What would be the best system to handle water needs?

There are a number of things I'd like to try, but shortage of money is going to limit them.  Maybe that is not such a bad thing.  I wrote that before, by the way.  A shortage of money causes one to be more creative in solving problems.

One thing I'd like to try out west is to capture water through condensation of the humidity that's already in the atmosphere.  You'd think that it was too dry out there, but it actually can get fairly humid at times.  It is during these times that I think an opportunity exists to capture some of that water.

An idea that I have is to convert my freezer into such a device.  What it would do is send a column of air, which would be in a metal tube that enters and exits the freezer.  By the time the air got through the entire circuit I put it through, the water would freeze out of the atmosphere and be deposited on the inside of the tube.  Once the tube plugged up, it would be ready for harvest.  I'd pull it out, and put another in its place.  While the next batch froze up, I'd melt the one just collected and obtain the water.

In order to make this idea work, I'd have to make the freezer work out there.  This requires a lot of equipment that isn't cheap.   Let's see:

1. It would need a special inverter that could convert 12 volt direct current into 115 volt alternating current.  This might cost up to a thousand bucks.
2. It would need batteries to store electrical power from solar panels and windpower. Let's say 2k$
3. It would need said solar panels and the windpower module.  Let's say 3k$
4. Possibly you could run an electrical generator that runs on propane or gasoline.  About 1k$
5. But the said electrical generator couldn't run the thing directly, so you would still need batteries.

Looks like the cheap alternative would be to use a propane generator that recharged the batteries.  About 4k$ in total.  That's a lot of bucks for somebody who cannot afford to spend that kind of money on a mere experiment.

What would be accomplished?  Well, if you could pull out 4 gallons of water a night, that would take care of all personal needs for one person.  If you could pull out more, then that might be something special depending on how much you could get.

A commercial dehumidifier could do the job under normal circumstances, but this requires something a bit more powerful.  There's some advertised that claim up to 70 pints per day.  If you could get that kind of performance, which I don't know is even possible, it might be possible to run it about 8 hours per day, or about 1/3 the time.  That would be about 70/3 pints per day.  That's about 3 gallons of water.

The said dehumidifier would use 750 watts/hrs for that 8 hours, or for the maximum of 6 kilowatt hours of electricity.  That's a lot to generate out there.  That might even leave out the solar and wind possibility even though it is the most expensive.

You could easily reach the amount needed provided that the batteries could take the charge that fast.  If not, you will need more batteries.  Figure about another 2k$ for the batteries.  Up to 6k$. 

Well, it's an interesting idea, but it looks to be way too expensive just to try to save effort on the water issue.

Rainwater catchment just requires that you make the buildings capable of draining the water into a tank.  The cost is whatever it costs to make the tank.  The downside is that you have to wait for it to rain.

Perhaps the cheapest way is the most straightforward way:  going to town and buy the water.  It costs for the gas to drive the vehicle, and the containers to carry the water.  One dude out there scoffed at my idea to capture rainwater.  Maybe he is on to something.  Experience is the best teacher.

Since I need to go into town anyway, I can always just bring along a container and fill it with water when I'm in town.  Recycling could be helpful in stretching the supply.  Rainwater catchment can supplement it, but cannot be the primary means.  Building that other stuff is too expensive.

I may have done this analysis before.  Anyway, I may include it in my off-the-grid series in the subseries devoted to water.

Prev   Next

This is about as explicit as it gets

The anti-white attitude of the left on display.

quote of a quote:

The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. 

Little wonder then that the USS Cole was attacked on Columbus Day in the year 2000.

It is as if they were internalizing the Autobiography of Malcom X, in which their religion demonizes the white man as literally the devil.

Little wonder then, that they embrace AGW, even though it bears no resemblance to science nor the truth.

No wonder then, that we were attacked on 9.11.2001.  No wonder we elected a guy with a Muslim name to the highest office in the land.  There's a word for it, it is called oikophobia.  With all this self-hatred on display, why wouldn't the Mohommedans think we were ripe for conquest?

