Discussion:
After the storm, hopefully
(too old to reply)
Charlie Gibbs
2023-02-02 18:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
greymaus
2023-02-02 18:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
I remain at my post
--
***@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
Peter Flass
2023-02-02 18:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
present
--
Pete
Kerr-Mudd, John
2023-02-02 18:39:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 18:10:46 GMT
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
Back up & running. (I hadn't noticed actually).
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-02 18:42:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 18:10:46 GMT
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
It didn't appear here, cleanfeed is good for something.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Mike Spencer
2023-02-02 20:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
You rang?
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
D.J.
2023-02-02 20:31:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 18:10:46 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
I didn't see it. Present.
--
Jim
Vir Campestris
2023-02-02 22:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 18:10:46 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
I didn't see it. Present.
<aol>
Post by D.J.
--
Jim
Jim, you have two spaces after your two dashes. It confued my TBird.
--
Andy
Dan Espen
2023-02-02 22:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by D.J.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 18:10:46 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
I didn't see it. Present.
<aol>
Post by D.J.
--
Jim
Jim, you have two spaces after your two dashes. It confued my TBird.
GNUS was fine with it.
--
Dan Espen
D.J.
2023-02-02 22:53:50 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 22:05:55 +0000, Vir Campestris
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by D.J.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 18:10:46 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
I didn't see it. Present.
<aol>
Post by D.J.
--
Jim
Jim, you have two spaces after your two dashes. It confued my TBird.
Now there is one. I thought two spaces was how it should be.
--
Jim
Vir Campestris
2023-02-06 11:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Vir Campestris
Jim, you have two spaces after your two dashes. It confued my TBird.
Now there is one. I thought two spaces was how it should be.
That's better. Thanks.
--
Andy
D.J.
2023-02-06 19:57:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 11:58:31 +0000, Vir Campestris
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by D.J.
Post by Vir Campestris
Jim, you have two spaces after your two dashes. It confued my TBird.
Now there is one. I thought two spaces was how it should be.
That's better. Thanks.
You're welcome.
--
Jim
Andreas Kohlbach
2023-02-02 20:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here?
Eastern Canada about to get it only. Temperatures plunge from -1 °C to
-29 °C within 12 hours, windchill -40 °C. Which is by chance also -40 F.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Some pinhead posted a huge binary to the group, which is a pretty
effective DOS attack.
NNTP Server here ignores those.
--
Andreas
Rockinghorse Winner
2023-02-03 01:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here?
Eastern Canada about to get it only. Temperatures plunge from -1 °C to
-29 °C within 12 hours, windchill -40 °C. Which is by chance also -40 F.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Some pinhead posted a huge binary to the group, which is a pretty
effective DOS attack.
NNTP Server here ignores those.
I wonder if groups can be dropped from servers for inactivity.
--
'Many have sought in vain to tell joyously of the Most Joyous. Now at last It declares
Itself to me, now in this misery.' - Holderlin
____
/. \
___________< |___________
\___________ ___________/
\___________ ___________/
\___________ ___________/
| |
^^^ ^^^
_________
| R W |
| (*) |
|____U____|
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-03 13:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rockinghorse Winner
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here?
Eastern Canada about to get it only. Temperatures plunge from -1 °C to
-29 °C within 12 hours, windchill -40 °C. Which is by chance also -40 F.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Some pinhead posted a huge binary to the group, which is a pretty
effective DOS attack.
NNTP Server here ignores those.
I wonder if groups can be dropped from servers for inactivity.
No. An inactive group costs nothing but a line in .newsrc.
Rockinghorse Winner
2023-02-03 18:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Rockinghorse Winner
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here?
Eastern Canada about to get it only. Temperatures plunge from -1 °C to
-29 °C within 12 hours, windchill -40 °C. Which is by chance also -40 F.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Some pinhead posted a huge binary to the group, which is a pretty
effective DOS attack.
NNTP Server here ignores those.
I wonder if groups can be dropped from servers for inactivity.
No. An inactive group costs nothing but a line in .newsrc.
Thanks for quick response.
--
'Many have sought in vain to tell joyously of the Most Joyous. Now at last It declares
Itself to me, now in this misery.' - Holderlin
____
/. \
___________< |___________
\___________ ___________/
\___________ ___________/
\___________ ___________/
| |
^^^ ^^^
_________
| R W |
| (*) |
|____U____|
johnson
2023-02-02 22:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
adsum
Joe Makowiec
2023-02-03 13:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
adsum
+1 for classical response
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
greymaus
2023-02-03 14:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Makowiec
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
adsum
+1 for classical response
To init a question, why were the `Micros' so much fun (say the Lorraine) and
the modern lapto[p so boring?.
--
***@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-03 15:28:35 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Feb 2023 14:58:53 GMT
Post by greymaus
To init a question, why were the `Micros' so much fun (say the Lorraine)
and the modern lapto[p so boring?.
The early micros were limited, very varied and more than a bit rough
around the edges and as such were only really suitable for people who were
excited about the idea of having a computer of their own to play with
instead of grubbing for time and privileges (at best) on a shared machine.
A lot of the fun came from learning about them in detail (because you had
to), exploring the capabilities and working round the limitations.

The modern laptop is a polished consumer product designed for the
most inattentive student to be able to use productively (if badly) with a
minimum of effort and knowledge. they're pretty much all the same, it's
either Windows or a Mac and that's it unless you're a geek. It's *designed*
to be boring and doesn't reward detailed exploration with anything more
than a severe headache and a deep sense of disgust.

In much the same way I expect the Model T Ford was a lot more fun
than the latest Mondeo but I know which I'd rather drive across the country
in.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
greymaus
2023-02-03 17:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 3 Feb 2023 14:58:53 GMT
Post by greymaus
To init a question, why were the `Micros' so much fun (say the Lorraine)
and the modern lapto[p so boring?.
The early micros were limited, very varied and more than a bit rough
around the edges and as such were only really suitable for people who were
excited about the idea of having a computer of their own to play with
instead of grubbing for time and privileges (at best) on a shared machine.
A lot of the fun came from learning about them in detail (because you had
to), exploring the capabilities and working round the limitations.
The modern laptop is a polished consumer product designed for the
most inattentive student to be able to use productively (if badly) with a
minimum of effort and knowledge. they're pretty much all the same, it's
either Windows or a Mac and that's it unless you're a geek. It's *designed*
to be boring and doesn't reward detailed exploration with anything more
than a severe headache and a deep sense of disgust.
In much the same way I expect the Model T Ford was a lot more fun
than the latest Mondeo but I know which I'd rather drive across the country
in.
Plus, I am sad to say, in my case I am 30 years older, and a lot of fun has
gone out of life anyway. Amazing, also, how reliable modern cars are, and how,
after years of pushing EV's, how little they have penetrated the market. The
first Toyota Landcruisers I saw resembled the old Model T, and in their way,
were finicky they were with adjustments (ever drive one of them along the roads
with the wrong settings on the hubs?).

