"Progressives" marching for truth is like Satan marching for ice skates.
( don't like that one , huh?)
yuk, yuk
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 3, 2017
Swamp cooler arrives today
Prev Next
This post will go into the Power and electricity sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and watched individually or in series from beginning to end.
When I left off this part of the series, I was testing the passive solar heating concept for the bedroom area of the RV. Since this is walled off now, it will take less electricity to climate control it. Now that the seasons have changed to near summer conditions, it is time to start testing the other part of the concept, which is a swamp cooler ( evaporative cooler ).
It has been on order for about a week now, and due to arrive today. I have made preparations for its installation. It should be an easy job.
When it arrives, I will get it ready promptly, and may even have some preliminary results before the day is over. Expect updates.
Update (s): 6.2.17, 17:37 :
The cooler did indeed arrive, and I began using it. It doesn't keep up with the heat, unfortunately. The thermometer shows nearly 90 degree farenheit. It has been running for about two hours. Nevertheless, I am not discouraged. The breeze coming from it feels okay, but not great. That is, at this temperature. If it gets hotter, which it may very well happen, then it may not be sufficient to be comfortable to sit around at this hour. Today is not a very hot day, and it is humid. These things need drier air than this. I did run the dehumidifier, but I think it adds heat to the room, so I have it off right now.
I will continue playing with this new toy until I get an idea of what it can do, and what it cannot do.
6.3.17, 6:35 :
After leaving the evaporator on all night, I noted that the temperature went down only about two degrees. It really doesn't cool very much. Also, I noted that the relative humidity inside the trailer was at seventy percent. That doesn't help the little cooler that can't very much. Upon turning on the dehumidifier, I noted the temperature went up three degrees. Ah hah! Well, the little cooler needs a little help, and now I know that the dehumidifier must stay in the hotter part of the trailer, while the cooler goes in the cooler part, that I hope will actually be cooler ( if that makes sense ).
I have been using zero water, which is probably not the ticket. These zero filters are not cheap. Perhaps I can use rain water that has been filtered by a sand filter, if I ever get one. They cost money, like everything else.
Everything is related to money even when you are not trying to use money. Doggone it.
6:35 :
Less than thirty minutes into using the evaporative cooler, the humidity level is at sixty percent. Also, when I turned on the dehumidifier, I took the temperature of the exhaust air--- nearly 95 degrees farenheit. Yikes. Unless that air is directly exhausted out of the trailer, it is counterproductive to run it.
While I think of that, I note that it is raining today. This explains the high humidity. Not a good day to make a test of this thing.
15:03 :
Still running this thing. It is a rainy day, but the sun still comes out. It is about the same temperature inside as outside. The dehumidifier is on, and I have it arranged so that at least some of the air goes outside.
It is probably as about as good as it gets with this thing.
This post will go into the Power and electricity sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and watched individually or in series from beginning to end.
When I left off this part of the series, I was testing the passive solar heating concept for the bedroom area of the RV. Since this is walled off now, it will take less electricity to climate control it. Now that the seasons have changed to near summer conditions, it is time to start testing the other part of the concept, which is a swamp cooler ( evaporative cooler ).
It has been on order for about a week now, and due to arrive today. I have made preparations for its installation. It should be an easy job.
When it arrives, I will get it ready promptly, and may even have some preliminary results before the day is over. Expect updates.
Update (s): 6.2.17, 17:37 :
The cooler did indeed arrive, and I began using it. It doesn't keep up with the heat, unfortunately. The thermometer shows nearly 90 degree farenheit. It has been running for about two hours. Nevertheless, I am not discouraged. The breeze coming from it feels okay, but not great. That is, at this temperature. If it gets hotter, which it may very well happen, then it may not be sufficient to be comfortable to sit around at this hour. Today is not a very hot day, and it is humid. These things need drier air than this. I did run the dehumidifier, but I think it adds heat to the room, so I have it off right now.
I will continue playing with this new toy until I get an idea of what it can do, and what it cannot do.
6.3.17, 6:35 :
After leaving the evaporator on all night, I noted that the temperature went down only about two degrees. It really doesn't cool very much. Also, I noted that the relative humidity inside the trailer was at seventy percent. That doesn't help the little cooler that can't very much. Upon turning on the dehumidifier, I noted the temperature went up three degrees. Ah hah! Well, the little cooler needs a little help, and now I know that the dehumidifier must stay in the hotter part of the trailer, while the cooler goes in the cooler part, that I hope will actually be cooler ( if that makes sense ).
I have been using zero water, which is probably not the ticket. These zero filters are not cheap. Perhaps I can use rain water that has been filtered by a sand filter, if I ever get one. They cost money, like everything else.
Everything is related to money even when you are not trying to use money. Doggone it.
6:35 :
Less than thirty minutes into using the evaporative cooler, the humidity level is at sixty percent. Also, when I turned on the dehumidifier, I took the temperature of the exhaust air--- nearly 95 degrees farenheit. Yikes. Unless that air is directly exhausted out of the trailer, it is counterproductive to run it.
While I think of that, I note that it is raining today. This explains the high humidity. Not a good day to make a test of this thing.
15:03 :
Still running this thing. It is a rainy day, but the sun still comes out. It is about the same temperature inside as outside. The dehumidifier is on, and I have it arranged so that at least some of the air goes outside.
It is probably as about as good as it gets with this thing.
X37-C plus Stratolauncher plus NTR upper stage ends "Pony Express" Era of Spaceflight ... updated 6.3.17
Updated on 6.2.17, originally posted 1.4.14:
Note: The Stratolauncher rolled out of its hanger the other day. However, the rest of this post is a lot of fantasy.
Which is why I started my own "moonshot". No fantasy, no fakery, but something real that I could do myself.
Little did I realize how big of a challenge that that would turn out to be.
update to the update: Come to think of it, Elon Musk was once a part of this project. Since that time to this, Musk has perfected his technology of landing a first stage rocket after finishing its burn. Now, if he had stayed with the Stratolauncher program, would they have had a 100 per cent reusable system? No, Musk still needs a reusable second stage.
