Do you want sustainablilty? Then think outside the box.

Thinking outside the box means thinking things that you have been led to believe are not helpful.   That is why you need to take a second look at nuclear power.  

There are ways to do nuclear which are much better than the conventional way.  The conventional way leads to much higher costs and is too inefficient to be cost effective.  A molten salt reactor, which was proven in concept over 40 years ago, can improve upon this greatly.  It hasn't been adopted due to the unwillingness of the system to look at innovative ways of solving the energy problem.

Nuclear power isn't something that people should be inordinately afraid of.  Like all power sources, it must be respected.  Although it can definitely cause harm, if properly managed, it can produce a lot more benefits than costs.  The risk can be managed.

So much for the soap box.  Here is a tweet that supports the viewpoint of this blog.

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) January 26, 2018

Tesla hacked into a Hesla

Maybe you could use your own waste to power your fuel cell car.  Might sound like a dumb idea.  Also an expensive one.

Anyway, you could use pyrolysis to obtain the hydrocarbons from the waste, and then a steam reformer to remove the hydrogen.

It would be one way to make clean water, electricity, and a substitute for sanitation facilities.

Anyway, this company hacked a Tesla so that it can run on hydrogen.  It appears to run on its own battery, but they added a fuel cell to increase its range to over 600 miles.

Here's the tweet from Twitter:

A Company Hacked a Tesla So It Drives on Hydrogen https://t.co/Yx69LRftmB via @Futurism

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) January 25, 2018

How to dig a hole in the desert

Saw this on the Sierra Blanca Facebook page.  It is a closed page, by the way.

One option for my cabin is to make "footers", which are meant to be for a foundation.  The other option is to pour a foundation.  Of the two options, making footers seems to be the easier way, but that gets an argument from my house building brother.  He's looking at it from his own point of view.  My point of view is that I can take as long as I want to make a footer.  When you get that concrete truck out there, you cannot stop until you are finished.  I want to be able to stop if I need to.

The webpage shows how to dig a hole for planting fruit trees.  So, I figured I can use the same method to make my footers.

If I want to plant fruit trees later, well, I will know how to do it, won't I?

No, you cannot have my sandwich

Sandwiches cause global warming.

Guess I can't fart, either.

Millenials hate Trump because .... climate change?

OMG.


On the Limbaugh show, a discussion of this phenomenon took place.  A millennial called and told Rush that he believed all of what was told to him by this modern culture.

One of those things seems to revolve around this idea of "sustainability".  Evidently, the young generation seems to think that resources are limited.  There is no other explanation for why they believe this than what the left wing has drilled into everybody's head.

The leftists seem to believe in drilling after all.  Just not for oil.  Nor for truth either, regardless of what they may say to the contrary.

There is one thing that is limited though, and that is life itself.  Life is limited because it can be wiped off the face of the Earth.  But the Earth itself is not subject to human's destructiveness.  It would take a lot more than what humankind can do in order to destroy the Earth itself.  As of this writing, no Death Star has been invented yet.

Even a very basic science education can remove some of this grandiosity.  For instance, all chemistry derives from the actions of electrons.  The nucleus of an atom is not affected.  Hence, if you restore an atom to its original state through the manipulation of electrons, so it can be recycled.  No matter can be destroyed through chemistry.

Now nuclear reactions do indeed change matter.  But the energy released is of such magnitude, that the amount of matter is not very significant.  That is the advantage of nuclear energy-- it consumes so little matter.  Thus, there is virtually a limitless supply of energy and matter, through recycling via nuclear energy.  Resources are virtually unlimited.  The only limits are the ones that are self-imposed.

The millennials must not be getting very much of an education.  That is the problem, and the solution is obvious.

However, it is easier said than done.  People do not change easily.  The leftists have found a way to get to people though, and there needs to be a better response from the conservatives.  The one pursued so far does not seem to be working.

It may take a war to free humanity from the left.  Look around the world.  Once they get into power, they do not relinquish it easily.

Release The FISA Memo – Lunch Alert!

Release The FISA Memo – Lunch Alert!



comment:



Morris is suggesting that people sign a petition that he has ( I haven't checked it out ).



If Congress needs a petition for this, they are in pretty sad shape.  If they really are in this bad of a shape, what good will a petition be?



I don't think I will sign it.  It is not because I disagree with its release.  It is that I am sick and tired of these people refusing to do what is right.  If they are going to talk about it, which they have, then they better damn well do something about it.

AGW discussion 103

The Coyote blogger posted something that I'd like to discuss here.

The proposition is why doubt the experts, especially if you are not an expert yourself.  It is not exactly the terminology used, but I think it is an adequate paraphrasing.

People might get the idea that to do so is a bit presumptuous of me, or of anyone else who might dare challenging the experts.

