Part 1 of 6. By the way, this story made me think of the Borg.
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Some artificial gravity numbers
Speculation alert
These are some combinations of radius and rpm for calculating artificial gravity.
Interesting to contemplate what it might take to pull these off.
For example, a large structure of 900 meters in radius would require a turning speed at the edge of over 300 km per hour. That would require a non trivial amount of energy to get it up to speed.
But a smaller radius would take much less as you would expect. But the rpm may be more than the average person could tolerate.
There would have to be a happy medium that would make the thing feasible.
These are some combinations of radius and rpm for calculating artificial gravity.
Interesting to contemplate what it might take to pull these off.
For example, a large structure of 900 meters in radius would require a turning speed at the edge of over 300 km per hour. That would require a non trivial amount of energy to get it up to speed.
But a smaller radius would take much less as you would expect. But the rpm may be more than the average person could tolerate.
There would have to be a happy medium that would make the thing feasible.
 |
| The velocity is at the edge as it rotates around the center of gravity |
Democrats Walk Out in Protest Over GOP’s Contempt Vote Against Eric Holder
Eleanor Clift!?
Why would yours truly put up one her posts? Just take a look at the comments section. I didn't see a single one in favor of her point of view.
Here's what I think: the Democrats are more loyal to their group than to the Constitution. For those who are sworn an oath to support the Constitution, this is unacceptable. The Constitution must come first. But for these people- they and their group come first.
Update:
Eric Holder’s Justice Department Won’t Prosecute Eric Holder for Contempt.
Paging Patrick Fitzgerald...
Why would yours truly put up one her posts? Just take a look at the comments section. I didn't see a single one in favor of her point of view.
Here's what I think: the Democrats are more loyal to their group than to the Constitution. For those who are sworn an oath to support the Constitution, this is unacceptable. The Constitution must come first. But for these people- they and their group come first.
Update:
Eric Holder’s Justice Department Won’t Prosecute Eric Holder for Contempt.
Paging Patrick Fitzgerald...
The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy
American Thinker
The new ObamaCare tax will destroy the medical insurance business. That's because of the requirement imposed upon the insurers to cover everybody-- including those with preexisting conditions. The idea of the mandate was to increase the number of insured to include those with lower risks of disease-- ordinarily some of these people would not purchase an insurance policy because of a perceived lack of risk of disease. Those people, forced to purchase an insurance policy, would pay for the higher costs of insuring sick people with their premiums. This is pretty much anti-business, as it guarantees higher costs, but gives no compensation in return.
The fine, now known as a tax -thanks to the Supreme Court- will not go to the insurers. Since the tax is less than the premiums, the incentive is to pay the tax and save the money on premiums. Fewer people will be insured-- here's why: as those who are currently insured will have to pay higher premiums because everybody's covered provision, but those who are lower risk will drop their insurance and pay the fine or tax.
This will destroy the medical insurance business. The tax will have the power to destroy and so it will.
So said Daniel Webster, counsel for the Second Bank of the United States, repeated by Chief Justice Marshal in McCulloch vs Maryland.
The new ObamaCare tax will destroy the medical insurance business. That's because of the requirement imposed upon the insurers to cover everybody-- including those with preexisting conditions. The idea of the mandate was to increase the number of insured to include those with lower risks of disease-- ordinarily some of these people would not purchase an insurance policy because of a perceived lack of risk of disease. Those people, forced to purchase an insurance policy, would pay for the higher costs of insuring sick people with their premiums. This is pretty much anti-business, as it guarantees higher costs, but gives no compensation in return.
The fine, now known as a tax -thanks to the Supreme Court- will not go to the insurers. Since the tax is less than the premiums, the incentive is to pay the tax and save the money on premiums. Fewer people will be insured-- here's why: as those who are currently insured will have to pay higher premiums because everybody's covered provision, but those who are lower risk will drop their insurance and pay the fine or tax.
This will destroy the medical insurance business. The tax will have the power to destroy and so it will.
Court’s Medicaid Reversal Big Win
Court’s Medicaid Reversal Big Win
Comment:
The key point here is that low tax states won't have to raise taxes now in order to comply with the ObamaCare law. For Texas, that means a continuation of no state income taxes, which to me, is quite a relief. ObamaCare would have required a massive increase in taxes, which would have forced Texas to adopt an income tax.
Comment:
The key point here is that low tax states won't have to raise taxes now in order to comply with the ObamaCare law. For Texas, that means a continuation of no state income taxes, which to me, is quite a relief. ObamaCare would have required a massive increase in taxes, which would have forced Texas to adopt an income tax.
Democrats’ New Motto: Never Let a Wildfire Go to Waste
Michelle Malkin via Robert Ringer blog
Didn't I write something about wildfires and politics? Oh, well.
A scene from the movie Young Frankenstein comes to mind for a joke idea. You see, the monster needs a calmer brain, so he could deal more constructively with the phenomenon known as fire.
I guess this all seems to be a rather pointless attempt at humor, though. But that would be a mistake. We are like the Frankenstein monster. We need calmer brains. There is way too much excitement over things that aren't necessary to get that excited about and could be dealt with more constructively than what is the case today.
I don't want to minimize what is happening to Colorado. But I don't want it to be overblown either. There is a clear point here, and that is how do you deal with fire? Do you really want to just let it burn?
I'm referring to not only fire and politics, but also radioactivity. People need to settle down.
And jokes about Colorado social conservatives like this proliferated: “If this Colorado fire takes out the Focus on the Family campus, then God really exists.”
Didn't I write something about wildfires and politics? Oh, well.
A scene from the movie Young Frankenstein comes to mind for a joke idea. You see, the monster needs a calmer brain, so he could deal more constructively with the phenomenon known as fire.
I guess this all seems to be a rather pointless attempt at humor, though. But that would be a mistake. We are like the Frankenstein monster. We need calmer brains. There is way too much excitement over things that aren't necessary to get that excited about and could be dealt with more constructively than what is the case today.
I don't want to minimize what is happening to Colorado. But I don't want it to be overblown either. There is a clear point here, and that is how do you deal with fire? Do you really want to just let it burn?
I'm referring to not only fire and politics, but also radioactivity. People need to settle down.