Rolling coffin

It's been awhile since I've written about my move out to west Texas.  With my increasing infirmities, I'm beginning to think that it may not be a good move after all.  As of this time, however, the move is still on.

One thing about the trailer, which I have already purchased, is that I wanted it to be tall enough inside so that I can stand in it.  However, that may create some problems in my plans.  The idea now may be to make it shorter so that I won't be able to stand up in it.  That said, it is somewhat reluctant of me to want to do this, because I don't like stooping inside the van.

But what purpose is the trailer, but to sleep in?  So, you don't need to stand up in order to sleep, but for to take a shower.  This isn't necessary either, as a shower can be set up so that you can do it sitting down.

The buildings on the property will be tall enough to stand up in.  When I'm on the go, it won't be possible to stand up.  Given the fact that I want to use the car for Uber, then I will need something to live in while in town.  This means the trailer.  This also means that the car will have to be stored in town while I drive back and forth between the property and town.  I can save money living in the trailer, but have to spend a little to have a storage space for the car.

It may be possible to do all that without busting the budget.

A shorter trailer then, is a possibility.  Also, a possibility to save money by making it myself.  Not to mention, I don't like the idea of towing a large trailer over those dirt roads out there.

When I discussed this trailer with my eldest brother ( number one ), he said this type of trailer is "rickety".  So, this was a bit discouraging for awhile until I came up with the idea to use cotter pins to hold the thing together.  Why not?  The only thing holding your front wheels on your car is a cotter pin.  That may bother some folks, but a tiny little piece of metal is the only thing that separates you from disaster.  If that cotter pin fails, the wheel falls off.  This is true, so it would also be true for holding that trailer together so that it will be more robust than what number one says.

If it has a lower profile, it will be easier to see around.  That important for driving around a lot.

For the actual building, the thought occurred to me to use a thin metal skin.  Actually, that isn't a new thought, as the idea of using metal has already occurred to me.  On this iteration of the idea, which may not be too different from the last, is to use the metal as a skin over the plywood and wood frame.

Another plus for the shorter profile is that it will be easier to climate control.  It gets closer to being the "coffin" that I described earlier.  The less cubic feet, the less energy it takes to keep it comfortable inside.  Call it the "rolling coffin".

Update:

Once again, I get the idea to use some of my stuff in the apartment for my RV van conversion.  The bedroom chest can fit snugly into the van.  I was thinking of cutting out a hole and placing a sink in it.  One 5 gallon bucket for fresh water, and one for grey water that collect the water going down the drink.  A mirror can be placed above it.  Plenty of room for one.  Not really a bad idea, especially if I am going to make the sleeping quarters in the trailer.

Update:

This entire concept may have to be shelved.  Too much expense.  Too much trouble.  It may be better to try something else.


This post will go in the construction subseries of the off-the-grid main series of posts.

Prev   Next

From Gloom to Gusto

The fact that Chris Christie was able to win the Hispanic vote should be a reason to be optimistic about the GOP's chances to win the White House.

Not that all of the GOP will follow Christie's methods.   A lot of the doom comes from the demographics, which don't seem to favor the GOP.  However, if a GOP candidate can actually win a demographic like this, it shoots the Democrat's strategy all to hell.

A reason for optimism, indeed.

I've studied Christie a little.  He's conservative enough unless you are just downright unreasonable about your conservatism.

Not that I've gone over to Christie, mind you.  Only that Christie proves that it is possible.

Christie: Clinton Should Suspend Campaign After ISIS Comments

Instapundit

comment:

Christie is criticizing Hillary's statement that seems to ignore the realities of the situation.

As for the Christie campaign, he is probably not going to win, unless he can win over the Establishment types.  In order to do that, he must support amnesty.  It's all about getting cheap immigrant labor and for the Democrats, getting their votes.

