Off-grid post, 1-6-23

Just now had a brainstorm, which hasn't been concept-tested yet. I've been running my ideas by an older brother, who built houses in his day. He knows where the bad ideas are, and he can give some advice.

So this one is a doozy. It could be an easy build, relatively speaking. I like easy. I don't like difficult.

The thing is that I'd like a basement. A basement can do a lot to minimize power use. When it gets really hot, a basement will be cooler than above ground. Also, when really cold, it can be warmer. So it should reduce the power needs of the build once it gets occupied.

Another thing I'd like is to use those conex type things that I thought about way back in the days when I first started writing about the off-grid project. It is a strong container for shipping, and it can stack pretty high. Trouble is that it doesn't work for a basement, but now I'm thinking of modifying it so that it can work.

So basically, the idea is to dig out a basement, put the conex in it, and fortify it so that it won't cave in. Then build a ground floor by stacking another one on top.

So, how do I fortify the thing so that it will go underground and not get caved in? Been thinking of some ideas, and one just came up. Put some logs around the conex. Stack the logs all the way from the bottom to the ground level, and then backfill the dirt in. The logs should be strong enough to protect the conex from a cave in. Or so I'm theorizing.

People use these shipping containers for housing. So that is okay. But I don't know about the logs. For one thing, how to get 'em. And also where the drawbacks would be. Getting them in would require some sort of crane that could lay them in.

Anyway, that's the idea. Haven't checked it out yet. So that's next.

Another dumb post

Why call the posts dumb? Because I don't claim to be an expert, and I'm just spouting off whatever is in my mind. People want to hear experts, so perhaps that's why they can blow off anything I want to write here. Opinions are like a-holes, everybody has one.

With that out of the way, here's some more spouting off:

This is about the Catholic practice of confessions. I'm not Catholic, by the way. Never did one of those, and not planning to start. Of course, I have an opinion on it. Why not? Perhaps it isn't an opinion. Maybe it is just a thought. Maybe it's just dumb.

Anyway, here goes... There's a saying that you may have heard before, but not so much these days. That is, "confession is good for the soul". Why is that? Before I go off into the weeds about that subject, let's just stick with the pure benefit of it, whatever it may be.

If I may observe something here, is that there is a lot of guilt-giving in this society now. By guilt-giving, I mean to say that if you don't do this or do that, a load of guilt is laid upon your poor head for not being a good person. Nobody really wants to be a bad person. Even a notorious outlaw, like Al Capone, didn't think he was a bad man. Nobody wants to have something grinding them down inside either. If you feel guilty about something, it is better to get it off your chest, right?

What I mean to say is that people want to think well of themselves, and to have others think well of them. By confession of guilt, it is possible to make amends and to keep the peace between folks. But nobody wants to admit failure or wrongdoing. That is especially true if they aren't wrong!

When I was younger, I was guilty of getting into a lot more arguments than these days. Or I'd like to think that I don't get into as many as now. It seems that in the work place, things went a lot smoother when I admitted fault when I did do something wrong. Could it not be the same in the society as a whole? What if everybody admitted their guilt and made a point of doing that? It seems that the Jews DID do that at one time. ( Maybe they still do, but in the old days they sacrificed animals) What they were doing was to get rid of guilt feelings and make amends with anyone that they've wronged. This could be what is meant by "confession is good for the soul."

Maybe confession is good all around. But instead of that, you get a lot of arguments. Peace breaks down, and so on and so forth.

Therefore, the Catholic practice of confession is a good thing and plays the same role as the "sacrificial lamb", as a manner of speaking. By the way, in the days of Kings, a whipping boy was there to take the guilt of the King or Prince. It protects the concept that the "King can do no wrong". That's true even if the King DID do wrong, hence the need for punishing "somebody". What we have these days is the two-tiered practice of justice.

Even though this is a "dumb post", it has some backing to it. Based on my own experiences, and some practices that have gone on for thousands of years, the expiation of guilt is a good practice.

A lot of troubles are in the world. There is also a lot of "giving guilt". Perhaps those who do the guilt-tripping are full of it. It could be a scam. If somebody can get something that they aren't entitled to, one way may be to claim injury when there is none.

How do you tell the difference? It would seem that a way could be found that could be acceptable. Nothing is perfect, but there are good ways to determine the truth or absence of such.

Another dumb thing here is this: It seems that all of this is being abandoned in favor of arbitrary demands. We may well be sinking into chaos because of it. Guilt needs to be expiated, but the main practice seems in giving guilt.