Terraform cycler asteroids, part 6
Speculation alert
I had to go back and edit some of these in this series so that it will have the speculation alert at the top. That's because I'm talking out my ass, which is a bad habit.
Now that the mea culpa is out of the way, I've come to realize that using LFTRs in space may not be so easy. That's because even though gravity can help make it work the same way as on Earth, you still have all the other problems associated with weightlessness and space. Which means in the context of the LFTRs, what do you do with the reaction products?
You could send it out as a waste stream in the rocket exhaust. But you had better not do that anywhere close to Earth, nor in the path of where you may be going next.
Even if that objection can be handled, you still have a mass problem. You would have to make the reaction products into a plasma and collect the fluorine gas, because you need that for your LFTR operation. That would entail extra equipment. Now, the VASIMR does the plasma part as a matter of course, but remember that these are radioactive particles, so that's a concern. If that objection could be handled, then maybe you still have something practical.
As a part of the recycling effort, you will have to have something that will convert solids into plasma. Then they can be condensed back into solids and recombined in any way that is convenient. Could you do this with reaction products? Probably not easily, but maybe you can. Most of the mass of the reaction products turn out to be strontium and cesium. These may be useful an energy sources for space in the same way that plutonium is used.
Xenon is produced as well. This can be kept for a short time while it decays into stability. Unfortunately, a lot of the mass won't be stable for years, so you have to find a way to deal with the stuff that isn't. You could get rid of it, or you will have to store it some way so that it isn't a threat to crew.
This may not be a problem at an asteroid, as there would be plenty of shielding matter available. But my idea was to use a LFTR to get to the asteroid as well.
Update:
Next in Series, Part 7
I had to go back and edit some of these in this series so that it will have the speculation alert at the top. That's because I'm talking out my ass, which is a bad habit.
Now that the mea culpa is out of the way, I've come to realize that using LFTRs in space may not be so easy. That's because even though gravity can help make it work the same way as on Earth, you still have all the other problems associated with weightlessness and space. Which means in the context of the LFTRs, what do you do with the reaction products?
You could send it out as a waste stream in the rocket exhaust. But you had better not do that anywhere close to Earth, nor in the path of where you may be going next.
Even if that objection can be handled, you still have a mass problem. You would have to make the reaction products into a plasma and collect the fluorine gas, because you need that for your LFTR operation. That would entail extra equipment. Now, the VASIMR does the plasma part as a matter of course, but remember that these are radioactive particles, so that's a concern. If that objection could be handled, then maybe you still have something practical.
As a part of the recycling effort, you will have to have something that will convert solids into plasma. Then they can be condensed back into solids and recombined in any way that is convenient. Could you do this with reaction products? Probably not easily, but maybe you can. Most of the mass of the reaction products turn out to be strontium and cesium. These may be useful an energy sources for space in the same way that plutonium is used.
Xenon is produced as well. This can be kept for a short time while it decays into stability. Unfortunately, a lot of the mass won't be stable for years, so you have to find a way to deal with the stuff that isn't. You could get rid of it, or you will have to store it some way so that it isn't a threat to crew.
This may not be a problem at an asteroid, as there would be plenty of shielding matter available. But my idea was to use a LFTR to get to the asteroid as well.
Update:
Next in Series, Part 7
Friday, June 29, 2012
Wildfires Worsen in Colorado, 32000 Flee Homes
Has a "let it burn" government policy been a factor in these wildfires? If so, who should be held accountable?
I recall the fires in 1988 and reading about how the environmentalists influence was a factor in making them much worse than they should have been. This administration has been in lockstep with radical environmentalists. Could it be just another casualty in Obama's war on America?
President George W. Bush was criticized ferociously over Katrina, which was a natural disaster and beyond anyones' control. This may also be a natural disaster, but unlike hurricanes, a wildfires' fury can be mitigated. Yet, these wildfires may not have been controlled as well as they could have been. Bush was said to be hostile to black people and was actually accused of trying to kill off the black folks. This accusation was made despite the fact that it was a local responsibility and a local failure made by those in power who were Bush's critics. How does this compare?
I recall the fires in 1988 and reading about how the environmentalists influence was a factor in making them much worse than they should have been. This administration has been in lockstep with radical environmentalists. Could it be just another casualty in Obama's war on America?
President George W. Bush was criticized ferociously over Katrina, which was a natural disaster and beyond anyones' control. This may also be a natural disaster, but unlike hurricanes, a wildfires' fury can be mitigated. Yet, these wildfires may not have been controlled as well as they could have been. Bush was said to be hostile to black people and was actually accused of trying to kill off the black folks. This accusation was made despite the fact that it was a local responsibility and a local failure made by those in power who were Bush's critics. How does this compare?
Terraform cycler asteroids, part 5
Speculation alert
Come to think of it, it won't be necessary to send up a lot of tubes all at once. Just try a few and test the concept of creating artificial gravity. You could build out gradually and test it in a stepwise fashion.
Let's review the artificial gravity equation below:
If each tube is 10 meters long, then two tubes will yield a radius of 10 meters- or half the total length. A radius of this size, plus an rpm of 6 will yield an artificial gravity "g" of approximately .4
You could test up to 6 rpm, and if that is too much to handle, then add tubes and slow down the rpm.
This technique of adjusting the size and rpm can yield an optimized result.
With artificial gravity, you could do a number of things that are a bit complicated in a weightless environment. One thing that I'd like to see is LFTR technology applied to space rocket propulsion. You could make it a nuclear electric hybrid which could be teamed up with the VASIMR technology.
The Molten Salt Reactor experiment at Oak Ridge built a 10 MW reactor. This should be relatively small reactor and fit into this scheme. It may even be possible to make it a bit larger. If so, that may make it possible to use it to skim atmospheric gases from the edge of space. A "LOXLEO" device requires about 6 MW of power in order to stay in orbit and process the gas collected.
The significance of this is that you'd be freed from having to launch reaction mass from the ground.
Update:
Next in Series, Part 6
Come to think of it, it won't be necessary to send up a lot of tubes all at once. Just try a few and test the concept of creating artificial gravity. You could build out gradually and test it in a stepwise fashion.
Let's review the artificial gravity equation below:
If each tube is 10 meters long, then two tubes will yield a radius of 10 meters- or half the total length. A radius of this size, plus an rpm of 6 will yield an artificial gravity "g" of approximately .4
You could test up to 6 rpm, and if that is too much to handle, then add tubes and slow down the rpm.