But Christie claims he won 22 percent of the black vote and more than that:

“I won the Hispanic vote – won it – 51 percent of the Hispanic vote in New Jersey; 22 percent of the African-American vote, up from 9 percent four years earlier, and 57 percent of the female vote against an 18-year female state senator. In the end, if you walk away from today with nothing else just remember this: I know how to win

Truly, this is something to consider.  I know, I know.  He helped Obama win in 2012.  I criticized him a lot for that.  Nevertheless, Christie is worth a closer look, according to what he says here and plugging in those numbers at the 538 site bears it out.

Update:

Conservatives seem to have a problem with Christie.  There are a few things that worry me about him, but overall, he'd be a whole lot better than Hillary.  If the choice was between him and Hillary, I'd definitely vote for him.

If I had a scorecard right now, I'd say he doesn't rank high with me, but he scores better than Bush and maybe even Rubio.  Kasich doesn't score well at all.  I don't take Paul seriously.  At this point, it's bifurcated with: Trump, Cruz, Carson, Christie, and Rubio with the adults.  Kasich, Bush, Paul and the others can go to the kiddies' table.

Overall, I'm not confident for the GOP nominee to win in the general.  If winning was the only thing, Christie and Rubio would be at the top.  Rubio is not trustworthy, or he'd be higher.

Trump has to grow as a candidate, and time is running short.

Merry Christmas

Not exactly a tradition on this blog.  As a matter of fact, there was just one year in which I didn't do a "Merry Christmas" post, and it was in 2011.  All other years, there was one post devoted to Christmas.

Christmas was a big deal to my Dad.  Not in the religious sense, but in the gift giving sense.  He thought it was important to celebrate it that way.  Something about that bothered me, though.  Maybe there has always been this questioning side to me.  If I had asked why we do this, I might not get an adequate answer.  "Just because" isn't good enough for yours truly.  You didn't "sass" my Dad, either.  If he said something, you'd better do it.

You'd think the old man was strict, but not at all.  It was an amazing amount of freedom that we had as kids.  It is curious why I am not more adventurous, because I'm not.  Maybe it is a matter of temperament.

But contemplating that move out West is a bit bold.  Maybe bold isn't the word.  Maybe reckless.  Sometimes, I can get rash.

I know how Charlie Brown felt when he asked what is Christmas all about.

More AGW debunking

Not my ideas this time, but someone else's.  Saw part of it at Ace, then the rest here.

The part you see at Ace discusses how carbon dioxide can possibly absorb heat.  But for it do so, it must deviate from and Ideal Gas.  This was the discussion I took on in an earlier post.  What it amounts to is that if the heat doesn't expand the gas, then the gas won't expand like an Ideal Gas.

Frankly, I'm doubtful that carbon dioxide can absorb any heat at all, despite this.  As soon as it gets hotter, it expands, which in turn, causes it to cool down.  All gases do this.  The expansion will offset any gains that might have been possible with its atomic structure.

When talking no longer works

One of the assumptions amongst the left leaning types is that we can all talk out our problems.  Or so it seems sometimes.

You get a Muslim who wants to kill you, like the one who killed Theo Van Gogh.  I recall the story is that Van Gogh pleaded with his killer for an opportunity to "talk it over".  Of course, there was no way that was going to happen.  Words had lost their ability to affect outcomes, assuming that such was ever the case anyway.  If it is the case, it is only amongst those who play by the same rules.  Van Gogh's killer did not play by those rules.

Then you get people in this country who believe that you can talk with the other political party and "work with them".  So, how's that been going?  If you want to know the truth, this is what I believed myself.  If you present your information to them, you could persuade them.  But what happens is different.  You find that no matter what you say, it won't make any difference.  Once again, the assumption is that people are going to play by a certain set of rules, when in fact, they've got their own rules, and your rules aren't part of theirs.

Any more examples?

Maybe the communists v. the capitalists during the Cold War.  The left in this country wanted to work things out with the Soviet Union.  They wanted to bargain and to make deals.  But along comes Reagan, and he just defeats them, and then its over.  Come to think of it, the left really hated Reagan for that.

There doesn't necessarily have to be a war, or violence; but there does have to be an approach that can work.  The winners seem to work for victory.  Those who wait around for dialogue won't win, but may just get themselves extinct.