Teachers have told me recently told me of how hard it is to teach pupils that
have smartphones.
--
***@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-03 17:41:34 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Feb 2023 17:16:29 GMT
Post by greymaus
Amazing, also, how reliable modern cars are, and how,
after years of pushing EV's, how little they have penetrated the market.
Not really - they're still expensive options mostly bought new.
They haven't really trickled down to the second hand market where most
people buy their cars. I've been looking at it for some time, currently the
only EVs that are good enough to completely replace my car are only
available new or very nearly so, many of the cars on the road (including
mine) are over ten years old so expect it to be a decade before decent EVs
are available to most - and that's assuming a lot get sold new this year.

Also pushing ??? Walk into any car salesroom and start talking
about their EVs and see how quickly they show you the diesels.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
greymaus
2023-02-03 18:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 3 Feb 2023 17:16:29 GMT
Post by greymaus
Amazing, also, how reliable modern cars are, and how,
after years of pushing EV's, how little they have penetrated the market.
Not really - they're still expensive options mostly bought new.
They haven't really trickled down to the second hand market where most
people buy their cars. I've been looking at it for some time, currently the
only EVs that are good enough to completely replace my car are only
available new or very nearly so, many of the cars on the road (including
mine) are over ten years old so expect it to be a decade before decent EVs
are available to most - and that's assuming a lot get sold new this year.
Also pushing ??? Walk into any car salesroom and start talking
about their EVs and see how quickly they show you the diesels.
being a firm proponent of person to person contacts in affairs of that sort,
and most of the people I knew in the car business are retired as well, I have
lost interest. There are honest car dealers, but hard to find. I used to visit
an elderly relative in a care home (vernichtung stalag), and another old guy
would call by to give out about EV's. Serious costs for replacing a battery.

As long as they are making thinkpads.
--
***@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-03 18:34:34 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Feb 2023 18:09:16 GMT
Post by greymaus
would call by to give out about EV's. Serious costs for replacing a battery.
Nobody in their right minds attempts that, an EV is essentially a
big battery in a mobile case.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Andy Burns
2023-02-04 15:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Amazing [...] after years of pushing EV's, how little they have
penetrated the market.
Not really - they're still expensive options mostly bought new.
They haven't really trickled down to the second hand market where most
people buy their cars. I've been looking at it for some time, currently the
only EVs that are good enough to completely replace my car are only
available new or very nearly so
If I was running more than one car, I'd be more likely to consider an EV
as one of them, but I'm not ...
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-03 18:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by greymaus
Plus, I am sad to say, in my case I am 30 years older, and a lot of fun has
gone out of life anyway. Amazing, also, how reliable modern cars are, and how,
after years of pushing EV's, how little they have penetrated the market
They currently have 18% of the market in california. That's not chump change.
Carlos E.R.
2023-02-03 19:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by greymaus
Plus, I am sad to say, in my case I am 30 years older, and a lot of fun has
gone out of life anyway. Amazing, also, how reliable modern cars are, and how,
after years of pushing EV's, how little they have penetrated the market
They currently have 18% of the market in california. That's not chump change.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Vir Campestris
2023-02-06 12:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.

Andy
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-06 13:20:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
we need one or more of:

* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-06 15:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
Back of the envelope calculation indicates a
requirement for about 30,000 1Gw nuclear power
plants to completely supply the annual 20TW
world-wide electricity consumption.

(which will be 30TW by the time the plants could be built
at the current rate of 2.5% annual energy growth).

There's not enough known obtainable reserves (by several orders of
magnitude) of fissionables to support that many active
reactors, whether based on Uranium or Thorium fuels.

Yes, there is a lot of U235 in the ocean. No, it's not
economically possible to recover it in sufficient quantities
to support 30,000 active reactors.
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
Storage in many forms, molten salts, hydro storage, batteries.

Efficiency improvements across the board (particularly in the
heating and air conditioning fields) are key. More mass
transit, long-distance trains instead of jet aircraft,
etc. et alia.

All of of which require energy themselves to create and implement, energy
that can't be used for the current purposes.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
I shouldn't like to bet my life on it, but it seems that
people[*] still aren't taking any of this seriously.

[*] Mainly those in the sorry-ass GOP.
Charlie Gibbs
2023-02-06 18:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
So does British Columbia. Unfortunately, a lot of our projected
output is earmarked for producing LNG for export, while the rest
is being sold to California (with bitcoin factories sucking up
the remainder).
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
I shouldn't like to bet my life on it, but it seems that
people[*] still aren't taking any of this seriously.
[*] Mainly those in the sorry-ass GOP.
A recent survey said that of all the provinces in Canada,
B.C. had the highest percentage (14%) of people whose
retirement planning included winning the lottery.

That's the kind of planning we're dealing with.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Dave Yeo
2023-02-08 03:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
A recent survey said that of all the provinces in Canada,
B.C. had the highest percentage (14%) of people whose
retirement planning included winning the lottery.
That's the kind of planning we're dealing with.
It seems close to impossible to save the required C$1.7 million required
to retire according to today's news, which also mentioned that something
like 70% of earnings (in Victoria) goes to the mortgage.
What BC should have started investing in many years back is wind and
solar, perfect compliment to hydro.
Meanwhile the previous government never bothered to put in the power
lines to Prince Rupert area to support the natural gas industry, so
they're going to use gas to power the compressors.
Dave
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-06 17:10:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 15:07:05 GMT
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
Storage in many forms, molten salts, hydro storage, batteries.
For sure there's nowhere near enough lithium to depend on that and
everything we can think of may well not be enough. We're pretty much maxed
out on hydro storage anyway, there are only so many good sites but there
are some oddball ideas around in that area.

