Have you ever met and _listened_ to a plant
manager?

Factories aren't usually concerned with factors like the crop is
ripe NOW and needs to be harvested, or there is a storm on the way
and the crop needs to be harvested NOW or it will be ruined.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Kasterborus" <kasterborus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5b96c98c-dbb4-479e-9821-ef3c2ebe9144@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

I was looking at the schematic again - do you think that the pin 6 on
the OI could be wired up to do the job?
It seems to provide an electrical input to trigger the switching .

Maybe breaking the connections on pin 1 , connecting this to pin 6.
Then breaking pin 2 and connecting this to GND.

Obviously at this point I would never want to wire it up to a speaker
again, but maybe the half rectified line level signal would be enough.

I'm great with theory, just no so good with number crunching.

You would lose the isolation if you did that.
R10 and RV1 determine LED current, experiment with the series resistance to
the LED and you can probably use the circuit as is.
You may try driving the LED directly without RV1 using R10. Careful not to
overdrive the LED.


Tom

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rod Speed wrote:

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.

Of course there are. Lots of them.

Name even just one. You cant.

The speed of light is an invariant.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The statement that light is invariant is certainly consistent with a
randomly generated process. The idea is certainly not derivable, so where
did the idea come from?

It is an independent axiom of physics that is not derivable from any
other law of physics.

Yes, but clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The shrodinger equation of quantum mechanics. It is an independent
axiom of physics that is not derivable from any other law of physics.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The Einstien Field equations. For eaxmple,
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html, setting the
Stress-Energy or Energy-Momentum Tensor equal to the contracted
Riemann tensor, was guesswork.It is an independent axiom of physics
that is not derivable from any other law of physics.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

Of course, there are some aspects of these physic laws that are
based and developed on prior ideas, but each one of the above has a
*unique* component,

So does any significant new idea.

that is quite impossible to derive from existing knowledge.

It is educated guess work.

Nope, no guess involved. They did in fact explain what was
unexplainable without them.
That is, *Selection* (non random) of a randomly generated component,

Nope, nothing like that at all on the components.

from which, these non-random selected, random variations are copied
on to generate more derivable information,

Nope, no random variations involved at all. Completely non random in
fact.
from which, new ideas may be randomly generated from etc.

Nope, no randomness present at all.

Its a Darwinian Algorithm.

Nope, nothing like it.

Unfortunately, you simple have not understood anything. Mere denial achieves
nothing for your viewpoint.

Everyone of the above are mathematical concepts that did not exist untill
invented. To quote Einstein:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.

You seem to confuse that fact that there is Darwinian Selection going on.
Most randomly generated ideas are filtered first. A bit like white noise
going through a filter, effectively producing an oscillator. This gives the
niave impression, that the new ideas that actually make it through the
filter, are designed by construction, or derivable, becuse you dont get to
see the bad ones.

You really need to think a lot deeper on where new ideas actualy come from.

Kevin Aylward
kevin@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
Jonathan Grobe wrote:
On 2008-08-11, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for
hours and hours under load. The straight line distance isn't
a factor.
That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.
Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.
The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed
the first row.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple
concept: Pre peak: Easy street.
Post peak: Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.
Without tractors most everyone will starve.

Human labor isn't an option. If it were, Africa wouldn't be
starving.
I believe the author's philosophy is that you operate the
tractor say for a half hour and then spend 5 minutes re-charging
the battery---and that the cost of the tractor operator's
labor spent re-charging batteries is less than the additional
cost you would use with the higher priced fuel (diesel vs
electricity).
The author has no farming experience. How is he going to recharge
those batteries? There isn't any power outlet in the middle of
1000 acres. Run power lines? Then a plow can't plow the soil and
a combine can't harvest. Going around things is not a nice thing
to have to do when farming fields.
All real world problems are trivial to the arm chair, hand waver
who has never done any real work nor paid the bill for their own
ideas.

I'd spent a year in this newsgroup when I decided that one solution
to the abject stupidity was to have all kids spend 2 years working
on a farm.

Thats what Cambodia and China tried. No thanks, comrade.

Farmers are experts in applied physics.

Thats what cambodia and china claimed, comrade.

You need a good dose of reality.

You need a bullet in the back of the neck, comrade.

 

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

You are wrong.

Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.

My sister has halved the feed for her animals because
of the small increase of bio-fuels' grain demand.

Stupidity is clearly inherited.

Do you want to eat or start your car every morning?

I'll do both thanks.