The problem thus stated is that there comes a time when words fail, and some type of action is required.  When it comes to internal affairs, such as government and politics, that action could take the form of violence, or it take take the form of a movement that may or may not employ violence.  You could have a revolution, or you could have an election that is a watershed type election.  If the elections don't work, then the violence may come later.  One way or another, when words fail, something is going to have to give.

What the left is attempting to do in this country is to change the nature of its society without discussion or violence.  There's currently no discussion, because in order to have discussion, there has to be some give and take.  When there's none of that, then violence of some kind is likely.

It remains to be seen whether or not people in this country recognize this in time in order to avoid violence.

Forgotten history

The true story is nothing like what you are constantly being told.  You are made to feel guilty as a means of controlling you and then subjugating you.

Learn the truth if you like to be civilized.

h/t Free Republic

France is racist

Of course I don't mean that, but that's the logic of the attack against Trump for wanting to control our borders.

More control over the borders is very popular there now according to this story:

A similarly overwhelming majority want more police officers and stricter border controls. [emphasis added]

So, by the "standards" of some talking head types in this country, France has become a racist country.

Update:

Oh, this story isn't terrorism.  To say so shows that you are a bigot.  It's the French's fault for being fearful.  It's all Islamophobia.  They brought it upon themselves.  /sarcasm off

Ann Barnhardt might be right

Not that I agree with her "axiom" about any political candidate who runs for office is already unfit for that office.  Nope.  What convinces me that the nation is done is by reading what the rank and file have to say.  And by checking closely at their voting habits.

It's going to be mighty hard to change those habits and attitudes, let me tell you.  If 9.11 couldn't do it, then it probably can't be done.

In other words, the nation could still be turned around, but we require some sort of national sea change in attitudes.  That's not happening.  If anything, the thing just seems to be worse than ever.

I'm still going to favor Trump.  But I'm not going to kid myself about it.  Rubio may poll better, but his word is useless.  They call Trump a liar, but Rubio is far worse when it comes to immigration.  I checked it out.

They are all overplaying the "vulgarity" thing.  It's just an excuse.  If Bill Clinton can hold the White House for eight years, then claiming their prudishness was hurt doesn't fly with me.

There's a difference between lying and being wrong

I've had a saying on this blog- the truth is a slippery thing.  But lying isn't so slippery.  Lying is rock solid and full of friction so that it can be fully grasped- not like the fish that slip away.

What makes it so?  It is a willful attempt to deceive someone about what is the truth of a subject.

For example, a crook steals something, and is suspected of being the culprit.  Do you think the crook, when asked, will admit to the theft?  Isn't it more likely that he will deceive others in such a way as to be able to get away with his theft?  The crook knows who's guilty- he is.  He was there when it happened.  He knows all the details about the theft.  But he will not tell anybody that because he will be punished for it, and he knows it.  The crook has a motive for his lying.  He gains from it.

Now, suppose there was a witness who saw the crook.  The witness points out an innocent person who looks like the crook, but isn't the same person.  The witness swears up and down that the innocent person is guilty.  Is the witness a liar then?  Not if he actually believes what he is saying.  He is merely wrong.

The truth is slippery here because you've got two people who look the same, but only one of them could have done the crime.

But the liar isn't slippery.  He knows the truth, and he is determined that those who seek him out won't find him.

In this hypothetical case, the truth may become known with more investigation.  But someone has to be motivated to find that truth.  If nobody cares about it, the truth will remain unknown.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that there was a poll which asked some questions about the two leading candidates for president.  Hillary is thought to be dishonest and untrustworthy.  But so is Trump.

I am thinking that there is one of these two who is more trustworthy than the other.  But that is not what the poll asked.  Actually, more people in the poll think Trump is a liar than Hillary.

That surprises me.  From what I've read about Trump so far, the worst that can be said of him is that he exaggerates.  Not the same as lying.  Hillary, on the other hand, just makes stuff up.  She will say anything.