Molten salts is an interesting one, especially when heat is what is
wanted and is available - generating electricity is far from efficient no
matter how you do it. I worry a bit about the above ground designs though -
the first time one of those leaks it will be NIMBY for ever unless the leak
containment is really good.

The only current battery design for which there is definitely no
shortage of materials for is the iron-iron redox (iron and salt water are in
plentiful supply) design for which someone (ICBA to look them up again) has
a long life electrode in production. IIRC it runs about 50Wh per litre so
useless for portable applications but good enough for long term grid
storage.

To use renewables alone we need storage for about a week, say
around 5000 terawatt hours.

To use iron-iron redox alone I make that around 100,000 billion
litres or perhaps better 100 million tanks of a million litres (swimming
pool size) - plus of course 30 terawatts of electrodes. This is at least
possible (I doubt we could even measure the impact on the ocean level
harvesting that much chloride to make ferric/ous chloride solution) but we
could certainly do with better options.

No matter how we do it getting off fossil fuels will be a huge
undertaking unless we go the population reduction route which is the
inevitable consequence of not doing better.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-06 20:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 15:07:05 GMT
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
Storage in many forms, molten salts, hydro storage, batteries.
For sure there's nowhere near enough lithium to depend on that and
everything we can think of may well not be enough.
There is some work on sulfer-flow batteries that looks promising.

https://www.altenergymag.com/article/2018/09/are-sulfur-flow-batteries-the-answer/29441
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
We're pretty much maxed
out on hydro storage anyway, there are only so many good sites but there
are some oddball ideas around in that area.
Some of the existing seasonal storage hydro reservoirs could be
used daily for power production (pump in at night and release
during the day). I'm thinking of San Luis, for example, which
currently stores in during the winter and releases during the
summer. I suspect there would be enough storage in the forebay
to support daily release/nightly pumping if they had a surplus
of wind energy for example. There are a number of (rather old)
windmills in the immediate vicinity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Luis_Reservoir

LA wants to do something similar at Lake Mead/Hoover dam, see
the article above.
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Molten salts is an interesting one, especially when heat is what is
wanted and is available - generating electricity is far from efficient no
matter how you do it. I worry a bit about the above ground designs though -
the first time one of those leaks it will be NIMBY for ever unless the leak
containment is really good.
There are some in operation.

https://www.aalborgcsp.com/business-areas/csp-power-plant-technologies/solar-tower-receiver-molten-salt
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The only current battery design for which there is definitely no
shortage of materials for is the iron-iron redox (iron and salt water are in
plentiful supply) design for which someone (ICBA to look them up again) has
a long life electrode in production. IIRC it runs about 50Wh per litre so
useless for portable applications but good enough for long term grid
storage.
To use renewables alone we need storage for about a week, say
around 5000 terawatt hours.
To use iron-iron redox alone I make that around 100,000 billion
litres or perhaps better 100 million tanks of a million litres (swimming
pool size) - plus of course 30 terawatts of electrodes. This is at least
possible (I doubt we could even measure the impact on the ocean level
harvesting that much chloride to make ferric/ous chloride solution) but we
could certainly do with better options.
To many people out there don't bother to do the math. Those that
do get rather depressed by the results :-(.
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
No matter how we do it getting off fossil fuels will be a huge
undertaking unless we go the population reduction route which is the
inevitable consequence of not doing better.
It's probably inevitable anyway, the earth is well beyond its
steady-state carrying capacity.

Until our economic systems no longer require growth to be healthy,
we're basically screwed in the long run.
Carlos E.R.
2023-02-06 21:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 15:07:05 GMT
...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
No matter how we do it getting off fossil fuels will be a huge
undertaking unless we go the population reduction route which is the
inevitable consequence of not doing better.
It's probably inevitable anyway, the earth is well beyond its
steady-state carrying capacity.
Until our economic systems no longer require growth to be healthy,
we're basically screwed in the long run.
Indeed.

Even China now wants to increase their population, because it is decreasing.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-07 07:08:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 20:55:28 GMT
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
To use renewables alone we need storage for about a week, say
around 5000 terawatt hours.
To use iron-iron redox alone I make that around 100,000 billion
litres or perhaps better 100 million tanks of a million litres (swimming
pool size) - plus of course 30 terawatts of electrodes. This is at least
possible (I doubt we could even measure the impact on the ocean level
harvesting that much chloride to make ferric/ous chloride solution) but
we could certainly do with better options.
To many people out there don't bother to do the math. Those that
do get rather depressed by the results :-(.
Actually I was rather encouraged by those ones - all too often the
results are clearly completely impossible to achieve. These were the first
ones I've done that actually come out with something possible and probably
even feasible.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
D.J.
2023-02-06 20:00:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
--
Jim
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-06 20:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Charlie Gibbs
2023-02-07 02:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Not to politicians looking to kick the problem downstream
a few decades for the next generation to worry about.
Or to CEOs wringing the last few bucks out of fossil fuels
while they pack their golden parachutes.

What a way to treat your kids.

I love the way the movie _Don't Look Up_ portrayed the issue.
It was spot on.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
greymaus
2023-02-07 09:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Not to politicians looking to kick the problem downstream
a few decades for the next generation to worry about.
Or to CEOs wringing the last few bucks out of fossil fuels
while they pack their golden parachutes.
What a way to treat your kids.
I love the way the movie _Don't Look Up_ portrayed the issue.
It was spot on.
Just got it down.

IMHO, the problem at the moment, is that several things have been tried
to solve the problems, and several have fairly proved that they will not
solve it.

EV's? They need to have energy supplied, the same as fossil fueled cars
do. Nobody considered that.

Solar Power only works when the sun shines.

Bugs as food?. Most people in Western Society will not eat them.

When I was young, we had no electricity, no running water, no central
heating, no mobile phones, or land line phones at all, (telegraph five
miles away) and we survived. No trucks delivering heating oil first thing
in the mornings. Until we take the basic step back to that, which most
do not want, we will get nowhere until oil runs out.

Million's of nuclear power stations?. Don't make me laugh.

Power stations in Space.? Again, laughing hurts. They are selling solar
panels around here, promising 25years before replacing, in my knowledge,
most have to be replaced after 15.