This technique of adjusting the size and rpm can yield an optimized result.
With artificial gravity, you could do a number of things that are a bit complicated in a weightless environment. One thing that I'd like to see is LFTR technology applied to space rocket propulsion. You could make it a nuclear electric hybrid which could be teamed up with the VASIMR technology.
The Molten Salt Reactor experiment at Oak Ridge built a 10 MW reactor. This should be relatively small reactor and fit into this scheme. It may even be possible to make it a bit larger. If so, that may make it possible to use it to skim atmospheric gases from the edge of space. A "LOXLEO" device requires about 6 MW of power in order to stay in orbit and process the gas collected.
The significance of this is that you'd be freed from having to launch reaction mass from the ground.
Update:
Next in Series, Part 6
The Chief Justice's Gambit
realclearpolitics article
Any gambit implies risk. If Obama wins this election, it won't matter that he has more freedom, or that he accusations of hyper-partisanship will not be made against him. That's because the left will own the court.
Update:
Here's a left wing view on the decision ( Mahablog). If Obama wins re-election, their concerns will be addressed. Then it will total defeat for the conservatives. Big risk.
- Thursday’s health care ruling shocked most observers. It upheld the health care law as constitutional. But rather than find that the law was justified under Congress’ authority to regulate commerce, it instead found it was justified only under Congress’ power to tax. It also imposed limits upon Congress’ ability to condition spending grants to the states upon those states taking certain steps.
- If Republicans win the Senate and presidency, the law is doomed. [emphasis added]
- The most important aspect of the ruling, however, comes with respect to the spending clause. Seven justices just agreed to real limits on Congress’ ability to attach strings to legislation
- Barack Obama was forced to go on television and praise the court’s ruling. In so doing, he validated -- at least implicitly -- one of the most pro-state’s rights decisions in recent times.
- Accusations of hyper-partisanship are much harder to make against him, and he has more freedom[emphasis added]
Any gambit implies risk. If Obama wins this election, it won't matter that he has more freedom, or that he accusations of hyper-partisanship will not be made against him. That's because the left will own the court.
Update:
Here's a left wing view on the decision ( Mahablog). If Obama wins re-election, their concerns will be addressed. Then it will total defeat for the conservatives. Big risk.
What kills people today and in the past
A graphic which shows how people die.
Just looking at the list, many of these diseases can be eradicated eventually. Rejuvenation strategies using stem cells can simply replace organs that fail. Cancer can be screened and caught early- by doing so, it can be treated effectively.
If the government really wanted to deal with health issues, they could have addressed it with cancer screening and checking for early stages of heart disease. Medical advances will take care of the rest.
Just looking at the list, many of these diseases can be eradicated eventually. Rejuvenation strategies using stem cells can simply replace organs that fail. Cancer can be screened and caught early- by doing so, it can be treated effectively.
If the government really wanted to deal with health issues, they could have addressed it with cancer screening and checking for early stages of heart disease. Medical advances will take care of the rest.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Reaction to ObamaCare decision
A lot of thoughts ran through my mind today as I digested the meaning of this decision.
None of that is going to be posted though. Instead, I'll go with this from Althouse by way of Glenn Reynolds.
But it was found proper under the taxing authority. That's what I thought was improper. My prediction turned out to be 100% wrong. The individual mandate was struck down, but the taxing authority was upheld.
I figured that the using tax authority to enforce a mandate was entirely inappropriate.
Looks like a dumb law and a dumb decision. The government just doesn't impress me at all.
Update:
Maybe the comment that it is a dumb law is inadequate to explain what it really is. This is going to destroy the medical insurance business. It is shown how in the quote above. People will not buy the insurance, but the insurance companies need a lot of people to buy the insurance who ordinarily won't. The penalty will be cheaper, so they'll pay the penalty ( now called a tax--- dumb). Now the insurance companies have a big liability for all of the people they have to cover, but no way for premiums to make up for it. Only people who are sick will buy the insurance because there's an advantage to them to do so. That is economic sabotage.
Obama is at war with our culture. Make no mistake about it.
None of that is going to be posted though. Instead, I'll go with this from Althouse by way of Glenn Reynolds.
Yes, as we saw above, the Chief Justice clearly recognized this problem. It's an economic disaster without the individual mandate. Why doesn't that make it necessary? I can see 2 answers: 1. It is necessary. It's just not proper. And 2: Since the ACA lets the uninsured avoid purchasing insurance if they pay a tax/penalty to the federal government, and since that's what healthy people will rationally do, the scheme was never set up to work. If it doesn't even work, it doesn't make sense to call it necessary.
But it was found proper under the taxing authority. That's what I thought was improper. My prediction turned out to be 100% wrong. The individual mandate was struck down, but the taxing authority was upheld.
I figured that the using tax authority to enforce a mandate was entirely inappropriate.
Looks like a dumb law and a dumb decision. The government just doesn't impress me at all.
Update:
Maybe the comment that it is a dumb law is inadequate to explain what it really is. This is going to destroy the medical insurance business. It is shown how in the quote above. People will not buy the insurance, but the insurance companies need a lot of people to buy the insurance who ordinarily won't. The penalty will be cheaper, so they'll pay the penalty ( now called a tax--- dumb). Now the insurance companies have a big liability for all of the people they have to cover, but no way for premiums to make up for it. Only people who are sick will buy the insurance because there's an advantage to them to do so. That is economic sabotage.
Obama is at war with our culture. Make no mistake about it.
Terraform cycler asteroids, part 4
Speculation alert
Part 3
This post will have to be short. Time constraints.
Some calculations for the tubes- it should be able to fit on a currently available rocket in terms of mass. That's if you use titanium and you limit the thickness of it. There will have to be some tradeoffs in terms of strength and so forth, but it doesn't appear to be out of the question in terms of launch capabilities.
I figured less than 50k pounds for 1 inch thick titanium. That's assuming the calcs are correct.
That part of the logistics can work. Assembling all those pieces while in space is most likely to be quite tricky. Nothing this big has ever been constructed in space, so that aspect of the project would be unprecedented. Hopefully, the simple structure would not make this a "bridge too far".