So, I'm wondering if Trump loses the election to a ruthless liar simply because of some of things he says aren't 100% true in all its details.  For example, he is said to be a liar because he said he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the 9.11 atrocity.  Perhaps he really didn't see that.  But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that he definitely did see something.  Hillary, on the other hand, makes up a story about a video that caused the Benghazi attack, which was proven to be false.  She was proven to be a liar when one of her emails revealed that she knew it wasn't about a video.  She goes to the video stories again by accusing Trump of causing ISIS to recruit based upon what Trump is saying.  But no videos exist.  She made it up out of whole cloth.  She had to be lying.

But if you check the polls, the people think the two are about equally dishonest.  The truth is a slippery thing.  You have to really be determined to get at the truth in order to keep digging for it.  For that, there needs to be a respect for truth.  If you seek it, you will find it- if finding the truth is your motivation.

They did not know this, but could have guessed

Michael Barone notes that the GOP candidates didn't know that the markets would collapse in 2008, or they would have campaigned differently.

Since I seemed to have guessed it, so could they.  The warning signs were there.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda ain't no excuse.  It was possible to run on the possibility.  Not that you would have been believed, though.

In the end, it wouldn't have made a difference.  The nominating conventions were over by the time the markets collapsed.

Are we no longer at war with radical Islam?

Hillary then, and Hillary now.





So, is the war on Terror over, or not?

If it isn't, then what is her beef against Trump?

h/t Instapundit

Climate data scandal

It revolves around the agency’s persistent refusal to provide to Congress documentation of its methodology for collecting and using data in climate models.

comment:

If it was truly a science, then why all the secrecy?  Science is a quest for truth.  How does secrecy serve that end?

Trouble for Trump

Seems to be related to a recent post, in which the vote is broke down amongst the demographics.

This trouble may not harm him in the primaries, but could bite him hard in the general.

According to Dick Morris' lunch alert titled "who's voting for who", Trump's supporters are blue collar, non-college educated men.  That means big trouble in the general.  That's not enough to win the general.  It will certainly help to have those, but who he needs is Rubio's voters to win.  He doesn't appear to be on track to win those.  The media will see to that.

There has always been a downside to Trump.  The downside is that his appeal may be too narrow.

SpaceX nails it

After a number of failed attempts, SpaceX has now achieved a soft landing of their first stage rocket.

As momentous as this is, it isn't entirely new in all respects.  The Space Shuttle was mostly reusable.  However, it didn't save money on its launches due to the fact that the reusability part didn't turn out to be easy.  The main engines had to be mostly rebuilt after each launch.  The solid rocket boosters had to be taken apart and rebuilt as well.

The designs are different enough though that the results may also be different.  The first stage burns for less time and at a lower temperature.  It uses nine engines instead of three, which gives a margin for error that the Shuttle didn't have.  The solid rocket boosters aren't there.  Instead, there's the rocket casing, which presumably won't need any refurbishing at all.

Actually, landing the thing may be the easy part.  The hard part may be getting the reusability down pat, plus a fast turnaround.   If all this can be accomplished, then it should be revolutionary.

Update:

According to this article, the first stage probably won't fly again.   They'll be going over it with a fine tooth comb.  It stands to reason that it may not make it back after they finish with it.

Also, I didn't take into account how much the engines had to fire on the return trip.  It remains to be seen what that may mean to refurb efforts.

What happens with Trump is a watershed moment in US History

It seems that Obama is charging the white people of the country with racism, because of the Trump phenomenon.

I was just thinking-  that old magic is fading.  The magic being that if you denounce a political figure as racist, then their career is over.  Now that Obama has practically done that with Trump and his followers, the test of that magic can be seen as still all powerful, or fading fast.

The left's argument boils down to this:  If you care about the racist, bigoted country of America, that's only because that's what you are racist yourself.  Since Trump wants to "make America great again", then that makes you racist.  He's trying to bring back bad old America, which was so unfair to the rest of the world with her prosperity and power.

Until America is punished enough, it is unfit.  So Obama is there to punish the country.  That's what his speech really means.  Punish America ( white people).  Until America has been punished and changed enough ( turned non-white) , America must suffer.