Again, when I was young, most food was produced within less than 10
miles of where is was consumed, what was left over was used to fertilize gardens.
--
***@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-07 10:30:48 UTC
Permalink
On 7 Feb 2023 09:54:21 GMT
Post by greymaus
When I was young, we had no electricity, no running water, no central
heating, no mobile phones, or land line phones at all, (telegraph five
miles away) and we survived.
There are nearly three times as many people in the world now. A
surprisingly large proportion of whom have all of these things - progress
is wonderful.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Andy Leighton
2023-02-07 11:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by greymaus
Solar Power only works when the sun shines.
Well conventional PV certainly.

I think there has been some work in harvesting the differential
in temperature between the panel and ambient air to continue
generating power. Although I am not sure that will work everywhere.

CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) as the input to a thermal energy
storage solution (either salt or sand) can provide electricity
overnight (and indeed over a long winter in Finland).
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-07 11:59:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 11:13:25 +0000
Post by Andy Leighton
Post by greymaus
Solar Power only works when the sun shines.
Well conventional PV certainly.
I think there has been some work in harvesting the differential
in temperature between the panel and ambient air to continue
generating power. Although I am not sure that will work everywhere.
Probably not for long, there can't be much energy stored in the
thermal mass of the panel.
Post by Andy Leighton
CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) as the input to a thermal energy
The problem with CSP is that it needs a clear sky, diffuse sunlight
gets nowhere.
Post by Andy Leighton
storage solution (either salt or sand) can provide electricity
overnight (and indeed over a long winter in Finland).
Batteries also work - modern roadworks lights come with batteries
and a solar panel instead of a diesel generator.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Bob Martin
2023-02-08 07:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by greymaus
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Not to politicians looking to kick the problem downstream
a few decades for the next generation to worry about.
Or to CEOs wringing the last few bucks out of fossil fuels
while they pack their golden parachutes.
What a way to treat your kids.
I love the way the movie _Don't Look Up_ portrayed the issue.
It was spot on.
Just got it down.
IMHO, the problem at the moment, is that several things have been tried
to solve the problems, and several have fairly proved that they will not
solve it.
EV's? They need to have energy supplied, the same as fossil fueled cars
do. Nobody considered that.
Really? How can you say that?
Post by greymaus
Solar Power only works when the sun shines.
Bugs as food?. Most people in Western Society will not eat them.
When I was young, we had no electricity, no running water, no central
heating, no mobile phones, or land line phones at all, (telegraph five
miles away) and we survived. No trucks delivering heating oil first thing
in the mornings. Until we take the basic step back to that, which most
do not want, we will get nowhere until oil runs out.
Million's of nuclear power stations?. Don't make me laugh.
Power stations in Space.? Again, laughing hurts. They are selling solar
panels around here, promising 25years before replacing, in my knowledge,
most have to be replaced after 15.
Again, when I was young, most food was produced within less than 10
miles of where is was consumed, what was left over was used to fertilize gardens.
--
where is our money gone, Dude?
.
D.J.
2023-02-07 16:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
--
Jim
greymaus
2023-02-07 17:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
nd a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis solved that
problem some years ago?

Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
the henhous is shorter.

One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).
--
***@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
Charlie Gibbs
2023-02-07 19:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
At which time they're seen as obvious.

The three stages of an idea:
1. It won't work.
2. It's impractical.
3. I knew it was a good idea all along.
And a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis
solved that problem some years ago?
:-) At least he went through with it rather than selling out the planet.
Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
the henhous is shorter.
I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
to be made fun of."
One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).
That's an inevitable result of the interaction between con artists
and suckers.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
D.J.
2023-02-07 20:21:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
At which time they're seen as obvious.
1. It won't work.
2. It's impractical.
3. I knew it was a good idea all along.
And a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis
solved that problem some years ago?
:-) At least he went through with it rather than selling out the planet.
Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
the henhous is shorter.
I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
to be made fun of."
There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
again.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).
That's an inevitable result of the interaction between con artists
and suckers.
Yup, those con artistats who pretend a planet wide pandemic isn't
happening.
--
Jim
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-07 21:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
to be made fun of."
There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
again.
If you haven't watched _Don't Look Up_, you should. It is only
superficially about and "asteroid", actually it is an allegorical tale.
D.J.
2023-02-07 21:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
to be made fun of."
There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
again.
If you haven't watched _Don't Look Up_, you should. It is only
superficially about and "asteroid", actually it is an allegorical tale.
No longer showing in my area, but I do realize it is about people who
pretends facts aren't.
--
Jim
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-07 22:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
to be made fun of."
There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
again.
If you haven't watched _Don't Look Up_, you should. It is only
superficially about and "asteroid", actually it is an allegorical tale.
No longer showing in my area, but I do realize it is about people who
pretends facts aren't.
I don't believe it was ever in theaters, or if it was, it was very
limited release. It is a Netflix production and is still available
thereupon.
greymaus
2023-02-07 21:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
At which time they're seen as obvious.
1. It won't work.
2. It's impractical.
3. I knew it was a good idea all along.
And a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis
solved that problem some years ago?
:-) At least he went through with it rather than selling out the planet.
Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
the henhous is shorter.
I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
to be made fun of."
There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
again.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).
That's an inevitable result of the interaction between con artists
and suckers.
Yup, those con artistats who pretend a planet wide pandemic isn't
happening.
Millions have died, choking in their own blood, massives amount of
healthcare uniforms were a part of the con, Hospitals jammed with panicking
victims who choked and died in the corridors.. NOT.

I read a repert about the real 1918 flu. One week, in a local graveyard,
they were so behind in burials that all available roofed-in areas were filled
unburied coffins. By the end of the next week, it was over. I remember a
vairly severe flu about 1756 or so. Dw Pombal, the person in charge of Lisbon
after the earthquake, persisted in cremating bodies after that earthquake,
in spite of the church telling him he would be sent to Hell.