Fast turnaround? Musk hasn't done that yet. But he probably figured he didn't need the Stratolauncher anyway. He may well be right.
6.3.17, 10:00 :
If the Sabre Engine, under development by Reaction Engines of the UK, can be mated with the X-37C, it may get to orbit without an NTR, and return with the all of the components being reusable. The biggest component, the airframe that lifts off the ground, is almost ready to fly now. A thought, anyway.
The original post follows:
I'll make a series out of this one. The first was the X-37C post, made on September 11th. The second post was a brief followup last month.
An idea for this post came from how the XCOR's Lynx will get to the Karman line. It will fire its engines and get only to Mach 3, and then drift upwards to the Karman line before returning to the ground. The idea here is to get to the Karman line with some momentum and let the NTR do the rest of the lifting to orbit.
It has occurred to me that the mass of the X-37C is close to the mass envisioned in James Dewar's book "The Nuclear Rocket". Let's say we want to replace his idea of using solid rocket boosters to be launched from a cargo plane--- with a launch from a Stratolauncher and an airbreather engine like the SABRE engine being developed for the Skylon SSTO.
This warrants another speculation alert, of course.
Dewar wanted his package to mass out at 91k lbs. Presumably, this would be a 17k pound payload into orbit. That's pretty close to the X-37C's mass. I didn't see any provision in Dewar's concept that would save the hydrogen tank. We should want to be able to do that.
The SABRE engines wouldn't be required to go to orbit, so we could economize on mass there by making that booster smaller. It won't be needing oxygen tanks since it is only going to be used in its airbreathing mode. The Stratolauncher helps save mass here too, because it imparts the first 30k feet of altitude to the orbiter.
Instead of going to orbit, the SABRE engines would separate at Mach 5.5 and 85k altitude, thus imparting momentum to the 91k mass of Dewar's NTR module. The module would drift upwards to the Karman line or possibly well below it and then light up the nuke booster. The SABRE powered booster would do a RTLS (return to launch site ). The 91k NTR's mass could probably be increased, since the airbreathing booster would not have to carry oxygen. The downside is that the NTR would be losing momentum as it waits for the nukes to warm up.
You could play around with the masses in order to optimize the design so that it will make it all fully reusable with a fast turnaround. For example, instead of a "cocoon" that enables the nuclear core to be fished out of the ocean, some landing gear could be supplied so that it can land like a plane. Also, the tank could be made into a lifting body shape and designed so as to survive a reentry. If more mass is needed, you may have some margin in the concept for that. Up to 500k pounds could be lifted by the Stratolauncher.
I'm thinking that it should be optimized so that that you don't have to use onboard oxygen for the first stage ascent. The SABRE provides that capability. The second stage on up to orbit would use the higher ISP capability of a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR)--- up to 1000 ISP.
Hopefully, there is a design that would enable all these advantages to be incorporated in a practical design that could be fully reusable and with a fast turnaround. The launch costs could be brought down so as to make space more accessible. That's what James Dewar believes the NTR can do. Dewar compared the chemical rocket to the "Pony Express". A nuclear rocket could take us to the next level.
Update:
Running the numbers seems to confirm that this could work. As for the rest, it would have to fit under the wing of the Stratolauncher and it would have to pass through all the red tape.
Update:
The entire mass of the thing except the X37-C and booster, could fit on a X33 airframe. You'd have to mate the NTR booster on to that, but if you could, the thing would mass at less than the X33 launcher originally planned.
The X33 failed because of the large hydrogen tanks, but those would be much reduced by an airbreathing engine for most of the trip. The X33 was a demonstrator only, not designed for orbital velocity, but suborbital velocities and altitude mentioned here.
The X33 would have to be redesigned for this, though. The imagination runs a bit too freely, perhaps.
Update:
After crunching the numbers even further, I am beginning to wonder if you even need the Stratolauncher. You may be able to use a 747 in the same way that it was used to transport the Shuttle. In addition, all of the fuel should fit inside the X-33 fuselage so that it can be made into a cargo holder for the NTR. This configuration would allow the same X-33 airframe to house the NTR/X-37C and be lifted by a 747. A minimum of new stuff would have to be invented.
next
Note: The Stratolauncher rolled out of its hanger the other day. However, the rest of this post is a lot of fantasy.
Which is why I started my own "moonshot". No fantasy, no fakery, but something real that I could do myself.
Little did I realize how big of a challenge that that would turn out to be.
update to the update: Come to think of it, Elon Musk was once a part of this project. Since that time to this, Musk has perfected his technology of landing a first stage rocket after finishing its burn. Now, if he had stayed with the Stratolauncher program, would they have had a 100 per cent reusable system? No, Musk still needs a reusable second stage.
Fast turnaround? Musk hasn't done that yet. But he probably figured he didn't need the Stratolauncher anyway. He may well be right.
6.3.17, 10:00 :
If the Sabre Engine, under development by Reaction Engines of the UK, can be mated with the X-37C, it may get to orbit without an NTR, and return with the all of the components being reusable. The biggest component, the airframe that lifts off the ground, is almost ready to fly now. A thought, anyway.
The original post follows:
I'll make a series out of this one. The first was the X-37C post, made on September 11th. The second post was a brief followup last month.
An idea for this post came from how the XCOR's Lynx will get to the Karman line. It will fire its engines and get only to Mach 3, and then drift upwards to the Karman line before returning to the ground. The idea here is to get to the Karman line with some momentum and let the NTR do the rest of the lifting to orbit.
It has occurred to me that the mass of the X-37C is close to the mass envisioned in James Dewar's book "The Nuclear Rocket". Let's say we want to replace his idea of using solid rocket boosters to be launched from a cargo plane--- with a launch from a Stratolauncher and an airbreather engine like the SABRE engine being developed for the Skylon SSTO.
This warrants another speculation alert, of course.
Dewar wanted his package to mass out at 91k lbs. Presumably, this would be a 17k pound payload into orbit. That's pretty close to the X-37C's mass. I didn't see any provision in Dewar's concept that would save the hydrogen tank. We should want to be able to do that.