A thought occurred to me yesterday, but I crossed it off. Now it is back. The idea was to use the backbone as part of a scaffold for a large McNeill type construction project. You could build several of these tubes and connect them into a circle. Then build on the outer rim. Once the construction is complete, move on to another project. Or just keep adding to this project until you build a long cylinder type which can be rotated 1 RPM for artificial gravity, and could house untold numbers of people.
Update:
You can start the project in LEO, then move towards the Moon. Or more accurately, you could move to L1 (Lagrange point). You could acquire lunar materials from there and continue building out your colony. With a much shallower gravity well, it will be 1/15th as much effort to get out of the lunar gravity well as the Earth's.
You could also just build more backbones and spread out from there to the asteroids, or do both simultaneously. The main idea is to avoid the Earth's deep gravity well and to build capabilities with the matter available at hand as you go along.
Update:
Next in Series, Part 5
Part 3
This post will have to be short. Time constraints.
Some calculations for the tubes- it should be able to fit on a currently available rocket in terms of mass. That's if you use titanium and you limit the thickness of it. There will have to be some tradeoffs in terms of strength and so forth, but it doesn't appear to be out of the question in terms of launch capabilities.
I figured less than 50k pounds for 1 inch thick titanium. That's assuming the calcs are correct.
That part of the logistics can work. Assembling all those pieces while in space is most likely to be quite tricky. Nothing this big has ever been constructed in space, so that aspect of the project would be unprecedented. Hopefully, the simple structure would not make this a "bridge too far".
A thought occurred to me yesterday, but I crossed it off. Now it is back. The idea was to use the backbone as part of a scaffold for a large McNeill type construction project. You could build several of these tubes and connect them into a circle. Then build on the outer rim. Once the construction is complete, move on to another project. Or just keep adding to this project until you build a long cylinder type which can be rotated 1 RPM for artificial gravity, and could house untold numbers of people.
Update:
You can start the project in LEO, then move towards the Moon. Or more accurately, you could move to L1 (Lagrange point). You could acquire lunar materials from there and continue building out your colony. With a much shallower gravity well, it will be 1/15th as much effort to get out of the lunar gravity well as the Earth's.
You could also just build more backbones and spread out from there to the asteroids, or do both simultaneously. The main idea is to avoid the Earth's deep gravity well and to build capabilities with the matter available at hand as you go along.
Update:
Next in Series, Part 5
Miscellaneous thoughts
- Obamacare decision today: Obviously a big deal. No predictions as to the outcome. You can get that in other places.
- Holder contempt vote: A walkout by black members of Congress? Sounds like a poor, poor, pitiful me moment.
- Lo Carb diet: More effective than a low fat diet for losing weight? Memo to self, check this out. All these years, I could have been following bad advice.
- Polls, polls, and more polls: Are polls reporting the news, or trying to make the news? That's what I dislike so much about the news-- they try to tell you what to think. The news should be like old Joe Friday on Dragnet used to say-- Just the facts, ma'am.
- SpaceX testing new engine: Elon wants to get to Mars.
- Klavan on the Culture--Character; A video about Obama's bullcrap. Diarrhea of the mouth, you might say.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Terraform cycler asteroids, part 3
Speculation alert
Part 2
The last part left off with the asteroid in the center and being built with stuff from the asteroid itself. This will be revised somewhat by having the "backbone", which is the tubes, placed in low earth orbit (LEO). Then the backbone is taken out to an asteroid where it is built out with the materials at hand.
Since it isn't manned, a simple propulsion device could be used to tow the thing out there. Maybe Hall thrusters would be all you needed. However, if you want a manned mission, you may want more powerful and fast propulsion. Just add a LFTR in LEO and use the electricity to power VASIMR engine(s).
The tubes for the backbone will have to be thin and put together in LEO. That may be a trick to that. You may need some astronauts up there on a space walk to put these together the way I envision. That may be tricky.
I was thinking along the lines of having them with threads where a male side fit into the female side. You simply put them together and twist them tight. The tubes could be empty in the middle and have some strong material threaded through them. That material could have strong tensile strength so as to be able to support the mass that will be spun on it.
The idea of the tube is to provide rigidity before the "tether" got spun up. It would also provide for the tether some protection against micrometeorites. It would keep the tether taut when it is un-spun to a stop, which may be necessary at times. For example, you may want an un-spun mode in order to simplify docking and undocking.
You want to build at the ends of the tubes. You would connect living space at the end so that when it is spun up, there will be artificial gravity there.
As noted in the previous post, if you had artificial gravity, you could use LFTR technology in the same way as on the ground. If you need to un-spin the station, just let the molten salt drain into a safe configuration, then go the un-spun mode.
Update:
Next in Series, Part 4
Part 2
The last part left off with the asteroid in the center and being built with stuff from the asteroid itself. This will be revised somewhat by having the "backbone", which is the tubes, placed in low earth orbit (LEO). Then the backbone is taken out to an asteroid where it is built out with the materials at hand.
Since it isn't manned, a simple propulsion device could be used to tow the thing out there. Maybe Hall thrusters would be all you needed. However, if you want a manned mission, you may want more powerful and fast propulsion. Just add a LFTR in LEO and use the electricity to power VASIMR engine(s).
The tubes for the backbone will have to be thin and put together in LEO. That may be a trick to that. You may need some astronauts up there on a space walk to put these together the way I envision. That may be tricky.
I was thinking along the lines of having them with threads where a male side fit into the female side. You simply put them together and twist them tight. The tubes could be empty in the middle and have some strong material threaded through them. That material could have strong tensile strength so as to be able to support the mass that will be spun on it.
The idea of the tube is to provide rigidity before the "tether" got spun up. It would also provide for the tether some protection against micrometeorites. It would keep the tether taut when it is un-spun to a stop, which may be necessary at times. For example, you may want an un-spun mode in order to simplify docking and undocking.
You want to build at the ends of the tubes. You would connect living space at the end so that when it is spun up, there will be artificial gravity there.
As noted in the previous post, if you had artificial gravity, you could use LFTR technology in the same way as on the ground. If you need to un-spin the station, just let the molten salt drain into a safe configuration, then go the un-spun mode.
Update:
Next in Series, Part 4
A better way forward on health care
If Obamacare is found to be against the Constitution, then what should be done in its place?