He avoided an epidemic.
--
***@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
D.J.
2023-02-07 22:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by greymaus
Post by D.J.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:45:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
At which time they're seen as obvious.
1. It won't work.
2. It's impractical.
3. I knew it was a good idea all along.
And a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis
solved that problem some years ago?
:-) At least he went through with it rather than selling out the planet.
Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
the henhous is shorter.
I saw it as more of an allegory, rather than something that would literally
come true. It certainly gave opportunities to poke fun at a lot of things
which, to quote Robin Williams in _Good Morning Vietnam_, are "screaming out
to be made fun of."
There are more than sufficiant numbers of asteroid made holes in our
planet to prove they 1) do happen, and there are enough large mountain
size and larger rocks out there, to prove it can happen again and
again.
Post by Charlie Gibbs
One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).
That's an inevitable result of the interaction between con artists
and suckers.
Yup, those con artistats who pretend a planet wide pandemic isn't
happening.
Millions have died, choking in their own blood, massives amount of
healthcare uniforms were a part of the con, Hospitals jammed with panicking
victims who choked and died in the corridors.. NOT.
Covid isn't a con. It killed millions of people who refused to get
vaccinated after they watched some fool on youtube claim they didn't
need the vaccination.
Post by greymaus
I read a repert about the real 1918 flu. One week, in a local graveyard,
they were so behind in burials that all available roofed-in areas were filled
unburied coffins. By the end of the next week, it was over. I remember a
vairly severe flu about 1756 or so. Dw Pombal, the person in charge of Lisbon
after the earthquake, persisted in cremating bodies after that earthquake,
in spite of the church telling him he would be sent to Hell.
He avoided an epidemic.
People who didn't wear masks in the US during the 1918 flu pandemic,
were arrested and jailed. Same thing should have happened to the
people who even refused, I hear them first hand, to wash their hands.
--
Jim
D.J.
2023-02-07 20:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by greymaus
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
nd a hell of a lot fail after they cost a _lot_ of money.
I looked at that film, "Don't look up". I thought that bruce Willis solved that
problem some years ago?
There is more than one asteroid in our solar system.
Post by greymaus
Some Federal outfit discovers something that they think will kill everyone on
Earth, unless gazillions of dollars are spent to stop it?. Give me a break!.
The chicken little story of the sky falling unless they all run into
the henhous is shorter.
One bad thing about the Covid scam is that it makes young people think that
all health efforts are scams too. I see more young people smoking (bad idea)
and many children have not been given genuine vaccines (another bad idea).
Millions of peple have died to not getting the vaccine. No scam aobut
it.
--
Jim
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-07 17:14:31 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 10:04:23 -0600
Post by D.J.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
This is true, however this does not help determine *which*
conceivable 'scientific breakthroughs' are actually possible and which are
just wishful thinking.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
D.J.
2023-02-07 20:18:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 17:14:31 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 10:04:23 -0600
Post by D.J.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
This is true, however this does not help determine *which*
conceivable 'scientific breakthroughs' are actually possible and which are
just wishful thinking.
I realize that, I have a science education.

But things many millions of people use everyday, were thought to be
impossible before 1955.
--
Jim
Peter Flass
2023-02-08 01:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 17:14:31 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 10:04:23 -0600
Post by D.J.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
This is true, however this does not help determine *which*
conceivable 'scientific breakthroughs' are actually possible and which are
just wishful thinking.
I realize that, I have a science education.
But things many millions of people use everyday, were thought to be
impossible before 1955.
The transistor was the breakthrough. Everything since has just been
refinement.
--
Pete
Dan Espen
2023-02-07 19:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.

Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
--
Dan Espen
D.J.
2023-02-07 20:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
Nothing rediculous about it.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made. Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong. My
mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.

I didn't even have to do a web search.
--
Jim
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-07 21:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
Nothing rediculous about it.
Perhaps not rediculous, but certainly ridiculous.
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made.
No, they weren't "thought to be impossible", just an extension of
existing portable radio technology.
Post by D.J.
Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong. My
mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
Even when such statements were made, they were made by small
numbers of ignorant individuals. They were never universally
accepted "truths".

None if this has any bearing on the fictional technology behind
Heinlein's Shipstones.
greymaus
2023-02-07 21:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made.
Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.

Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
Post by D.J.
suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong.
t That was trains. It had an effect here, as when one of first
car races was planned, the rule in England that a man with a flag
precede each car was in operation, so the Gordon Bennett race
had to take place here.
Space flight to the moon. Was in one of J.Vernes books, giant
gun fires a shell with people in it to the moon, and somehow,
it still has enough jizz to return to earth. Verne was usually
plauible, but the g-forces to send a shell to the moon would
kill everyone inside.

Enclopedia salesmen were a pest in the late 40's. People bought
tem, put them on shelves, and never consulted them.
Post by D.J.
I didn't even have to do a web search.
A tip about web searches. Ignore the first pages of results.
--
***@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
D.J.
2023-02-07 22:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by greymaus
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made.
Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.
My grandfather and i watched a news program in the early 1950s. The
point was a scientist or two would be asked questions about technology
portrayed in newspapers.

Dick Tracey comic in the newspaper showed wrist communicators. The
scientists said it was fiction and they wetre impossible.