The SABRE engines wouldn't be required to go to orbit, so we could economize on mass there by making that booster smaller. It won't be needing oxygen tanks since it is only going to be used in its airbreathing mode. The Stratolauncher helps save mass here too, because it imparts the first 30k feet of altitude to the orbiter.
Instead of going to orbit, the SABRE engines would separate at Mach 5.5 and 85k altitude, thus imparting momentum to the 91k mass of Dewar's NTR module. The module would drift upwards to the Karman line or possibly well below it and then light up the nuke booster. The SABRE powered booster would do a RTLS (return to launch site ). The 91k NTR's mass could probably be increased, since the airbreathing booster would not have to carry oxygen. The downside is that the NTR would be losing momentum as it waits for the nukes to warm up.
You could play around with the masses in order to optimize the design so that it will make it all fully reusable with a fast turnaround. For example, instead of a "cocoon" that enables the nuclear core to be fished out of the ocean, some landing gear could be supplied so that it can land like a plane. Also, the tank could be made into a lifting body shape and designed so as to survive a reentry. If more mass is needed, you may have some margin in the concept for that. Up to 500k pounds could be lifted by the Stratolauncher.
I'm thinking that it should be optimized so that that you don't have to use onboard oxygen for the first stage ascent. The SABRE provides that capability. The second stage on up to orbit would use the higher ISP capability of a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR)--- up to 1000 ISP.
Hopefully, there is a design that would enable all these advantages to be incorporated in a practical design that could be fully reusable and with a fast turnaround. The launch costs could be brought down so as to make space more accessible. That's what James Dewar believes the NTR can do. Dewar compared the chemical rocket to the "Pony Express". A nuclear rocket could take us to the next level.
Update:
Running the numbers seems to confirm that this could work. As for the rest, it would have to fit under the wing of the Stratolauncher and it would have to pass through all the red tape.
Update:
The entire mass of the thing except the X37-C and booster, could fit on a X33 airframe. You'd have to mate the NTR booster on to that, but if you could, the thing would mass at less than the X33 launcher originally planned.
The X33 failed because of the large hydrogen tanks, but those would be much reduced by an airbreathing engine for most of the trip. The X33 was a demonstrator only, not designed for orbital velocity, but suborbital velocities and altitude mentioned here.
The X33 would have to be redesigned for this, though. The imagination runs a bit too freely, perhaps.
Update:
After crunching the numbers even further, I am beginning to wonder if you even need the Stratolauncher. You may be able to use a 747 in the same way that it was used to transport the Shuttle. In addition, all of the fuel should fit inside the X-33 fuselage so that it can be made into a cargo holder for the NTR. This configuration would allow the same X-33 airframe to house the NTR/X-37C and be lifted by a 747. A minimum of new stuff would have to be invented.
next
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Thank you, Mr. President
President Trump did the right thing. He may get hammered for it, but that is okay. Sometimes you have to do the hard thing and risk getting hammered, because it is the right thing to do.
The so-called green energy jobs are a mirage. The arguments in favor of the Paris agreement are absurd at best.
Good riddance.
The so-called green energy jobs are a mirage. The arguments in favor of the Paris agreement are absurd at best.
Good riddance.
Krugman and the Climate of Hate...Updated 6.1.17; 12:15
Update: 6.1.17; 12:15
Note: A blast from the past. Compare this with what happened with Kathy Griffin. Can we just end this "Climate of Hate" stuff?
Of course, when the so-called right does anything, it is always different and far worse....
I might add that that Gabby Giffords was mentioned in the Krugman piece, but did Krugman call for gun control when the DNC staffer was murdered in the middle of the 2016 election?
Maybe the Russians snuffed the guy so he could not talk. What does Krugman have to say?
The original post follows:
I was going to ignore Krugman on this Climate of Hate business, but I've changed my mind. So, what did it exactly? Believe it or not, I am going to at least try to understand where he is coming from when he writes the stuff he does. I've written several posts about Krugman. He strikes me as a super partisan guy on the left. If you want to have an independent judgment, you take Krugman with a double dosed grain of salt.
First of all, I don't take his Climate of Hate stuff seriously. It doesn't even matter to him on an intellectual basis anyway. If it did, he wouldn't have anything to say. There is no connection between the Arizona shootings and anything the Tea Party did or said. If there was, he would be all over it. No, this is an emotional reaction. He really needs to make the connection on an emotional level, because no intellectual level exists.
I think the emotional reaction comes from this quote about Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly:
Since I don't listen to either of these two, I am at somewhat of a loss to counter it with anything. Yet, he mentions actual things said in terms of jokes about shooting government officials. Can this be corraborated anywhere? I spent some time looking this up and the jokes never rose to the level that Krugman is attempting to put it. If anything thought the jokes were controversial, some mention of it would have been in the forefront, but it isn't. If it isn't in the forefront, how could it contribute to a climate of hate? Isn't he making a bigger deal of these jokes than they really are?
Krugman finishes up with this question:
If the only example he gives aren't examples at all, but are just jokes that never rise above the level of even being controversial, he doesn't have much of a case. He can't make the case, he can only engage in hyperbole.
Is he really interested in making our discourse less toxic, or he is just trying to take advantage of a situation in order to get a political advantage? If he wants less toxic discourse, he would stick to the facts of the situation. The facts do not support his charges. Dismiss the rest as political hyperbole.
Update: Mon. 1/10/11, approx 5:15pm cst
Well, the left just wants to insist on this, don't they? I used to read the Mahablog, and sometimes I still do, but it is stuff like this that turns me off. Evidently, she wants to hold somebody or anybody but the one responsible, responsible for the shooting in Arizona.
This implies someone else was responsible for the shooting. Like who, for instance? If she really believes anyone else is responsible for this, let's see the evidence, shall we? She and Krugman have yet to produce one shred of evidence that anyone except the accused had anything to do with this.
Update: Mon. 1/10/11, approx 9pm, cst
If guilt is to be assigned to someone, then who is guilty? This question could arise, if Loughman is insane, and one insists on assigning guilt. If he is insane, he can't be responsible. In such cases, who then shall be responsible?