To respond to that, if it were to ever be posed to moi, which it hasn't, I would say the following:

• Who decides that somebody is an expert?  Who decides that somebody is not an expert?
• Why depend upon experts when you have a mind of your own?
• Why discuss things like the weather, when anybody can dispute it?  The discussion goes nowhere.
• Who defends science?  Who is attacking science?
• In short, what are your assumptions?  What are your premises for believing what you believe?
• To put it even shorter, how do you know what you know?  ( There is a word used in philosophy, which I cannot remember at the moment.  It is the study of knowledge and how we know what we know.----- epistemology!)

Yet another way of putting it is why the hell not challenge the experts?  Science has advanced on that very front of resistance.  If you cannot challenge the current wisdom, we would all still be stuck in the Dark Ages, and that is a fact.

Once a Muslim, always a Muslim

Evidently, the only way out of Islam is to die.  Once you die, then you are out.

But what about Barak Hussein Obama?

Oh, he's a Christian. So sayeth the wisest of the wise, Megan Kelly.

Vinegar

Updated,

1.24.18:

Well, I done went and ordered some.  ( pardon the language, I am in a "mood", shall we say. )

Yup.  I am bored out of my mind lately.  Now, I will have the opportunity to blow up the place.

( just kidding.  Might get me surveilled by the Thought Police )


1.22.18:

You can find this at Walmart.  I haven't gotten any yet, but when I do...

The washing soda will react to the vinegar ( may be "explosive!" ), which will produce sodium acetate.  This will precipitate out, and should leave clearer water.

The reaction is quite strong, but my methods will involve only small amounts of soap residue remaining in the water.  This residue is hard to get out with the methods I have used so far.

Hopefully, I won't blow the place up.  ( just kidding )

1.21.18:

5:30 pm:

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


2:00 pm:

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

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

Originally posted 1.20.18:

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

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

Why didn't I think of this before?

AGW discussion 102

Updated,

1/23.18:

An idea occurred to me.  How much energy in a gallon of gasoline?  It says here that there is 114,000 BTU per gallon.  Since one BTU has 1055 joules of energy, this calculates to roughly 120 million joules.

So, what does that mean?  Well, there are six teaspoons to an ounce, and 128 ounces to a gallon.  That is 768 teaspoons to a gallon of gas.  Then, how much energy in one teaspoon of gasoline?

120 million / 768 equals 157k approx.  Now, lets get back to BTU.  Divide that by 1055, and this gives just under 150 BTU.  So, one teaspoon of gasoline will heat up one pound of water to over the boiling point, but not much more than that.

Now there is 3.25 gallons of water in the ratio of one teaspoon to 2500, as indicated below.

If my calculations are correct, one teaspoon of gasoline will heat up 3.25 gallons of water about 6 degrees F.

Do you really believe that carbon dioxide can trap nearly as much heat as is released by a similar  amount of gasoline being burned?

That would be a pretty neat trick.  Then if that is possible, why burn fossil fuels at all?  "Climate science" has found a new energy source--- carbon dioxide!!!!


1.21.18:

4:50 pm:

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

If I could do it, what about others?

Anyway, let me try to correct this once again.

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

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

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

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


9:00 am:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted 1.20.18:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGW is bunk.

Twitter

Well, there is something here that I just don't get about Twitter, or Facebook.  These social networks are popular, but for the life of me, I don't know why.  Frankly, I just don't get it.  Twitter doesn't even seem to be easy to use.  Whatever.

Anyway, I am going to try to use it again in connection to this blog.

One thing about these social platforms, they don't work for you, you work for them.  You don't own it, it owns you.

That may be what I am missing.  I tend to think of what it could do for me, but I think it doesn't work that way.  ( Just a hunch about that one )

The way I will use it for now is to keep up with certain developments.  I am only going to follow what interests me.

The news organizations are out.  News organizations are no good.

Once I got back into my account, I can see that some of the promising things, or what I thought were promising, seem to be fading out.  But we'll see.  It is relatively updated now, but there's not a lot on it.

Is there any doubt that there is a major problem with the Federal government?

A lot of evidence pertaining to criminal investigations seem to be disappearing.  Again, it is the FBI which refuses to comply with the rule of law.  Whatever reputation this once prestigious organization had is surely tarnished by now.

Let's see the list:

• Lois Lerner
• Hillary Clinton
• Mr Strzock  

All of these seem to manage to lose information sought in an investigation.  This list should probably longer than this, but those are the ones I remember.

By the way, this isn't partisan carping, I would think.  Even though the partisan feelings may run high, there is no excuse for lawlessness.  Destroying evidence, which this appears to be, is evidence itself of consciousness of guilt.

Something familar about this...

Looky what I found

Check out what I found on Digital Trends. NASA just tested the tiny nuclear reactor it could use for a Martian colony NASA is hoping it won't have to rely on solar power for a manned mission to Mars. The Kilopower project is a small nuclear reactor that could be loaded onto a spacecraft and sent to the red planet. . . .Read Article. .. . .

 


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


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

IT scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deplorables in the Democrat party? Who'da thunk?

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

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

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

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

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