Turns out they aren't impossible.
Post by greymaus
Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
Post by D.J.
suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong.
t That was trains. It had an effect here, as when one of first
car races was planned, the rule in England that a man with a flag
precede each car was in operation, so the Gordon Bennett race
had to take place here.
Shiloh Military Park still had such a law on the book in the 1970s.
Some people refused to leave the park, it closed at sunset, so the
Park rangers gave them a ticket for not obeying one of the laws there.
A flag bearer must proceed all motor vehicles across the one lane
bridge in the possible case that a horse and buggy is coming the other
way.
Post by greymaus
Space flight to the moon. Was in one of J.Vernes books, giant
gun fires a shell with people in it to the moon, and somehow,
it still has enough jizz to return to earth. Verne was usually
plauible, but the g-forces to send a shell to the moon would
kill everyone inside.
It was considered fictional until the Apollo astronauts went.
Scientists were claiming it wasn't possible in the 1950s. Then the
Soviets put Gagarin up, then everyone started complaining about why
didn't the US have astronauts up in orbit ?
Post by greymaus
Enclopedia salesmen were a pest in the late 40's. People bought
tem, put them on shelves, and never consulted them.
Articles in them are typically out of date.
Post by greymaus
Post by D.J.
I didn't even have to do a web search.
A tip about web searches. Ignore the first pages of results.
It varies.
--
Jim
Peter Flass
2023-02-08 01:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by greymaus
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made.
Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.
My grandfather and i watched a news program in the early 1950s. The
point was a scientist or two would be asked questions about technology
portrayed in newspapers.
Dick Tracey comic in the newspaper showed wrist communicators. The
scientists said it was fiction and they wetre impossible.
Turns out they aren't impossible.
Post by greymaus
Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
Post by D.J.
suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong.
t That was trains. It had an effect here, as when one of first
car races was planned, the rule in England that a man with a flag
precede each car was in operation, so the Gordon Bennett race
had to take place here.
Shiloh Military Park still had such a law on the book in the 1970s.
Some people refused to leave the park, it closed at sunset, so the
Park rangers gave them a ticket for not obeying one of the laws there.
A flag bearer must proceed all motor vehicles across the one lane
bridge in the possible case that a horse and buggy is coming the other
way.
Post by greymaus
Space flight to the moon. Was in one of J.Vernes books, giant
gun fires a shell with people in it to the moon, and somehow,
it still has enough jizz to return to earth. Verne was usually
plauible, but the g-forces to send a shell to the moon would
kill everyone inside.
It was considered fictional until the Apollo astronauts went.
Scientists were claiming it wasn't possible in the 1950s. Then the
Soviets put Gagarin up, then everyone started complaining about why
didn't the US have astronauts up in orbit ?
Post by greymaus
Enclopedia salesmen were a pest in the late 40's. People bought
tem, put them on shelves, and never consulted them.
Articles in them are typically out of date.
Post by greymaus
Post by D.J.
I didn't even have to do a web search.
A tip about web searches. Ignore the first pages of results.
It varies.
Cell phones, etc. were impossible until electronics got small enough to put
the required intelligence into them.
--
Pete
Carlos E.R.
2023-02-08 11:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by greymaus
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made.
Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.
My grandfather and i watched a news program in the early 1950s. The
point was a scientist or two would be asked questions about technology
portrayed in newspapers.
Dick Tracey comic in the newspaper showed wrist communicators. The
scientists said it was fiction and they wetre impossible.
Turns out they aren't impossible.
They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it was
just a matter of time.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
D.J.
2023-02-08 18:37:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:19:21 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by D.J.
Post by greymaus
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made.
Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.
My grandfather and i watched a news program in the early 1950s. The
point was a scientist or two would be asked questions about technology
portrayed in newspapers.
Dick Tracey comic in the newspaper showed wrist communicators. The
scientists said it was fiction and they wetre impossible.
Turns out they aren't impossible.
They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it was
just a matter of time.
Then they should have said so, and not let someone else pretend
otherwise.
--
Jim
Carlos E.R.
2023-02-08 19:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:19:21 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by D.J.
Post by greymaus
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made.
Interesting point there. A sort of mobile phone was in use even before WWII,
I knew a man who worked at the problem of using mobile phone in cars
for a police force in another country. The delay in picking up the
next station by contact made them impractical until fairly recently,
which is why they were not usable in Airplanes at the time.
My grandfather and i watched a news program in the early 1950s. The
point was a scientist or two would be asked questions about technology
portrayed in newspapers.
Dick Tracey comic in the newspaper showed wrist communicators. The
scientists said it was fiction and they wetre impossible.
Turns out they aren't impossible.
They were impossible at the time of the asking. Engineers knew it was
just a matter of time.
Then they should have said so, and not let someone else pretend
otherwise.
The newsboys asked the wrong people.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Carlos E.R.
2023-02-08 10:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
Nothing rediculous about it.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made.
No, they weren't.

They just knew they couldn't do them with the current technology of the
time. Not that they were impossible, as impossible for ever.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Vir Campestris
2023-02-08 15:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made. Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong. My
mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
I didn't even have to do a web search.
There's a difference with some of these things.

There is no physical law that says you can't make a radio that fits on
your wrist. The problem is the battery - if you want a 10W transmitter
so you can communicate over reasonable distances it's going to burn
power. The solution is to turn down the transmitter power, and have lots
of base stations so you don't need 10W any more.

By the time cars were invented (Benz, 1886) trains were way faster than
25MPH. In fact Rocket had got to 30 in 1829, and after all that's only
the speed of a good horse.

Rockets have been understood since Isaac Newton.

But batteries? We know the rules of chemistry. There's a limit of how
much energy you can get out of a chemical reaction, and we know what it
is. That's why Lithium is so popular - the reactions are high energy.

Fusion? We know it's possible. Just look up... but making it work is
extremely difficult. It'll probably never be cheap. But it will also
probably never run out.

Right now the only power source that won't wreck the climate, doesn't
rely on fuel that will run out in decades, and is even vaguely reliable
is fission. Sure, it's dirty, but it's all we've got.

Andy
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-08 16:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by D.J.
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made. Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong. My
mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
I didn't even have to do a web search.
There's a difference with some of these things.
There is no physical law that says you can't make a radio that fits on
your wrist. The problem is the battery - if you want a 10W transmitter
so you can communicate over reasonable distances it's going to burn
power. The solution is to turn down the transmitter power, and have lots
of base stations so you don't need 10W any more.
By the time cars were invented (Benz, 1886) trains were way faster than
25MPH. In fact Rocket had got to 30 in 1829, and after all that's only
the speed of a good horse.
Rockets have been understood since Isaac Newton.
But batteries? We know the rules of chemistry. There's a limit of how
much energy you can get out of a chemical reaction, and we know what it
is. That's why Lithium is so popular - the reactions are high energy.
Fusion? We know it's possible. Just look up... but making it work is
extremely difficult. It'll probably never be cheap. But it will also
probably never run out.
Right now the only power source that won't wreck the climate, doesn't
rely on fuel that will run out in decades, and is even vaguely reliable
is fission. Sure, it's dirty, but it's all we've got.
If you look a bit deeper into the fuel issue, you'll find that
"run out in decades" applies to the current fleet of 439 reactors.

To expand that to a fleet (30,000) large enough to replace fossil fuel
energy sources requires far more fuel that can be obtained
with a EROI of greater than unity. Granted other renewables will
offset some of that demand, reducing the needed fleet size, yet
the baseload fleet size requirement will be large.
Dan Espen
2023-02-08 16:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
Nothing rediculous about it.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made.
Really? Ever hear of Dick Tracy?
Post by D.J.
Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong.
I'm sure the first guy to drive 25 was just terrified. I'm sure you
have a first hand recount of this story.
Post by D.J.
My
mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
Wow. An anecdote that proves you are wrong using your own mother.
It appears your mom's encyclopedia didn't think it was impossible.
I have to doubt that anything called an encyclopedia would posit train
tracks in the air. However if it predicted we would get to the moon
I guess it didn't think it was impossible.
Post by D.J.
I didn't even have to do a web search.
It would help if you would engage your brain first.
Give us a list of inventions and the books and articles that declared the
inventions were impossible before they were invented. Then work the
numbers to prove this happens "most" of the time.