What happens if you can't assign blame to any one person? In such cases, it becomes an issue for society to consider. Yet why would such consideration amount to much? People die every day. It may seem callous to say it, but a few deaths are not that big a deal in the larger scheme of things. It isn't just my opinion. Look around. How much concern does anyone have for the loss of life that occurs every single day? Nobody really cares that much.
Liberals pretend to care. Do they really care about these people who died and Giffords who is fighting for her life as of this writing? Or is this just political theatre?
Note: A blast from the past. Compare this with what happened with Kathy Griffin. Can we just end this "Climate of Hate" stuff?
Of course, when the so-called right does anything, it is always different and far worse....
I might add that that Gabby Giffords was mentioned in the Krugman piece, but did Krugman call for gun control when the DNC staffer was murdered in the middle of the 2016 election?
Maybe the Russians snuffed the guy so he could not talk. What does Krugman have to say?
The original post follows:
I was going to ignore Krugman on this Climate of Hate business, but I've changed my mind. So, what did it exactly? Believe it or not, I am going to at least try to understand where he is coming from when he writes the stuff he does. I've written several posts about Krugman. He strikes me as a super partisan guy on the left. If you want to have an independent judgment, you take Krugman with a double dosed grain of salt.
First of all, I don't take his Climate of Hate stuff seriously. It doesn't even matter to him on an intellectual basis anyway. If it did, he wouldn't have anything to say. There is no connection between the Arizona shootings and anything the Tea Party did or said. If there was, he would be all over it. No, this is an emotional reaction. He really needs to make the connection on an emotional level, because no intellectual level exists.
I think the emotional reaction comes from this quote about Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly:
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
Since I don't listen to either of these two, I am at somewhat of a loss to counter it with anything. Yet, he mentions actual things said in terms of jokes about shooting government officials. Can this be corraborated anywhere? I spent some time looking this up and the jokes never rose to the level that Krugman is attempting to put it. If anything thought the jokes were controversial, some mention of it would have been in the forefront, but it isn't. If it isn't in the forefront, how could it contribute to a climate of hate? Isn't he making a bigger deal of these jokes than they really are?
Krugman finishes up with this question:
So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic?
If the only example he gives aren't examples at all, but are just jokes that never rise above the level of even being controversial, he doesn't have much of a case. He can't make the case, he can only engage in hyperbole.
Is he really interested in making our discourse less toxic, or he is just trying to take advantage of a situation in order to get a political advantage? If he wants less toxic discourse, he would stick to the facts of the situation. The facts do not support his charges. Dismiss the rest as political hyperbole.
Update: Mon. 1/10/11, approx 5:15pm cst
Well, the left just wants to insist on this, don't they? I used to read the Mahablog, and sometimes I still do, but it is stuff like this that turns me off. Evidently, she wants to hold somebody or anybody but the one responsible, responsible for the shooting in Arizona.
However, I doubt very much that the shootings will change anything. Those most at fault deny their responsibility.
This implies someone else was responsible for the shooting. Like who, for instance? If she really believes anyone else is responsible for this, let's see the evidence, shall we? She and Krugman have yet to produce one shred of evidence that anyone except the accused had anything to do with this.
Update: Mon. 1/10/11, approx 9pm, cst
If guilt is to be assigned to someone, then who is guilty? This question could arise, if Loughman is insane, and one insists on assigning guilt. If he is insane, he can't be responsible. In such cases, who then shall be responsible?
What happens if you can't assign blame to any one person? In such cases, it becomes an issue for society to consider. Yet why would such consideration amount to much? People die every day. It may seem callous to say it, but a few deaths are not that big a deal in the larger scheme of things. It isn't just my opinion. Look around. How much concern does anyone have for the loss of life that occurs every single day? Nobody really cares that much.
Liberals pretend to care. Do they really care about these people who died and Giffords who is fighting for her life as of this writing? Or is this just political theatre?
Porn and Outrage Porn--- what's the diff?
I'm listening to Barnhardt's latest podcast. She's going off on Ariana Grande, whoever that is. Yep, I am so out of it that I don't know who this person is.
She's connected to the Manchester terrorist event in the UK. Anyway, Barnhardt says that Grande is actually into "porn" as she describes it. Well, I cannot vouch for it, since I am not at all familiar with this artist.
I did do a minor research of Grande, but I didn't listen to her music or anything. However, it doesn't surprise me a bit if she is a bit of a pervert. Why bother? It only will scandalize anybody to find that out. Then you get into outrage porn.
Outrage porn? My understanding of what this term is may well be incorrect, but I think it is when people go off on a tangent in reacting to something that outrages them. So, they make a statement for the world to see, and the people get into that too. So, it is like everybody getting off on something, like it was porn or something that they watch or consume.
It could well be that when getting mad enough to be in a outrage, and insisting that the world knows about it, is something of a pornographic moment. People love to be angry about something.
So, does this mean that we shouldn't be outraged at what is being done to innocent little girls who go to these concerts and see what amounts to porn? I don't think venting about it on the internet is really going to make any difference.
The thing to do it seems, is to do what you can in your own life. Don't add to porn, but clean yourself up. If that is possible, that is. People are so into porn, don't you know. It is worth a lot of clicks.
But the truth is just so boring.
Yeah, I guess that may be a bit of jealousy coming out. Let's have some porn, by golly. That will get their attention. It would help make my blog more popular. (yay me)
She's connected to the Manchester terrorist event in the UK. Anyway, Barnhardt says that Grande is actually into "porn" as she describes it. Well, I cannot vouch for it, since I am not at all familiar with this artist.
I did do a minor research of Grande, but I didn't listen to her music or anything. However, it doesn't surprise me a bit if she is a bit of a pervert. Why bother? It only will scandalize anybody to find that out. Then you get into outrage porn.
Outrage porn? My understanding of what this term is may well be incorrect, but I think it is when people go off on a tangent in reacting to something that outrages them. So, they make a statement for the world to see, and the people get into that too. So, it is like everybody getting off on something, like it was porn or something that they watch or consume.
It could well be that when getting mad enough to be in a outrage, and insisting that the world knows about it, is something of a pornographic moment. People love to be angry about something.