I had a colonoscopy recently. Why not have health care screening procedures such as that? You wouldn't have to mandate it, just give incentives to do the procedures.
You could prioritize those procedures which pose the greatest public health risk. Cancer, heart disease, and so forth. For those who can't afford it, you can give public assistance.
It isn't a terribly complicated thing to do and it wouldn't break the bank. But that would actually solve a few problems, but as I have noted many times before, these politicians aren't interested in solving any problems.
I had a colonoscopy recently. Why not have health care screening procedures such as that? You wouldn't have to mandate it, just give incentives to do the procedures.
You could prioritize those procedures which pose the greatest public health risk. Cancer, heart disease, and so forth. For those who can't afford it, you can give public assistance.
It isn't a terribly complicated thing to do and it wouldn't break the bank. But that would actually solve a few problems, but as I have noted many times before, these politicians aren't interested in solving any problems.
Will ObamaCare decision provide a redefining moment for federal power?
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
An individual mandate goes against the intent of the Constitution, as the framers didn't want the federal government to act upon individuals. That's why the Constitution had to be amended to allow for an income tax-- because it has to act upon individuals. Obamacare has to be enforced by tax code, otherwise, there is no legal basis for enforcement under the Constitution. But what does health care have to do with income taxes? It is an awkward enforcement method and for that reason alone, it should go. Not to mention that nobody likes the IRS anyway. If this bill is upheld, the IRS is going to get a lot bigger.
- In my column for The Week, I game out the possible outcomes and predict their impact on the political landscape in this election season
- The Supreme Court seems ready to strike down at least some portion of the PPACA on Thursday, and as I wrote in my column, those options are almost unrelentingly bad for Obama.
- The more I think about this, the more I think a middle ground solution might be less likely.
- Americans don’t want a federal government that can mandate purchases of private-sector goods and services, no matter how beneficial the governing class believes them to be. This could very well be a turning point that redefines and contracts federal reach
An individual mandate goes against the intent of the Constitution, as the framers didn't want the federal government to act upon individuals. That's why the Constitution had to be amended to allow for an income tax-- because it has to act upon individuals. Obamacare has to be enforced by tax code, otherwise, there is no legal basis for enforcement under the Constitution. But what does health care have to do with income taxes? It is an awkward enforcement method and for that reason alone, it should go. Not to mention that nobody likes the IRS anyway. If this bill is upheld, the IRS is going to get a lot bigger.
Can Barack Obama Rewrite Federal Law?
reason.com
It is amazing to me that such a question can even be asked. It is like asking if the sky is blue or is the grass green. The Constitution says explicitly that it is the supreme law of the land. Sure, it is a rhetorical question, but isn't it strange that it has to be asked at all?
Obama can't legally rewrite Federal Law. But he can if nobody will stop him.
That's what elections are for. But even a determined dictator like Mugabe will disregard an election that doesn't go his way.
Now think about that one for awhile. Has it really come to this in the USA?
Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land?
It is amazing to me that such a question can even be asked. It is like asking if the sky is blue or is the grass green. The Constitution says explicitly that it is the supreme law of the land. Sure, it is a rhetorical question, but isn't it strange that it has to be asked at all?
Obama can't legally rewrite Federal Law. But he can if nobody will stop him.
That's what elections are for. But even a determined dictator like Mugabe will disregard an election that doesn't go his way.
Now think about that one for awhile. Has it really come to this in the USA?
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
A Better Way to Get Hydrogen from Water
Technology Review via EGO OUT
You could then use the hydrogen to synthesize ammonia. ( That may require electricity, though.) Then, the ammonia could be transportable to where it can be sold. It could be split back into nitrogen and hydrogen and then put in liquid form at the point of sale. That method would obviate the need to construct special infrastructure to ship the hydrogen. Just ship it as ammonia.
The basic approach in high-temperature water splitting is to heat up an oxidized metal to drive off oxygen, then add water. In Davis's case, the starting material is magnesium oxide, and the reactions are facilitated by shuttling sodium ions in and out of it. "Without the sodium, the temperatures would go up well over 1,000 °C," Davis says. With it, the reactions work at temperatures of 850 °C or lower.If he gets the temperatures much lower, a LFTR could use its heat to make hydrogen directly without the need to produce electricity first.
You could then use the hydrogen to synthesize ammonia. ( That may require electricity, though.) Then, the ammonia could be transportable to where it can be sold. It could be split back into nitrogen and hydrogen and then put in liquid form at the point of sale. That method would obviate the need to construct special infrastructure to ship the hydrogen. Just ship it as ammonia.
5 Signs of a Radical Change in U.S. Politics
The Atlantic
This seemed like pure projection to me, but as the Supreme Court has shown, the projection and denial is going all round.
I read this yesterday, and Glenn Reynolds posted his reactions to this piece. One reaction was to be "unimpressed".
The major aspect of projection is that it denies something that is within oneself.
Plain denial is also the refusal to see what is there.
How can conservative justices support Obama's usurpation of the Constitution? Well, it might well have started a long time ago. Maybe the Bush-Gore election controversy, where this Atlantic piece picks up on, is just one strand in a long strand that is coming unraveled. It looks like The Atlantic's piece was projection, and the conservative/libertarian response is just plain old denial.
Obama won't follow the law, which he is bound to do under the constitution. That's the coup. It is ongoing, but evidently, nobody at the highest levels seems to get it.
I followed the 2000 election controversy pretty closely. No way Gore could win that one, but if the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in, it was going to have to go the Congress. In such a case as that, the House picks the winner, and the Senate picks the Veep. That meant Joe Lieberman would have been veep instead of Cheney. The House was Republican, so there's no way Gore could win the presidency that way.
The Supreme Court just stopped the counting which could have gone on past the "safe harbor" deadline, which was very close at hand at the time of their decision. The counting wasn't going to get done in time to get in before the safe harbor deadline, which would have thrown it into the House- by law. The Republicans controlled the House, (as Gore must have known), but the Senate was 50-50. Gore would have broken the tie in favor of Lieberman, weakening the incoming administration.
The Supreme Court then may have acted politically, but at least they were following the election law. They don't seem to be very interested in doing that anymore.
As for the rest of the article, it is pretty much the standard political fare. The author's major rhetorical thrust was the Bush v Gore decision was a type of long running coup, but it was Gore who was trying to steal the Vice Presidency if he couldn't get the Presidency itself. That's my take.