The assertion is ridiculous. You can't think something is impossible
when you don't even now what it is.
--
Dan Espen
D.J.
2023-02-08 18:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
Nothing rediculous about it.
Post by Dan Espen
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Cell phones were thought to be impossible, until they were invented
and made.
Really? Ever hear of Dick Tracy?
I mentioned that cartoon strip earlier. The scientist said it was
fiction and would never happen.
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
Cars shouldn't go over 25 miles per hour as the wind would
suck the air out of your lungs and you would die, proven wrong.
I'm sure the first guy to drive 25 was just terrified. I'm sure you
have a first hand recount of this story.
Post by D.J.
My
mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
Wow. An anecdote that proves you are wrong using your own mother.
It appears your mom's encyclopedia didn't think it was impossible.
I have to doubt that anything called an encyclopedia would posit train
tracks in the air. However if it predicted we would get to the moon
I guess it didn't think it was impossible.
They did say it was impossible. I told my mother that the encyclopedia
article made no sense. Trains were going faster than 60 mph, and they
wouldn't be used anyway.
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
I didn't even have to do a web search.
It would help if you would engage your brain first.
I did. I'm pointing out others in here have not done so.
Post by Dan Espen
Give us a list of inventions and the books and articles that declared the
inventions were impossible before they were invented. Then work the
numbers to prove this happens "most" of the time.
The assertion is ridiculous. You can't think something is impossible
when you don't even now what it is.
Gee, so you never read Dick Tracy ?
--
Jim
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-08 18:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
My
mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
Wow. An anecdote that proves you are wrong using your own mother.
It appears your mom's encyclopedia didn't think it was impossible.
I have to doubt that anything called an encyclopedia would posit train
tracks in the air. However if it predicted we would get to the moon
I guess it didn't think it was impossible.
They did say it was impossible.
Even it it did, that doesn't imply that it was generally accepted
to be "impossible", just infeasible with current technology. Otherwise
Goddard and Braun et alia wouldn't have even tried.

All of your examples are a far cry from expecting some magical
physics-defying power source (ZPE, Shipstones) to solve the current
energy and climate problems.
Carlos E.R.
2023-02-08 19:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
My
mother had an encyclopedia when she was a kid, it claimed it would
nver be possible to go to the moon. Why ? Because they used 60 miles
per hour steam locomotives as the means to get there. We;ve been to
Earth's moon, locomotives weren't used for the flight.
Wow. An anecdote that proves you are wrong using your own mother.
It appears your mom's encyclopedia didn't think it was impossible.
I have to doubt that anything called an encyclopedia would posit train
tracks in the air. However if it predicted we would get to the moon
I guess it didn't think it was impossible.
They did say it was impossible.
Even it it did, that doesn't imply that it was generally accepted
to be "impossible", just infeasible with current technology. Otherwise
Goddard and Braun et alia wouldn't have even tried.
Right.

A scientist can only say something is impossible when it defies "laws",
principles.

Otherwise it means "we can not yet do it" or "we don't know if it is
possible to do it" or "no idea how to do it". Which leaves ground for
investigation and discovery.

But for example they can say "the water motor is impossible".
Post by Scott Lurndal
All of your examples are a far cry from expecting some magical
physics-defying power source (ZPE, Shipstones) to solve the current
energy and climate problems.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Peter Flass
2023-02-08 01:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
That’s why it’s a “breakthrough” instead of a simple matter of engineering.
Most, however, don’t seem to come about as a result of huge government
programs, but from one “mad scientist” in a lab. Government gave us the
Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program - both worthy, but neither was
breakthrough science
--
Pete
Joe Pfeiffer
2023-02-08 03:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Rather than ridiculous, I'd be inclined to regard this as almost
tautological. It's almost the very definition of a scientific
breakthrough.

There are exceptions, like everybody knows P != NP and when somebody
either proves it's true or proves it can't be proved we'll all say "at
last!", but not many.
Dan Espen
2023-02-08 16:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Pfeiffer
Post by Dan Espen
Post by D.J.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
I'm sure you have a study to support this ridiculous assertion.
Oh well, a couple of idiots seem to agree with you, you must be right...
Rather than ridiculous, I'd be inclined to regard this as almost
tautological. It's almost the very definition of a scientific
breakthrough.
Tautological if you define impossible as "not known about yet".

I don't know about you, but I rarely think about things I don't know about.
--
Dan Espen
Stefan Ram
2023-02-08 16:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
I don't know about you, but I rarely think about things I don't know about.
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we
know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-08 17:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Dan Espen
I don't know about you, but I rarely think about things I don't know about.
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we
know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know
You're quoting one of the individuals responsible for the war in Vietnam,
probably not the most reliable source for wisdom.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-08 18:29:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 17:15:55 GMT
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Dan Espen
I don't know about you, but I rarely think about things I don't know about.
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we
know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know
You're quoting one of the individuals responsible for the war in Vietnam,
probably not the most reliable source for wisdom.
However in this he was completely correct, however he missed the
real problem with knowns and unknowns to-wit:

"It ain't what we don't know that's the trouble, it's what we know
that ain't so".
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Niklas Karlsson
2023-02-08 18:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Dan Espen
I don't know about you, but I rarely think about things I don't know about.
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we
know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know
You're quoting one of the individuals responsible for the war in Vietnam,
probably not the most reliable source for wisdom.
Even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while.

Niklas
--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], `Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.--Charles Babbage
Dan Espen
2023-02-08 18:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Dan Espen
I don't know about you, but I rarely think about things I don't know about.
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we
know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know
Good one.