So, does this mean that we shouldn't be outraged at what is being done to innocent little girls who go to these concerts and see what amounts to porn? I don't think venting about it on the internet is really going to make any difference.
The thing to do it seems, is to do what you can in your own life. Don't add to porn, but clean yourself up. If that is possible, that is. People are so into porn, don't you know. It is worth a lot of clicks.
But the truth is just so boring.
Yeah, I guess that may be a bit of jealousy coming out. Let's have some porn, by golly. That will get their attention. It would help make my blog more popular. (yay me)
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Is the moonshot still feasible?
This post will fit into my off-the-grid series of posts. It will be classified under the general subcategory, or subseries. It can read end to end by following the links, or the entire series can be accessed through the table of contents post.
Prev Next
The cost of the system would not be exorbitant, but it appears to be beyond my means. This leaves other options that could still work. However, with everything that has happened, the question is whether or not this is still feasible at all for yours truly.
Even if my health stabilizes, and even if my finances stabilizes, I am still in a hole. This will take some luck and some time to get out of it. With my luck, I may not have time, much less anything else.
Over the years, I have made many investments. It is hard for me to cut my losses and just give up. Yet it may be necessary. It is not necessary just yet, though.
In theory, I could still do this. Maybe not the way I would like to do it, but it may still be doable with a lot of luck.
I will leave it there for now.
In the meantime, my work will be theoretical. I cannot make trips out there with my tight budget.
Prev Next
The cost of the system would not be exorbitant, but it appears to be beyond my means. This leaves other options that could still work. However, with everything that has happened, the question is whether or not this is still feasible at all for yours truly.
Even if my health stabilizes, and even if my finances stabilizes, I am still in a hole. This will take some luck and some time to get out of it. With my luck, I may not have time, much less anything else.
Over the years, I have made many investments. It is hard for me to cut my losses and just give up. Yet it may be necessary. It is not necessary just yet, though.
In theory, I could still do this. Maybe not the way I would like to do it, but it may still be doable with a lot of luck.
I will leave it there for now.
In the meantime, my work will be theoretical. I cannot make trips out there with my tight budget.
About farts (Forced Artificial Scarcity) ... (updated 5.31.17 @ 18:15 )
Update @ 18:15, 5.31.17 :
[Note: You may have noticed that this post was originally posted on 11.4.10, or over six and a half years ago. I have taken advantage of a way to repost old posts by changed the date of publication. Neat trick.]
The fakery that is commented upon frequently on this blog is not unique, nor new. What may be new is that it is a systemic thing now. Everything is false. We cannot get real things anymore.
Our world is much smaller than what it could be. We could be colonizing the solar system by now. In fact we should be colonizing the solar system by now. There is no shortage of anything. Everything that we need to live at a high standard of living is already in existence.
However, it is being kept from us by deceit of men who wish to rule over other men.
The original post follows just below:
Last month, I came across an article on on cracked.com that I would like to comment upon here. It was called 5 Reasons The Future Will Be Ruled By B.S. which was written by David Wong. Well, I am not familiar with his work, so I looked up a short bio on cracked.com. I didn't read anything else besides this article. What got my attention was his concept of FARTS. Forced ARTificial Scarcity. He writes it with a sense of humor, but there is a serious side to this.
I got to thinking about this in connection to the Bussard Polywell device. The question arose in my mind, what if this is just another example of FARTS? Not just a brain fart, but a real conspiracy to keep this away from the world that really needs it. If Bussard was right, and this thing will work, it will be a rather curious thing to me. The reason why is that it took this long. The technology and science isn't that radically new. It is based on findings made close to sixty years ago.
Bussard didn't claim a conspiracy. He avoided using that talk like a plague. No doubt, he would be rolling over in his grave at the thought that anyone would attribute that to him. So, let me make this clear. I am not saying that Bussard was saying it. I am saying it. Or, I am putting the idea forth as a prime example of FARTS. There is no energy scarcity. If we had this, energy would be abundant. There is no need to control greenhouse gases. Because if we had this, we wouldn't be using fossil fuels. It wouldn't even be an issue. Thus, "controlling greenhouse gases" is just another example of FARTS. Which wouldn't be an issue except for the other example of FARTS. The energy scarcity is being forced upon us in order for someone to be able to make a profit off of energy, which if there were no FARTS, it would be hard to make money otherwise. We have enough energy to last centuries or even millenia.
If I would really want to get paranoid, I would say that Bussard's Polywell device for fusion will not be allowed to work. It must not be allowed to work. There are too many who have a vested interest in it not working. So, it must not be allowed to work. Nor will any other attempt to control greenhouse gases. Nor will any attempt to make energy prices more affordable. There will be just more and more FARTS. Another excuse to charge you money for something you can get for almost nothing.
Maybe it was just an honest mistake. A genuine misunderstanding. Somebody, or a lot of somebodies just overlooked a promising technology. The same technology that has been described as the holy grail of physics. But I am suspicious. I smell a rat.
[Note: You may have noticed that this post was originally posted on 11.4.10, or over six and a half years ago. I have taken advantage of a way to repost old posts by changed the date of publication. Neat trick.]
The fakery that is commented upon frequently on this blog is not unique, nor new. What may be new is that it is a systemic thing now. Everything is false. We cannot get real things anymore.
Our world is much smaller than what it could be. We could be colonizing the solar system by now. In fact we should be colonizing the solar system by now. There is no shortage of anything. Everything that we need to live at a high standard of living is already in existence.
However, it is being kept from us by deceit of men who wish to rule over other men.
The original post follows just below:
Last month, I came across an article on on cracked.com that I would like to comment upon here. It was called 5 Reasons The Future Will Be Ruled By B.S. which was written by David Wong. Well, I am not familiar with his work, so I looked up a short bio on cracked.com. I didn't read anything else besides this article. What got my attention was his concept of FARTS. Forced ARTificial Scarcity. He writes it with a sense of humor, but there is a serious side to this.