The main point to me is the total breakdown in authority that is outlined in the Constitution. There are three co-equal branches, but at the moment, the only branch that seems to matter is the Presidency. That looks like dictatorship. The President must follow the law, or what good is the Constitution anymore? Why have a Congress pass a law that the President won't enforce? Why have the Supreme Court decide the controversy, if the President decides to ignore the part of the decision that he doesn't like?
At what point will this President be restrained? If he gets re-elected, what can stop him?
This seemed like pure projection to me, but as the Supreme Court has shown, the projection and denial is going all round.
I read this yesterday, and Glenn Reynolds posted his reactions to this piece. One reaction was to be "unimpressed".
The major aspect of projection is that it denies something that is within oneself.
Plain denial is also the refusal to see what is there.
How can conservative justices support Obama's usurpation of the Constitution? Well, it might well have started a long time ago. Maybe the Bush-Gore election controversy, where this Atlantic piece picks up on, is just one strand in a long strand that is coming unraveled. It looks like The Atlantic's piece was projection, and the conservative/libertarian response is just plain old denial.
Obama won't follow the law, which he is bound to do under the constitution. That's the coup. It is ongoing, but evidently, nobody at the highest levels seems to get it.
I followed the 2000 election controversy pretty closely. No way Gore could win that one, but if the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in, it was going to have to go the Congress. In such a case as that, the House picks the winner, and the Senate picks the Veep. That meant Joe Lieberman would have been veep instead of Cheney. The House was Republican, so there's no way Gore could win the presidency that way.
The Supreme Court just stopped the counting which could have gone on past the "safe harbor" deadline, which was very close at hand at the time of their decision. The counting wasn't going to get done in time to get in before the safe harbor deadline, which would have thrown it into the House- by law. The Republicans controlled the House, (as Gore must have known), but the Senate was 50-50. Gore would have broken the tie in favor of Lieberman, weakening the incoming administration.
The Supreme Court then may have acted politically, but at least they were following the election law. They don't seem to be very interested in doing that anymore.
As for the rest of the article, it is pretty much the standard political fare. The author's major rhetorical thrust was the Bush v Gore decision was a type of long running coup, but it was Gore who was trying to steal the Vice Presidency if he couldn't get the Presidency itself. That's my take.
The main point to me is the total breakdown in authority that is outlined in the Constitution. There are three co-equal branches, but at the moment, the only branch that seems to matter is the Presidency. That looks like dictatorship. The President must follow the law, or what good is the Constitution anymore? Why have a Congress pass a law that the President won't enforce? Why have the Supreme Court decide the controversy, if the President decides to ignore the part of the decision that he doesn't like?
At what point will this President be restrained? If he gets re-elected, what can stop him?
Obama's War on America
Continues.
The one piece of the Arizona law that was upheld in yesterday's Court decision has just been deep sixed by the Administration. It is a total defeat. Too bad a couple of "conservative" justices don't seem to get it.
The question should have been this: does the frickin' president have the obligation to actually enforce the laws or not? He takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws, but you might as well throw the charter of this country in the trash can now.
If the Court won't stand up to this guy, who will? Or maybe a better way of phrasing it, if the Court won't support the Constitution of the United States, who will?
As Scalia said in his dissent, this boggles the mind.
WTF? Do you frickin' people understand what the hell is going on here?
HMMM?
Update:
So, Obama doesn't enforce the immigration law, which is an act of Congress. Obama doesn't have to follow an act of Congress. Arizona passes a law that enforces the law that Obama won't enforce. And the Supreme Court has just supported Obama's claim on power which he clearly doesn't have. I mean, just read the constitution, for heavens sake. It is the courts job to see to it that he does, because they are the arbiters of the what the law actually is-- supposedly. Now, Obama has just flipped them off too.
Who the hell elected him dictator?
Are they really that afraid of him? Or as Barnhardt has said, they are all in on it.
Rule of law--- Rule of men? Who won? Need I ask?
The one piece of the Arizona law that was upheld in yesterday's Court decision has just been deep sixed by the Administration. It is a total defeat. Too bad a couple of "conservative" justices don't seem to get it.
The question should have been this: does the frickin' president have the obligation to actually enforce the laws or not? He takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws, but you might as well throw the charter of this country in the trash can now.
If the Court won't stand up to this guy, who will? Or maybe a better way of phrasing it, if the Court won't support the Constitution of the United States, who will?
As Scalia said in his dissent, this boggles the mind.
WTF? Do you frickin' people understand what the hell is going on here?
HMMM?
Update:
So, Obama doesn't enforce the immigration law, which is an act of Congress. Obama doesn't have to follow an act of Congress. Arizona passes a law that enforces the law that Obama won't enforce. And the Supreme Court has just supported Obama's claim on power which he clearly doesn't have. I mean, just read the constitution, for heavens sake. It is the courts job to see to it that he does, because they are the arbiters of the what the law actually is-- supposedly. Now, Obama has just flipped them off too.
Who the hell elected him dictator?
Are they really that afraid of him? Or as Barnhardt has said, they are all in on it.
Rule of law--- Rule of men? Who won? Need I ask?
Confirmation of what I have thought for years
Media bias isn't well intentioned.
Note:
Categorizing this post is a bit of a problem. Morality is one of pillars of civilization, and it is breaking down, along with everything else. So, that may make some sense, but the link is not about that explicitly.
Also, in the about the blog section, I mentioned that the media is failing us, which is mostly what the blog attempts to address. The link was explicitly about that, though.
Note:
Categorizing this post is a bit of a problem. Morality is one of pillars of civilization, and it is breaking down, along with everything else. So, that may make some sense, but the link is not about that explicitly.
Also, in the about the blog section, I mentioned that the media is failing us, which is mostly what the blog attempts to address. The link was explicitly about that, though.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Polls Show Obama Crashing, Romney Surging
Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
Morris is exaggerating just a bit, but he does appear to have a point.
Things can change, but the trend is unmistakable.
Morris is exaggerating just a bit, but he does appear to have a point.
Things can change, but the trend is unmistakable.
Human-powered helicopter
behind the black
This is a humongous contraption. It also appears to be quite difficult to get it to rise very high off the floor.
