Sunday, January 21, 2018

Something familar about this...


Digital Trends
Looky what I found
nuclear reactor
Check out what I found on Digital Trends.

NASA just tested the tiny nuclear reactor it could use for a Martian colony

NASA is hoping it won't have to rely on solar power for a manned mission to Mars. The Kilopower project is a small nuclear reactor that could be loaded onto a spacecraft and sent to the red planet.
. . .Read Article. .+. . .
 


This looks like the SAFE reactor that I wrote about before.


Here's a video at the link above, in case you don't want to click on it.









Vinegar

Updated,
1.21.18:

5:30 pm:

Eureka!  It seems that washing soda and vinegar just may give the results I am looking for.  Hot damn!  I'd like to try this.


2:00 pm:

This is an interesting new topic.  I want to use stuff to help me get back to clean water.  This site mentions some cleaning solutions that can be obtained as a substitute for commercial products.

I'd like to be able to clean the soap out of soapy water.  This would enable me to reclaim more water.

Originally posted 1.20.18:

Someone in this area told me that vinegar will get out hard water stains.  So, I tried it.  It seems to work pretty well.

On the basis of this, I "googled" it, and I found an interesting website.  It gives a lot of tips like this.

Why didn't I think of this before?




AGW discussion 102

Updated,
1.21.18:

4:50 pm:

Here is an example of wanting to believe a thing too much that it causes you to make mistakes.

If I could do it, what about others?

Anyway, let me try to correct this once again.

I came up with 1.45 BTU to heat up one teaspoon of water.  That means that it will heat up a pound of water 1.45 degrees Farenheit?  Or, you could say that it heats up 1.45 pounds of water 1 degree Farenheit.  Even so, it would still take a lot more than this to heat up 2500 pounds of water.

The ratio might be 2500/1.45 or 1724.  Assuming no more mistakes, it is going to require more than 100 times more energy.

Hopefully, I have not made any more mistakes.  I am beginning to make a fool of myself.

Incidentally, these guys talk about "feedbacks".  A feedback cannot account for two orders of magnitude like this.


9:00 am:

Oops!  A math mistake has been detected.  My bad.  It comes from a lack of due diligence.

Actually, the error does not take anything from my point--- it actually enhances it.

I wrote that it would take 140 / 6 BTU to heat up one ounce teaspoon of water.  Let's redo the math in order to find the error.

There are six teaspoons to the ounce.  Here is the mistake.  It takes 1 BTU to heat up 1 pound of water.  One pound is about 16 ounces.  Therefore there are 16 times 6 teaspoons in a pound of water.

Therefore to heat up one pound of water, you need 140 BTU ( assuming starting temperature of 72 degrees F, and sea level atmospheric pressure, which determines boiling point temperature ).

After obtaining 140 BTU, getting one teaspoon of that water yields only 140/96 BTU, or 1.45 BTU.

That means that a teaspoon of boiling water will heat up 1.45 ounces of water only one degree Farenheit!!!!!!!

Something still seems wrong, so the error hasn't been corrected yet, I suspect.  But one thing is clear even with the math error--- a small mass cannot heat up a large mass by all that much.  But that is common sense, right?

By the way, I did test this.  I boiled some water and grabbed a tablespoon of it and poured it into a cup of water.  I could not detect much difference in temperature after stirring it up.

Originally posted 1.20.18:

This post is a lot like number 100.  It is a discussion about scale.  What AGW alarmists are trying to convince you of is not possible due to its scale.

What distinguishes this post from that, is that there is a way to check this out for yourself.  Afterwards, you can ask yourself if you believe what they tell you.

For starters, it takes six teaspoons to make an ounce.  Since it takes one BTU to heat up water one degree F, then it would take only a fraction of a BTU to heat up one teaspoon one degree.

In the earlier post, the ratio between carbon dioxide and the atmosphere is 1 in 2500, or 400 parts per million.

Lets scale it down a bit, shall we?  One teaspoon v 2500 teaspoons.  Lets heat up that teaspoon to boiling.  To achieve that would take ( assuming room temp at 72, and at sea level ) 140/6 BTU.

That is about 23.33 BTU to heat up a teaspoon of water to boiling point.  The interesting thing here is that you can use that boiling water in that teaspoon in order to heat up an equivalent amount of water such that it will heat it up one degree.  What would that be?  Why 23.3 ounces, right?  If you heat up 23.3 ounces of water with 23.3 BTU, you should arrive at one degree warmer than before.