I got to thinking about this in connection to the Bussard Polywell device. The question arose in my mind, what if this is just another example of FARTS? Not just a brain fart, but a real conspiracy to keep this away from the world that really needs it. If Bussard was right, and this thing will work, it will be a rather curious thing to me. The reason why is that it took this long. The technology and science isn't that radically new. It is based on findings made close to sixty years ago.
Bussard didn't claim a conspiracy. He avoided using that talk like a plague. No doubt, he would be rolling over in his grave at the thought that anyone would attribute that to him. So, let me make this clear. I am not saying that Bussard was saying it. I am saying it. Or, I am putting the idea forth as a prime example of FARTS. There is no energy scarcity. If we had this, energy would be abundant. There is no need to control greenhouse gases. Because if we had this, we wouldn't be using fossil fuels. It wouldn't even be an issue. Thus, "controlling greenhouse gases" is just another example of FARTS. Which wouldn't be an issue except for the other example of FARTS. The energy scarcity is being forced upon us in order for someone to be able to make a profit off of energy, which if there were no FARTS, it would be hard to make money otherwise. We have enough energy to last centuries or even millenia.
If I would really want to get paranoid, I would say that Bussard's Polywell device for fusion will not be allowed to work. It must not be allowed to work. There are too many who have a vested interest in it not working. So, it must not be allowed to work. Nor will any other attempt to control greenhouse gases. Nor will any attempt to make energy prices more affordable. There will be just more and more FARTS. Another excuse to charge you money for something you can get for almost nothing.
Maybe it was just an honest mistake. A genuine misunderstanding. Somebody, or a lot of somebodies just overlooked a promising technology. The same technology that has been described as the holy grail of physics. But I am suspicious. I smell a rat.
No money for sanctuary cities?
Never mind!
Trump is looking more and more like the Faker-in-Chief.
It won't make any difference in terms of the negativity, so why not balls-to-the-wall?
They don't think that way, evidently.
Trump is looking more and more like the Faker-in-Chief.
It won't make any difference in terms of the negativity, so why not balls-to-the-wall?
They don't think that way, evidently.
Dumb and dumber
After getting statues removed in New Orleans, these wacko birds are now pointing their sights upon the Space City--- Houston. There's a statue of Sam Houston that they seem to have an objection to.
There is some fear that the Houston City Council might actually cave in to such a demand. Considering that Houston recently elected a lesbian for mayor, and now has a black dude as mayor, these fears may be justified.
Its motivation isn't based upon anything but to rile up people. Sam Houston may have owned some slaves, but he had no part of the Confederacy. He lived with the Indians, so it is quite debatable whether it had anything to do with race. It is just race hustling, in my opinion.
It solves no problems. Just more fakery. I am only writing about it cuz it makes me mad, but that is just exactly what these bozos want.
Just don't let 'em make you mad. Although I am mad enough to write about it, that is about all I will do. It would be better to make sure that people know the truth about Texas history. Sam Houston was no "war criminal". This has nothing to do with history.
There is some fear that the Houston City Council might actually cave in to such a demand. Considering that Houston recently elected a lesbian for mayor, and now has a black dude as mayor, these fears may be justified.
Its motivation isn't based upon anything but to rile up people. Sam Houston may have owned some slaves, but he had no part of the Confederacy. He lived with the Indians, so it is quite debatable whether it had anything to do with race. It is just race hustling, in my opinion.
It solves no problems. Just more fakery. I am only writing about it cuz it makes me mad, but that is just exactly what these bozos want.
Just don't let 'em make you mad. Although I am mad enough to write about it, that is about all I will do. It would be better to make sure that people know the truth about Texas history. Sam Houston was no "war criminal". This has nothing to do with history.
Did another water distillation run ( Updated 5.31.17 @ 8:15 )
Prev Next
Another post in the water sub series in the main off the grid series of posts.
Despite what I said previously, I did another water distillation run. This time, it appears to have been a success. Water quality was quite good, but efficiency in energy use was not.
I reworked the kettle in order to minimize exposure to steam, and I used a different type of epoxy.
Now I can quit this experiment and move on.
Update (s): 5.31, 8:15 :
As a way of review, and after a 3 month hiatus, I am returning to this subject. This posted originally on Feb 24, 2017, and it was a successful test of the tea kettle distillation experiments. I wanted to bring this up front and center as a way of emphasizing what I am attempting to do with my moonshot project, which is to live on the desert in West Texas.
This is but one post of a long running series of posts regarding various problems that need to be solved before I go out there to live.
Another post in the water sub series in the main off the grid series of posts.
Despite what I said previously, I did another water distillation run. This time, it appears to have been a success. Water quality was quite good, but efficiency in energy use was not.
I reworked the kettle in order to minimize exposure to steam, and I used a different type of epoxy.
Now I can quit this experiment and move on.
Update (s): 5.31, 8:15 :
As a way of review, and after a 3 month hiatus, I am returning to this subject. This posted originally on Feb 24, 2017, and it was a successful test of the tea kettle distillation experiments. I wanted to bring this up front and center as a way of emphasizing what I am attempting to do with my moonshot project, which is to live on the desert in West Texas.
This is but one post of a long running series of posts regarding various problems that need to be solved before I go out there to live.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Belaboring the obvious...( Updated 5.31.17 at 7:40 )
Update(s) after 5.30.17 :
This may complete the thread and I will move on ( maybe ). It seems with all the fakery that the problem is that the GOP wants their "issues", and not to actually do anything about these issues. They are more interested in playing the politics regarding the issues than in serving the public.
Limbaugh once described the Dems as being that way. However, this behavior is not restricted to the Dems.
Therefore, the opposition to Trump is that he may be a man who intends to actually do something about the things that are not getting done in the country. It is what the people say that they want, but if the people really want that, why don't they support him more enthusiastically? Perhaps the entire country has gone into fakery, and nobody really gives a hoot in hell about doing anything constructive, but to just complain about everything. I might even go further in saying that there is an entire class of people who want to make a career out of complaining about things, and get paid for it. If that is so, then a guy like Trump is really a threat to them.
Limbaugh said this too, but in a different way.
Original post on 5.30.17 or thereabouts follows below:
The Manchester terrorist bombing has been in the news lately. Funny how a thing like that doesn't get a response from me for several days.