There's a $250,000 prize if anyone can reach 3 meters for a minute or more in a human power chopper. The demonstration shows why the prize hasn't been collected on for over 30 years.
This is a humongous contraption. It also appears to be quite difficult to get it to rise very high off the floor.
There's a $250,000 prize if anyone can reach 3 meters for a minute or more in a human power chopper. The demonstration shows why the prize hasn't been collected on for over 30 years.
Rule of law v Rule of men
That's the choice. It is always the choice.
It has been said that the country is more divided now than in a long time. Let's look at another time in which the divisions were so deep that a civil war developed. What could have been different about the history of that? Could war have been avoided?
Here's a thought. The South could have succeeded in leaving the Union without having to fire a shot. Once they went to war, the game was over. How could they have won?
By adhering to the rule of law. By refusing to accept the outcome of the election, they set in motion the inevitability of their defeat.
The rule of law says that a Constitutional Convention could be called if enough states agreed to it. The issue of slavery was so strong that a Convention at that time may have been possible on that issue alone. If they had agreed not to leave the Union in exchange for a constitutional convention on the basis of the issue of slavery, they might have got it and won.
The main argument against a convention is that it would be unpredictable and uncontrollable. If that's true now, it would have been true then as well. This would have worked in the South's favor because a possible outcome would have been totally unforeseen. What could have been done to stop an idea that the South could leave, if they so chose? This could have been proposed as an amendment and it may have passed. If it had been passed, it may have been ratified. If it had been ratified, the South could have seceded successfully.
On the other hand, by not going this course, they became outlaws. This enabled Lincoln to go to war with the South and conquer it. This would not have been possible if the South had stuck to the rule of law. There would have been nothing that Lincoln could have done about it.
That analysis has the benefit of hindsight. Those at the time had no way of knowing for sure how the fortunes of war would turn. If they had tried a constitutional convention and had lost, many may have regretted that they didn't go to war instead.
Everything has its risk.
The way to deal with the Democrats is the same as the way the South should have dealt with the North. Stick with the rule of law. If the Democrats try to expand the government too much, then propose a Convention. This has the risk of making things worse, but you may have the chance to win. Those are the fortunes of politics which is another form of war, but at least you play by the rules of law. This keeps you from losing the high ground in the battle of morality.
You see, the rule of law must be more moral than the rule of men. Justice cannot be decided by force alone.
It has been said that the country is more divided now than in a long time. Let's look at another time in which the divisions were so deep that a civil war developed. What could have been different about the history of that? Could war have been avoided?
Here's a thought. The South could have succeeded in leaving the Union without having to fire a shot. Once they went to war, the game was over. How could they have won?
By adhering to the rule of law. By refusing to accept the outcome of the election, they set in motion the inevitability of their defeat.
The rule of law says that a Constitutional Convention could be called if enough states agreed to it. The issue of slavery was so strong that a Convention at that time may have been possible on that issue alone. If they had agreed not to leave the Union in exchange for a constitutional convention on the basis of the issue of slavery, they might have got it and won.
The main argument against a convention is that it would be unpredictable and uncontrollable. If that's true now, it would have been true then as well. This would have worked in the South's favor because a possible outcome would have been totally unforeseen. What could have been done to stop an idea that the South could leave, if they so chose? This could have been proposed as an amendment and it may have passed. If it had been passed, it may have been ratified. If it had been ratified, the South could have seceded successfully.
On the other hand, by not going this course, they became outlaws. This enabled Lincoln to go to war with the South and conquer it. This would not have been possible if the South had stuck to the rule of law. There would have been nothing that Lincoln could have done about it.
That analysis has the benefit of hindsight. Those at the time had no way of knowing for sure how the fortunes of war would turn. If they had tried a constitutional convention and had lost, many may have regretted that they didn't go to war instead.
Everything has its risk.
The way to deal with the Democrats is the same as the way the South should have dealt with the North. Stick with the rule of law. If the Democrats try to expand the government too much, then propose a Convention. This has the risk of making things worse, but you may have the chance to win. Those are the fortunes of politics which is another form of war, but at least you play by the rules of law. This keeps you from losing the high ground in the battle of morality.
You see, the rule of law must be more moral than the rule of men. Justice cannot be decided by force alone.
Watergate
Another reason why I could never be a Democrat. Not that Watergate was an ok thing, but the hypocrisy of the Democrats in not maintaining the same standards for themselves as they demand for others. When Clinton committed perjury, he stayed. When Nixon committed a lesser violation, he had to go. It's the double standard and the hypocrisy that turned me against them.
The thing that galls me the most is that I believed them back then. I never believe in them, I just believed them for the most part. It has happened over a large number of issues-- they simply are able to fool people. And I was one of them. I think that they are able to do this because of the bad faith of the media. It is indeed bad faith because it goes well beyond mere bias. They are actively trying to fool people. They work hand in glove with the Democrats. There may be a million rationalizations for what they are doing, so they don't see themselves as evil. But it is evil.
I haven't had a similar experience with the Republicans. Yes, they can disappoint. But the Democrats are on a completely different level.
Update:
Speaking of the devil, Ann Barnhardt has something on the subject at her blog. She says that people want to be lied to.
It will take great moral courage to change things. Yes indeed. You see, the greatest problem with the Republicans is their cowardice. Cowardice is a moral failing. That's what plagues the Republicans. And it is evil too. Is it the worse evil?
That's a matter of opinion. The thing that makes the wolf a wolf and the lamb a lamb is that the wolf is bigger than the lamb. The lamb can't win that battle. The only chance the lamb has is in numbers. An entire herd of lambs can overwhelm any single wolf. But the lambs aren't organized. They don't tend to organize. They probably don't want to organize. So, they hope that the wolf eats some other lamb besides themselves.
That's the way it goes.
Update:
I have read and re-read Barnhardt's latest piece. She asks for a plan in deal with a list of seven problems. You know what? There may not be any plan, and if there were, it would certainly fail. Perhaps that's the point.
The overall plan is to do the best you can with what you've got. Even if all you got is your cojones.
What she says sounds like giving up. That's even worse than no plan at all.