No, great one!
--
Dan Espen
Peter Flass
2023-02-08 01:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D.J.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:20:47 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:31 +0000
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Carlos E.R.
In Norway it is 80%. It is cold up there, by the way.
Norway has loads of hydro electric power. Up there they really are
They have great geography for it.
Post by Vir Campestris
cutting carbon, unlike a lot of the world where the batteries are
charged by fossil fuels.
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Or something like Shipstones, mentioned in various books by RAH.
Waiting for "something like Shipstones" would be pretty foolish.
Most 'scientific breakthroughs' are seen as impossible, until they
happen.
ZPE
--
Pete
Dave Yeo
2023-02-08 03:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Wind does a lot of it these days too, but to stop using fossil fuels
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
* A lot of nuclear power plants
- NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY ad so infinitum.
* An enormous amount of energy storage (flow batteries perhaps)
- Appears to be in progress *slowly* (which is unsurprising).
* Something new
- We might get lucky.
Lots more transmission capability would help too.
Dave
Dan Espen
2023-02-08 16:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
* A 90% population reduction
- No volunteers among those in favour it seems.
No volunteers needed. Just a birth rate like the one developed
countries are currently running.

90% would take some time but it would sure solve a LOT of these problems
if not all of them.
--
Dan Espen
Mike Spencer
2023-02-03 20:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 3 Feb 2023 14:58:53 GMT
Post by greymaus
To init a question, why were the `Micros' so much fun (say the Lorraine)
and the modern lapto[p so boring?.
The early micros were limited, very varied and more than a bit rough
around the edges and as such were only really suitable for people
who were excited about the idea of having a computer of their own to
play with instead of grubbing for time and privileges (at best) on a
shared machine. A lot of the fun came from learning about them in
detail (because you had to), exploring the capabilities and working
round the limitations.
The modern laptop is a polished consumer product designed for the
most inattentive student to be able to use productively (if badly)
with a minimum of effort and knowledge. they're pretty much all the
same, it's either Windows or a Mac and that's it unless you're a
geek. It's *designed* to be boring and doesn't reward detailed
exploration with anything more than a severe headache and a deep
sense of disgust.
[Not snipped because Mr. Shot is exactly right.]

I feel myself very fortunate to have spent 5 years with a flock of
Osborne I. Upgrading to double-density floppies and to 80-col
display, Z80 assembler, learning to talk to the serial port directly/
Figuring out how C worked when compiled, how the interrupts and stack
worked. All understandable, much of it documented.

So now, of course, there are a vast number of new complexities --
multi-core CPUs, CPU cache, pre-execution of code among many, many
others -- that I will never fully understand as well as both hardware
and kernel advances that I'm too old and stupid to beat up. But I
have a basic grasp of how computers work that I never would have
acquired had my first computer been something newer than a Windoes 95
laptop or even the 1st gen Mac.

That said, I cling doggedly to the fading notion that I can understand
what's going on in the box by running Slackware exclusively on several
machines. Intermittently a frustrating struggle but so far I remain
undefeated. I just bought a new pair of Redwing work boots. By the
time they're worn out, I'll probably be too old to wear work boots
anyhow. I can segue to bedroom slippers at the same time that I give
up trying to master Slackware Linux.
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
In much the same way I expect the Model T Ford was a lot more fun
than the latest Mondeo but I know which I'd rather drive across the
country in.
I spent enough years as a foreign car mechanic (back when "foreign
car" meant something) to achieve something like wizard status. Now I
have no idea how to maintain good operation of my own Toyota but, as
AAR'sS opines, I don't have to as all that stuff I don't understand
makes reliaility and durability orders of magnitude better than a 1965
VW, 1975 Land Rover or 1985 Ford.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
gareth evans
2023-02-04 14:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Makowiec
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
adsum
+1 for classical response
Caesar adsum jam forte?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-04 15:05:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 14:21:48 +0000
Post by gareth evans
Post by Joe Makowiec
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
adsum
+1 for classical response
Caesar adsum jam forte?
I once couldn't resist translating "summum est acumen" as "summer is
a comin'" which took a few minutes out of the latin lesson.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Carlos E.R.
2023-02-02 22:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
I haven't noticed anything.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Rich Alderson
2023-02-03 00:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
Never saw said binary. Been here all along.
--
Rich Alderson ***@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
Scott Lurndal
2023-02-03 13:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Alderson
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
Never saw said binary. Been here all along.
It depends, of course, on the usenet provider. Mine did not
filter the posts; there were some forty thousands parts posted
over a two day stretch.
Jesse Rehmer
2023-02-03 21:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Rich Alderson
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
Never saw said binary. Been here all along.
It depends, of course, on the usenet provider. Mine did not
filter the posts; there were some forty thousands parts posted
over a two day stretch.
HighWinds and most other commercial providers do absolutely ZERO filtering.
Rich Alderson
2023-02-05 01:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Rich Alderson
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
Never saw said binary. Been here all along.
It depends, of course, on the usenet provider. Mine did not
filter the posts; there were some forty thousands parts posted
over a two day stretch.
Holy <bleep>! Yet another reason I <heart> Panix!
--
Rich Alderson ***@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
Jan van den Broek
2023-02-03 06:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
Which my filter efficiently filtered.
--
"There's an eyeball in my Martini"

Jan v/d Broek ***@sdf.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - https://sdf.org
Joe Pfeiffer
2023-02-03 18:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
I didn't notice it, getting my feed from eternal-september.org -- do
they filter?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2023-02-03 18:50:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 11:10:07 -0700
Post by Joe Pfeiffer
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
I didn't notice it, getting my feed from eternal-september.org -- do
they filter?
Yes they use cleanfeed.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Ant
2023-02-04 02:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
I'm still here.
--
"God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God." --Psalm 53:2. Old Ant saw his own shadow yesterday and still hasn't napped 4 days! Slammy Friday even when Home Alone so far. :) Black History Mo. & (L/C)NY 4721 [h2o black ????/(\_/)]!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
greymaus
2023-02-04 09:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ant
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
I'm still here.
Another pet hate, auto-mobiles that need special tools to fix. Cheers to John
Deere users.
--
***@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
Marco Moock
2023-02-06 10:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
Good news servers block binary posts in text groups.
Jan van den Broek
2023-02-06 11:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco Moock
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
Good news servers block binary posts in text groups.
--
"There's an eyeball in my Martini"

Jan v/d Broek ***@sdf.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - https://sdf.org
Jan van den Broek
2023-02-06 11:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco Moock
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Is anyone still here? Some pinhead posted a huge binary
to the group, which is a pretty effective DOS attack.
Good news servers block binary posts in text groups.
Good news servers block _all_ binary posts.
--
"There's an eyeball in my Martini"

Jan v/d Broek ***@sdf.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - https://sdf.org
Loading...