But then again: why go into that? Why are there terrorist attacks in the first place? I have written about that. Okay, lets go over it again. Islamists have long noted that Western cultures do not defend their culture. Islam is not about peace, it is about war. Islam means "submission". So, what do you think they are trying to do with their terrorism? Why, it should be obvious. They wish to terrorize Westerners into submitting to Islam.
So, if you don't want to submit, what do you do? Again, that is belaboring the obvious. At the very least, you should not allow them into Western countries. They cannot perform their terrorist acts if they aren't here.
We elect a President who pledges to stop them from immigrating here, but what happens? The Western Pop culture goes bananas, and works overtime in trying to force a coup against the incoming Trump administration. Unless Trump is allowed to do what he was elected to do, you will get even more of these people into the country. Another big terrorist event is likely to happen here. Of course, it is already happening elsewhere in Western countries. It has happened again in Manchester. But why should anybody be surprised? We've already had our 9-11 event. We may be overdue for another.
Why belabor the obvious. But here I go again.
One of these days, enough people might get it, and the we can do what is obviously needed.
Update (s): 5.30.17; 13:00 :
Does anybody remember the speech that Pat Buchanan gave at the Republican National Convention in 1992? He spoke of the Culture War. Well, I remember at the time, that I spoke to a teller at a bank about that speech. She didn't like the speech, and called Buchanan "a worm". I told her that I liked the speech. The conversation didn't proceed much further. /lol
Anyway, the Culture War has continued unabated. The forces of tradition have been giving ground to the Cultural Marxists. Now, after electing a man for whom character didn't matter, and then a crypto-Mohammedan, we are surprised to learn that they still hate us so much that they want us dead.
Why should anybody be surprised? If you do not defend your culture, something else will fill up the vacuum. It might well be Islam.
16:24 :
There seems to be a debate amongst the so-called conservatives, and the Trumpists. The so-called conservatives lost me during the nominating process last year. I call them so-called conservatives because they don't "conserve" anything. In fact, conservatism has been redefined just like a lot of our language has been redefined by the cultural Marxists. The so-called conservatives are globalists, most likely. Trump is more nationalist. George W Bush, a globalist, once said something that struck me as a non-sequitur. He said that nationalism threatens America. How can a nation threaten itself? A nation needs to have a sense of itself, which is nationalism. To have a sense of itself does not make it a threat to itself. Consequently, Bush's statement is a non-sequitur. For so-called conservatives to call themselves conservative just doesn't mean very much if you cannot agree on what the words mean. If so-called conservatives won't conserve the culture, then how can they be conservative? Globalists are internationalists. Of course nationalism threatens internationalism, but internationalism threatens America. Conservatism should not redefine itself as internationalist or globalist. That is what is at stake here.
This may complete the thread and I will move on ( maybe ). It seems with all the fakery that the problem is that the GOP wants their "issues", and not to actually do anything about these issues. They are more interested in playing the politics regarding the issues than in serving the public.
Limbaugh once described the Dems as being that way. However, this behavior is not restricted to the Dems.
Therefore, the opposition to Trump is that he may be a man who intends to actually do something about the things that are not getting done in the country. It is what the people say that they want, but if the people really want that, why don't they support him more enthusiastically? Perhaps the entire country has gone into fakery, and nobody really gives a hoot in hell about doing anything constructive, but to just complain about everything. I might even go further in saying that there is an entire class of people who want to make a career out of complaining about things, and get paid for it. If that is so, then a guy like Trump is really a threat to them.
Limbaugh said this too, but in a different way.
Original post on 5.30.17 or thereabouts follows below:
The Manchester terrorist bombing has been in the news lately. Funny how a thing like that doesn't get a response from me for several days.
But then again: why go into that? Why are there terrorist attacks in the first place? I have written about that. Okay, lets go over it again. Islamists have long noted that Western cultures do not defend their culture. Islam is not about peace, it is about war. Islam means "submission". So, what do you think they are trying to do with their terrorism? Why, it should be obvious. They wish to terrorize Westerners into submitting to Islam.
So, if you don't want to submit, what do you do? Again, that is belaboring the obvious. At the very least, you should not allow them into Western countries. They cannot perform their terrorist acts if they aren't here.
We elect a President who pledges to stop them from immigrating here, but what happens? The Western Pop culture goes bananas, and works overtime in trying to force a coup against the incoming Trump administration. Unless Trump is allowed to do what he was elected to do, you will get even more of these people into the country. Another big terrorist event is likely to happen here. Of course, it is already happening elsewhere in Western countries. It has happened again in Manchester. But why should anybody be surprised? We've already had our 9-11 event. We may be overdue for another.
Why belabor the obvious. But here I go again.
One of these days, enough people might get it, and the we can do what is obviously needed.
Update (s): 5.30.17; 13:00 :
Does anybody remember the speech that Pat Buchanan gave at the Republican National Convention in 1992? He spoke of the Culture War. Well, I remember at the time, that I spoke to a teller at a bank about that speech. She didn't like the speech, and called Buchanan "a worm". I told her that I liked the speech. The conversation didn't proceed much further. /lol
Anyway, the Culture War has continued unabated. The forces of tradition have been giving ground to the Cultural Marxists. Now, after electing a man for whom character didn't matter, and then a crypto-Mohammedan, we are surprised to learn that they still hate us so much that they want us dead.
Why should anybody be surprised? If you do not defend your culture, something else will fill up the vacuum. It might well be Islam.