The thing that galls me the most is that I believed them back then. I never believe in them, I just believed them for the most part. It has happened over a large number of issues-- they simply are able to fool people. And I was one of them. I think that they are able to do this because of the bad faith of the media. It is indeed bad faith because it goes well beyond mere bias. They are actively trying to fool people. They work hand in glove with the Democrats. There may be a million rationalizations for what they are doing, so they don't see themselves as evil. But it is evil.
I haven't had a similar experience with the Republicans. Yes, they can disappoint. But the Democrats are on a completely different level.
Update:
Speaking of the devil, Ann Barnhardt has something on the subject at her blog. She says that people want to be lied to.
It will take great moral courage to change things. Yes indeed. You see, the greatest problem with the Republicans is their cowardice. Cowardice is a moral failing. That's what plagues the Republicans. And it is evil too. Is it the worse evil?
That's a matter of opinion. The thing that makes the wolf a wolf and the lamb a lamb is that the wolf is bigger than the lamb. The lamb can't win that battle. The only chance the lamb has is in numbers. An entire herd of lambs can overwhelm any single wolf. But the lambs aren't organized. They don't tend to organize. They probably don't want to organize. So, they hope that the wolf eats some other lamb besides themselves.
That's the way it goes.
Update:
I have read and re-read Barnhardt's latest piece. She asks for a plan in deal with a list of seven problems. You know what? There may not be any plan, and if there were, it would certainly fail. Perhaps that's the point.
The overall plan is to do the best you can with what you've got. Even if all you got is your cojones.
What she says sounds like giving up. That's even worse than no plan at all.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
The Real Goodfella (Henry Hill documentary) 2006 2/4
Hill died less than two weeks ago.
Warning--- Bad language.
Warning--- Bad language.
Fusion propulsion revisited
Speculation alert:
Yet another goal for the cycler is to impart to it a system of propulsion. That's one of the reasons for the LFTR fission power generating device. It will provide electrical input to a DPF propulsion system ( assuming that it isn't self sustaining), which in turn, will allow the DPF propulsion device to expel alpha particles as thrust. This could work better than a Hall thruster, perhaps much better.
Therefore, it would be a type of hybrid fission fusion propulsion system. It would be aneutronic in the fusion part, and optimized for minimal nuclear waste and safety in the fission part. The downside of this proposition would be complexity.
If the thing could move, you could build an entire fleet of these things. They could go on mining and colonization missions throughout the solar system.
Yet another goal for the cycler is to impart to it a system of propulsion. That's one of the reasons for the LFTR fission power generating device. It will provide electrical input to a DPF propulsion system ( assuming that it isn't self sustaining), which in turn, will allow the DPF propulsion device to expel alpha particles as thrust. This could work better than a Hall thruster, perhaps much better.
Therefore, it would be a type of hybrid fission fusion propulsion system. It would be aneutronic in the fusion part, and optimized for minimal nuclear waste and safety in the fission part. The downside of this proposition would be complexity.
If the thing could move, you could build an entire fleet of these things. They could go on mining and colonization missions throughout the solar system.
Terraform cycler asteroids, part 2
Speculation alert
Part 1 is revised to this design, which should be simpler. All that is required in this version is to build two docks at each end, which will be connected by a tube, which is 2 kilometers long. The tube will be constructed of the metals mined from the asteroid. At 2 km, it will be able to generate 1 g of artificial gravity assuming 1 RPM spin.
The asteroid will be at the center and it can still be terraformed as you go along.
Wastes will be processed by using an energy source. This can be solar, nuclear, or chemical ( probably fuel cell of some sort). Here's a rough sketch of the design
Update:
Next in series, Part 3
Part 1 is revised to this design, which should be simpler. All that is required in this version is to build two docks at each end, which will be connected by a tube, which is 2 kilometers long. The tube will be constructed of the metals mined from the asteroid. At 2 km, it will be able to generate 1 g of artificial gravity assuming 1 RPM spin.
The asteroid will be at the center and it can still be terraformed as you go along.
Wastes will be processed by using an energy source. This can be solar, nuclear, or chemical ( probably fuel cell of some sort). Here's a rough sketch of the design
 |
| This design would achieve artificial gravity, life support, radiation shielding etc. as part of the goals indicated in part 1 |
Update:
Next in series, Part 3
Printing a human kidney
bbc.com
Don't forget to click on the TED talk.
About the Speaker
Anthony Atala asks, "Can we grow organs instead of transplanting them?" His lab at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine is doing just that - engineering over 30 tissues and whole organs. Anthony Atala is the director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, where his work focuses on growing and regenerating tissues and organs.
Don't forget to click on the TED talk.
Woman Super Glued To Toilet Seat Inside Kentucky Walmart « CBS Cleveland
Woman Super Glued To Toilet Seat Inside Kentucky Walmart « CBS Cleveland
How embarrassing.
WLEX-TV reports that woman was stuck for more than an hour on the toilet because the seat was covered in super glue.
How embarrassing.
Green ‘drivel’ exposed | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun
Green ‘drivel’ exposed | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun
I got this link from Drudge. It appears that the greenies stopped liking the guy who invented their religion. It would analogous to the Christians not liking Jesus. Whoa!
I got this link from Drudge. It appears that the greenies stopped liking the guy who invented their religion. It would analogous to the Christians not liking Jesus. Whoa!
Thing-O-Matic! MakerBot Industries at CES 2011
Here's a way to make anything you want, they say. Could you do something like this in outer space? Probably there'd be a problem with weightlessness. In addition, even if you used artificial gravity, it may introduce complexities that would make it impractical. Yet, I wonder if there would be a way to make this work and make things in space using materials at hand.
Update:
There was once a NASA study to propose ways to reuse the shuttle's external tanks while in space. I made a series out of this.
The point I'm trying to remember is what kind of materials can be fashions from the matter at hand. It seems that things like wires could be made with the metal in the tanks.
Now, try to imagine taking some metal from an asteroid and fashion some building blocks for a space station. Then put it together and voila, a space station. That's the general idea.
Update:
There was once a NASA study to propose ways to reuse the shuttle's external tanks while in space. I made a series out of this.
The point I'm trying to remember is what kind of materials can be fashions from the matter at hand. It seems that things like wires could be made with the metal in the tanks.
Now, try to imagine taking some metal from an asteroid and fashion some building blocks for a space station. Then put it together and voila, a space station. That's the general idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)