The ratio between the teaspoon and the 23.3 ounces is 140.  Plain old arithmetic.

Now, what these guys want you to believe is that one teaspoon of  boiling water is going to heat up 3.25 gallons of water ( 2500 teaspoons ) one degree.  But we have seen that it will heat up only 23.3 ounces of water by that much.  There are 128 ounces of water in a gallon.  It would take up to six times that much to heat up just one gallon, and it still wouldn't be enough.

You can check this out if wish.  Actually, it is pretty believable without the bother.

AGW is bunk.



IT scandal

There's this scandal flying under the radar, so to speak.  It involves Congressional aides who failed ( putting it mildly ) to keep information secure.   Sensitive information found its way into foreign hands, mostly due to the lack of due diligence ( again putting it mildly ) of Congress.

Most of the blame is being put on Democrats, but I think the lack of interest in defending the nation falls upon a great many people in and out of government.  Indeed, the entirety of Western Civilization seems hell-bent on a suicide mission.

I am of the opinion that deadly treason is behind all of this.  Those responsible must be held accountable if this country is to survive.  At the very least, they should be forced from holding offices of public trust.

Also, there is this business about Fusion GPS, and the "bombshell memo".  It is part of the same thing.  Same thing with Hillary's emails.  It would be a "bombshell" if enough people gave a damn.

Donald Trump got elected mostly because enough people understood that something is terribly wrong in this country.  Also, this hysterical reaction to him comes from the understanding of those who are responsible, that they could finally be held accountable if he has any success at all.  That is why they are so hysterically opposed to him.  Not because of any concern for this country, but concern for themselves.

After all, that is what drives all of this treason-- supreme selfishness.  Patriotism is very weak these days.


Deplorables in the Democrat party? Who'da thunk?

According to the politico article, there are many Dems in the heartland who voted for Trump.  By the way, what did I tell you about that?

These heartland Dems want to be heard by the elites in their party.  But the elites want unlimited immigration.  The elites don't want a wall.  The current shutdown is related to that.  If funding the government is all they wanted, then they could fund the government for another 60 days until the deadline for an immigration bill passes.  In the meantime, they could bargain for the best deal they could get.

Does this shutdown help reconnect to the heartland Dems?  Only if these heartland Dems feel that this is one of their issues.  It doesn't look that way if you read the article closely.  Heartland Dems don't necessarily want unlimited immigration.  Neither do Latinos.  I've seen a poll to that effect before.  It would make sense because Latinos have to compete with the newcomers for a limited number of jobs.

The shutdown is for the benefit of the base, who want to impeach Trump.  Heartland Dems, according to this article, still support Trump.  How does this help connect with them?

The shutdown is really a sign of weakness.  Dems need to shore up their base, so they shut down the government in order to do that.  But in doing so, they only marginalize themselves.



Friday, January 19, 2018

Off-grid discussion 1.19.18

Batteries are complicated.  Besides that, they suck as a storage of power off the grid.

Perhaps it is better to avoid using them, but unfortunately this isn't going to be an option.  Reason being that propane generators also suck.  These will use up way too much propane, and therefore, will be much too expensive to operate.

Another option is to hook up the car to a deep cycle battery, and let the car charge up the batteries.  Car alternators may be able to crank out a lot of juice.  It is surprising.

One thing that seems to keep popping up, though.  Batteries seem to like to be charged for five hours, or so.  Go faster than that, and you may cook it.  Slower than that, and your pockets had better very deep, for it will take forever to charge the darn thing.

So, five hours seems to work.  Now, a 200 amp-hr battery at the 20-hr rate will only support a 10 amp load in order to get that 200 amps of work out of it.  That many amps at 12 volts is only 120 watts.  An a/c will pull a lot more than that.  You could run a swamp cooler for that long as long as it didn't pull that more than that much current.  Swamp coolers do not inspire confidence, though.

A 200 amp-hr battery isn't cheap, either.  One of those could run 400 bucks and some change.

You could run a propane generator for a few hours a day.  Maybe that five hr number could charge the batteries, and also, maybe you can run an a/c off of it.  Five hours for each simultaneously could suffice.

Yeah, it looks like a more complicated problem than the water problem.  Climate control takes a lot of juice.  That's why I want to think SMALL, because small takes less BTU to heat or to cool.



Bombshells going off everywhere

Look, it is hard for me to get excited about something that people should have known anyway.

Sure, releasing the info may be enlightening, but will it change the minds of people who remain steadfastly determined to be stuck on stupid?