16:24 :
There seems to be a debate amongst the so-called conservatives, and the Trumpists. The so-called conservatives lost me during the nominating process last year. I call them so-called conservatives because they don't "conserve" anything. In fact, conservatism has been redefined just like a lot of our language has been redefined by the cultural Marxists. The so-called conservatives are globalists, most likely. Trump is more nationalist. George W Bush, a globalist, once said something that struck me as a non-sequitur. He said that nationalism threatens America. How can a nation threaten itself? A nation needs to have a sense of itself, which is nationalism. To have a sense of itself does not make it a threat to itself. Consequently, Bush's statement is a non-sequitur. For so-called conservatives to call themselves conservative just doesn't mean very much if you cannot agree on what the words mean. If so-called conservatives won't conserve the culture, then how can they be conservative? Globalists are internationalists. Of course nationalism threatens internationalism, but internationalism threatens America. Conservatism should not redefine itself as internationalist or globalist. That is what is at stake here.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Let truth be the center
I added the Sam Houston quote to the header because it is true. Same thing with the Mark Twain quote in the header. Doing the right thing may get you "crucified". Jesus Christ was crucified in truth, but not for doing anything wrong, mind you. If he did no wrong, then it must have been right, eh?
Yes, and people will be amazed at someone who would be willing to undergo punishment, when doing the wrong thing will bring rewards. This shows that the natural tendency is towards corruption, does it not? Why would doing the right thing astonish anyone if that were not the case?
You may not get rich if you try to always do what is right and good. But you still could. It is "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to see the Kingdom of Heaven". Not impossible, but not easy either.
Rewards of money do not last. But true advancements in the wellbeing of mankind will last as long as the truth remains at the center. Money is but a means to an end, not an end in itself. When money becomes the center of one's existence, then the advancement of mankind takes a back seat.
Perhaps this is why Western Civilization is stuck in the mud these days. There has been no real material advancement in the USA since the late sixties. I did a study of that through the price of gold in terms of per capita GDP. It was at a peak in the late sixties and hasn't risen to that level since.
The late sixties also saw a rise in the political left, the loss of the war in Vietnam, going off the gold standard, rampant inflation, a decline in morals, the continued decline in academic excellence, and the concomitant rise of phony science like AGW.
The trend has been downward, with the rise of Islamism, the 9-11 atrocity, and the total and complete debasement of the culture.
Yet we are said to be fighting a war. Sun Tsu, in his Art of War, said that if you don't know your enemy, and you don't know yourself, then defeat is inevitable. How can we win with the rise of the fake culture we live in? If nobody understands this, then we are doomed to failure.
I would rather be in obscurity with this blog than to give up the pursuit of truth. I would rather not be paid with money nor recognition, if the same were to divert me away from this truth.
Too bad that too few of the people out there recognize the crucial importance of remaining faithful to the truth. We are immeasurably worse off for it.
Yes, and people will be amazed at someone who would be willing to undergo punishment, when doing the wrong thing will bring rewards. This shows that the natural tendency is towards corruption, does it not? Why would doing the right thing astonish anyone if that were not the case?
You may not get rich if you try to always do what is right and good. But you still could. It is "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to see the Kingdom of Heaven". Not impossible, but not easy either.
Rewards of money do not last. But true advancements in the wellbeing of mankind will last as long as the truth remains at the center. Money is but a means to an end, not an end in itself. When money becomes the center of one's existence, then the advancement of mankind takes a back seat.
Perhaps this is why Western Civilization is stuck in the mud these days. There has been no real material advancement in the USA since the late sixties. I did a study of that through the price of gold in terms of per capita GDP. It was at a peak in the late sixties and hasn't risen to that level since.
The late sixties also saw a rise in the political left, the loss of the war in Vietnam, going off the gold standard, rampant inflation, a decline in morals, the continued decline in academic excellence, and the concomitant rise of phony science like AGW.
The trend has been downward, with the rise of Islamism, the 9-11 atrocity, and the total and complete debasement of the culture.
Yet we are said to be fighting a war. Sun Tsu, in his Art of War, said that if you don't know your enemy, and you don't know yourself, then defeat is inevitable. How can we win with the rise of the fake culture we live in? If nobody understands this, then we are doomed to failure.
I would rather be in obscurity with this blog than to give up the pursuit of truth. I would rather not be paid with money nor recognition, if the same were to divert me away from this truth.
Too bad that too few of the people out there recognize the crucial importance of remaining faithful to the truth. We are immeasurably worse off for it.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Opening scene in "A Few Good Men"
You have to ask a question about why this is in the opening scene. The movie is anti-military left wing propaganda. Why include this admirable show of discipline and precision? Is it the kind of thing that makes lefties nervous? What is the viewer supposed to feel when watching this? Certainly not admiration.
It reminds me of a comparison made by Barnhardt-- the solemn change of guard at the unknown soldier versus the traditional Latin Mass. This Latin Mass was changed in the sixties, or so I hear. Could it be that this discipline and devotion is what threatens lefties?
Perhaps something like this should become a part of all religious services. That would definitely include guns and military uniforms. You should definitely not want to join with your enemy.
A suggestion offered thusly, and one more: get rid of the homosexuals in the priesthood. If you have to put a camera on them 24/7 and watch them constantly to make sure they don't do that kind of thing.
These suggestions might help. Always trying to be of service here.
Update(s): 5.29.17, 5:30
The left wing revulsion for the military and religion may be summed up by the following observation: Jesus Christ sacrificed his life for his sheep. So does a soldier. So does a police officer, so does a fireman. Interesting how they don't like anybody doing these things. I think it shows the lefties' intentions to dominate all aspects of life. If people are willing to die for others, it lessens their power over people.
It reminds me of a comparison made by Barnhardt-- the solemn change of guard at the unknown soldier versus the traditional Latin Mass. This Latin Mass was changed in the sixties, or so I hear. Could it be that this discipline and devotion is what threatens lefties?
Perhaps something like this should become a part of all religious services. That would definitely include guns and military uniforms. You should definitely not want to join with your enemy.
A suggestion offered thusly, and one more: get rid of the homosexuals in the priesthood. If you have to put a camera on them 24/7 and watch them constantly to make sure they don't do that kind of thing.
These suggestions might help. Always trying to be of service here.
Update(s): 5.29.17, 5:30
The left wing revulsion for the military and religion may be summed up by the following observation: Jesus Christ sacrificed his life for his sheep. So does a soldier. So does a police officer, so does a fireman. Interesting how they don't like anybody doing these things. I think it shows the lefties' intentions to dominate all aspects of life. If people are willing to die for others, it lessens their power over people.
 |
| source lucianne dot com |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)