I see Trump as America's last chance to right its own ship before she sinks for good.

It's too bad that there are too many people in this country who don't see Obama for what he really is.  That's why he was elected twice.

As for Hillary, she's just a crook.  I'm sure that if Obama could, he'd replace her with someone more to his liking.  Hillary will say anything.  She might even pretend to be completely different from Obama, if she thought she had to be in order to win.

She can't suck up to Obama, though.  She has to accuse Trump of being racist.  That's their playbook.  Anyone who tries to defend America, or see her prosper, will be considered an enemy.  This is what animates the left.

If too many people are convinced of the left's argument, then Trump could be the last chance.  The country will get through the disaster or it won't.  How it handles Trump is key.

Obama equals Custer?

Probably not.  But when he uses language like he did against Trump, he makes me wonder.  Can he really be that stupid?  How can a man like this become POTUS?   But Custer was said to be interested in the job.

Custer had a little problem on the way toward that ambition.  We are stuck with Obama.  At least for the moment.

AGW theory is utterly without merit

Again, one may question my qualifications for writing this.  Yet, I think I can write it with confidence because, once again, I have discovered something that shows a critical problem with AGW theory.

This time, it is about the scientific method itself.  The unfortunate thing is that nobody is taught these things in school.  For if these things were actually taught, these AGW people would have no credibility at all.   The fact that they have any credibility with people should worry people who do know better.

I got a quote from John S. Lewis' blog about this abuse, during which he criticized the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" as an "eco-porn" film.  But the key thing for me was his discussion of the Scientific Method ( without identifying it as such):

First, there is the use of the word “evidence” to describe the predictions of models and proxy estimates.  Let’s be clear about this: the way science progresses is to 1) collect data, 2) propose one or more ideas, called hypotheses, that might explain the data, 3) use quantitative models of these hypotheses to generate predictions of future observations, and 4) carry out a new round of experiments designed to test (and discriminate between) the competing hypotheses.  Steps 1 and 4 deal with evidence (data); step 3 is not evidence; it is informed conjecture, as-yet untested speculation, whose sole purpose is to motivate a search for critical new data, NOT to predict the future. [emphasis added].

You hear a lot about the computer models, don't you?  But the purpose of the models is not to predict the future, which is being done all the time.   Aren't we always hearing how the temperature is going to rise by such and such an amount by the end of the century?  According to this quote then, it is an abuse of the scientific method to use MODELS to predict the future.  The legitimate use of the models is to search for critical new data.

If your AGW theory doesn't follow the Scientific Method, then how is it science?  It isn't.  It's a fraud.

Interesting comments section

And this from an article about a toy!

That bit about a SR-71 Blackbird flying at 4k seems a bit of a stretch.

Donald Trump Featured on CBS as Model Citizen for Building Skating Rink in Central Park [YouTube]

Free Republic

You can see it here for the moment.  It will probably be taken down because it might hurt somebody politically.

Establishment to Trump: You Can’t Afford to Run For President

Free Republic

comment:

Quite the revelation, if true.  The claim is that Trump doesn't have liquid assets.  Well, then.  We'll just have to see, won't we?

A reading into that shows that Trump is taking a hit on his business interests.  If he is in it for the money, then the report that he is in it for money falls to pieces.

A legitimate question is why is Trump running at all?  If it is for money, then that hasn't really worked.

I think he is running because of ego.  This is a mountain that he hasn't conquered.  If he conquers it, it's another feather in his cap.

I'm hoping that this will make him  a good president.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but again, we'll just have to see, won't we?

Plant that produces no emissions set to open in Texas

The plant will be built in Texas using a supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2) turbine from Toshiba. The plant will demonstrate NET Power's Allam Cycle technology, which uses CO2 as a working fluid to drive a combustion turbine and produces pipeline-quality CO2 that can be sequestered or used in various industrial processes such as enhanced oil recovery.



comment:



Is it a PR gimmick or for real?  I'm thinking gimmick.  Based upon my own studies of the issue, it doesn't seem likely that you will ever find an economical way to remove carbon from fossil fuels.  This means to have a carbon free fuel source, you must eliminate carbon.  However, this isn't acceptable.  Fortunately, there's always nuclear power.