You've got to out-wolf the wolf.  It might hurt, but that is what it will take.

update:

For those who need explanations, here goes nothing



AGW discussion number 101

Incidentally, someone may notice a bit of a joke in the title.  There used to be a commercial for excederin pain reliever, which mentions a type of headache with a number associated with it--- ex., Excederin headache number 101.  These discussions may give you a headache, alright.  Tedious stuff, I suppose.

With an introduction like that, why bother?  Indeed.  But, I need to write something in order to have a blog.  Maybe you don't have anything better to do, so you come here.  If you are not a bot, that is.

Let's begin with the usual discussion about the weather.  Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.  Until we got modern day liberals, that is.  Very nice of them to care so much about it.  Of course, they expect a fee for all their caring.

When the weather is hot, it is often described as hotter than normal.  Or when it is cold, it is colder than normal.  So they say.

Here's a bit of tedium.  ( maybe more than normal )  There is a mathematical property called a normal distribution that may or may not work in predicting weather observations, such as temperatures.  By the way, a normal distribution is also known as a "bell curve".  Observations of temperatures can be compared to this bell curve in way that tells us how far from the "mean" an observation is.  By mean we mean that it is nothing more than the arithmetic average of a set of temperature observations.  If this set includes temperatures for the last 150 years, then for any particular day of the year, there is a mean temperature for that date.  Any temperature observation may vary a bit from that mean.  This "variance" can be quantified into a number which is called the standard deviation.  Now, for a normal distribution, each observation should fall within plus or minus three standard deviations from the mean.  So, how do we know if a temperature is normal or not?  Well, maybe it fits this normal distribution.  Keep in mind though, that this distribution is only valid for that set of data.  Any new data may change the mean and the standard deviation, you see.

For people familiar with these mathematical concepts, I hope I didn't mangle it too badly.

One objection to how weather data is reported is that these concepts are usually mangled pretty badly.  If I think that, imagine what a statistician may think of weather reporting.

How do you know when weather is normal or not?  You don't have enough data.  You cannot predict the next 100 years from what has happened over the last 100 years.  For one thing, it isn't statistically valid.  You can certainly try to predict it.  But weather is pretty variable.  And the Earth is a lot older than 100 years.

Basically my objection is that a variance from the norm cannot possibly be based upon what we know, unless it is confined to our own experience, which is limited.  But the far past is outside that experience, and so is the far future.  That ol dog won't hunt in any kind of weather.

AGW theorists try to persuade based upon weather reports.  What a concept! /sarc


Thursday, January 18, 2018

Haiti's principal city has no modern sanitation

Workers have to literally clean up the mess with their bare hands.

Cholera, which is a disease spread by human waste, is rampant in Haiti.

If Haiti isn't a shithole, then what do you call this? ( For every shithole is an asshole for a leader )

Yes, and the Clintons robbed Haiti of the resources that may have fixed this.

Durbin is the only leader we know for an absolute fact, who called any country a shithole.

Why be mad at Trump?  For telling it the way it is, if he said it?  If he didn't say it, then why not be mad at Durbin, if you wish to be angry at someone?

Whatever reason there is in using this word to damage Trump, it has nothing to do with truth, nor with helping people.  The person who used the word, Durbin, does not help Haitians by using this word.

Note:

This may gross some people out.  But here goes anyway:  immigrants to the US do not know that you can flush toilet paper down the drain.  They tend to deposit their used toilet paper ( with you know what on it ) in the trash.

If you don't know this, the check it out.


Wave election?

Scott Rasmussen has an article up at Townhall, which analyzes the prospects going forward in the upcoming 2018 election.

He says only 45 out of the 435 seats are competitive.  There are 187 likely Dem seats that won't flip GOP.  Rasmussen says that nine more are "leaning in that direction".  This also means that the GOP could flip those, if things don't go the Dems way.  Assuming all of those go Democrat, then they got 196.  They need 22 more.  He identifies 17 races that could flip to the Dem side supposedly.  In a normal cycle, this would still not be enough, as it would only bring them to 213.  The Dems need a "wave" that would swamp those that were considered safe during a normal cycle.  There are 19 of those, he says.  They would have to win approximately one out of four safe seats.

What I get from all of this is that Dems have to depend upon everything going right for them.  Furthermore, they would have to depend upon the GOP being grossly incompetent.

Both things are going to be necessary.  Merely being lucky won't be enough for them.  On the GOP side, mere competence could be enough to hold on.  If they are brilliant, it will be another disappointment for the left.