Hey, that's my line!

Home again, Home again Jiggidy Jig!


Now, that's progress!

Sharia is subversive

If it is subversive, then it can be banned.  Or can it?

Note:  BTW, this is what I forgot about, which was mentioned in the last post.  This jogged my memory.

As I've been saying, I am amazed at how something that is so plainly efficacious in ending the threat of terrorism in this country can be so easily cast aside by those who claim to be on the side of national security.

It's not that hard.  The argument is going to be that it is too hard.

Look.  Read the book, if you can find it, about the KGB.  In it, there is a big story about how they tried to infiltrate a so-called "illegal" into the United States for the purposes of espionage.   The "illegal" underwent a ton of training, yet he was discovered very quickly by the FBI, and turned to our side.  Keep in mind, this case was before the immigration laws were changed in 1965.  Back then, there were PSAs on TV which continually reminded "aliens" to register with the government.  Obviously, they were serious about stopping people who might do harm to our country once upon a time.  Maybe not so much today.

This case referred to was one in which the missiles were discovered in Cuba.  Without this policy in effect, which no longer is in effect, the missiles may not have been discovered in time, and Castro would have nuclear missiles in his country.  This could have been catastrophic, and it almost resulted in a war anyway.

So you see.  Keeping out the bad guys is absolutely necessary.  Even ONE of them can be very dangerous.

Trump is right.  Unfortunately, too many people in this country don't recognize how important this is.

Sharia is subversive.  It undermines the rule of law of any host country that permits it.  Why should sharia be any different from any other group- let's say Nazis?  We couldn't stop Naziism?  Or communism?

Get off it.

Sharia as practiced makes them the enemy.  If they practice it, they are subversives and should be removed IMMEDIATELY.

I ask again, those of you in the GOP who have a problem with Trump.  What the f*)k is your problem?

Thoughts are ephemeral things

Thoughts are ephemeral things- here one instant, and gone
the next.  I wanted to hold on to two thoughts, but one
has slipped my mind, while I write about the other.

It had something to do with politics and the state of
the society.  Wish I could remember it.

The other is about science:

Does a particle passing by a body with a magnetic field
impart any force to that body?  If yes, how much?
And what is the nature of that force?

A thought experiment suggests that it does.  Consider two magnets.  They are supported on a cushion of air so that any force imposed upon them will cause them to move.  Maybe a bit like bumper cars.  On the other hand, maybe not.  Like Hovercraft, instead.  Anyway, the thing can float on air without touching anything that may cause friction.

Let's say you have a power magnet onboard two Hovercraft, and the two craft are heading towards each other head on.  The magnets are in front, so the two craft will come within their respective magnetic fields before they bump into one another.  What happens?  Most likely, the vehicles will be diverted somewhat by the strength of the magnetic fields interacting with each other.  Depending upon the strength of the magnetics and the amount of momentum each vehicle possesses, the collision might be averted entirely.

Now imagine if both are sitting still.  Advance one, while keeping the other still.  The likely outcome of this, I would think, is a pushing of one that's already moving of the one that isn't.  The other one will go away from the other ( provided that the magnetic fields are of the same polarity).

I think these two hypothetic scenarios show that some force is being applied to both objects.

The nature of the force that moves the stationary object is kinetic energy.  It is being transferred though the magnetic force, which is constant.  The kinetic force is variable.  Once it is removed, the source of the motion is also removed.

How can this be used for some purpose?

I was thinking of a space drive that enhances the effects of solar wind.  Since solar wind is charged particles, it has a magnetic field.  Consider a magnetic field of reverse polarity that attracts the charged particles.  If you could sweep an larger area than your ship, you can enhance the collection of solar wind particles and thereby capturing their kinetic energy as well.  This would impart more acceleration to the craft.