Kinda dumb post

The previous post mentioned "simple pleasures". Here's a thought: ( which is probably not a unique thought )- All pleasures are fleeting. It's only for a short time. This leads to another thought: That addictive behavior is based upon pleasure seeking, and is addictive precisely because all pleasures are fleeting. Therefore, if it gives pleasure, then the desire is to have more and more and more until... you're addicted.

What a thought. Almost anybody can get addicted then to one thing or another. Especially something easily available and easy to partake in.

Can't really claim here to be a pleasure seeker. Perhaps not even close. But simple pleasures are the ones that are the most easy to partake in, and therefore could become addictive. But it may not be considered addictive. It may be considered just living normally. Addictions have a bad connotation.

This may seem to be an unusally dumb post. That too can become addictive. But I have to write something, or this blog will go into the blog graveyard. So I gotta think of something, and this is it.

Off grid post, 1-3-23

Today was kinda satisfying because I did something that pleased me to do. It wasn't that long ago that it got really cold. Prior to this, and when it was in the forecast, I noted something I wanted to try. It was candles for heating in an emergency.

Lots of people lost their power during that cold snap a couple years back. If power is lost in cold weather, without anything to back up, that could be a problem. This seemed to be the most elementary of solutions, and not that expensive nor complicated. Too good to be true, though.

The result was pretty disappointing, as I should have expected as much. A candle doesn't produce much heat. It might work okay in small places, but the living area here was too big for something that small to produce enough heat to do the job that might be needed. You can call that a failure, but that's okay.

It does seem like a pretty neat idea though, because it looks like you can recycle the wax and make new candles out of the old. The only new thing you need is a wick. So I got some wicks, and today, I melted down the candles and made some new ones. A little thing, but very satisfying.

Maybe the simple pleasures are the best.

Beats the hell out of a few things that I could mention, but won't.

Ronald Reagan Evil Empire Speech

Comment:

It has ocurred to me recently why it is that conservative arguments get ignored by the modern day left. They have adopted the "morals" of the former Evil Empire. So that means that the Evil Empire is now HERE, not over there.

Communists believe that their "morality" is the only one that matters. Consequently, communists can excuse any moral outrage, as long as that outrage furthers the cause of communism. This is why they are evil. They have NO morality, and communism teaches that "bourgeous morality" is something that they won't believe in. Bourgeous is anything not communist, in my opinion of what they seemed to "believe". Politics in this country has all too often become the rationale that the ends justify the means. It is no different than what happened in the former Soviet Union.

You can point out their hypocrisy, but they don't care. In private, they may applaud the audacity of those who would flaunt what used to be considered basic decency.

It is quite disappointing to see so many on the so-called "right", who seemed to have adopted the tactics and the amorality and degeneracy of the modern day left. If the Bushes and Cheneys had any decency, they could NEVER join with those who make the mountain of false accusations against their political opponents. Make no mistake. There was no "insurrection". In any jurisdiction in this country, if the authorities caused people to violate the law, the defence of entrapment could well be claimed. There is no doubt that the modern day left is FULLY CAPABLE of setting these people up, and then punishing them for doing what their agents were prompting them to do. For any "conservative" to join up with such people is a unspeakable disgrace.

For this reason, I say that the EVIL EMPIRE is within our own borders. The question is this: will anybody out there actually stand up and fight for what is right anymore? We had our chance in November, but the verdict was inconclusive at best. We'd better start doing much better than this.

Al Fin--- Why choice of fuels will determine if fusion works

Al Fin: Why choice of fuels will determine if fusion works

Will comment upon this one since I've written about the subject lately...

First, take a few minutes, if you need to, to watch the video on Helion's fusion device







Note that Helion uses a very rare substance for fuel, which is Helium 3. Also, that it is reacted with Deuterium. That reaction doesn't produce a neutron, but what prevents the Deuterium from reacting with itself to produce neutrons? Thus, there's no guarantee of aneutronic fusion here. It just does a bit less of it than with other fuels used.

The reaction of protons with Boron-11 will not produce neutrons, but is harder to achieve. This is what Focus Fusion will use for its fuels.

Now that I've commented, I'll segue into an idea that I had in consequence of these developments. Not that I'd try it myself, as this is for the professionals, and I'm definitely not that.

Since the NIF is using lasers for its fusion device, what if you would use lasers for confining ELECTRONS? I recall that Bussard said that electron losses were problematical in his Polywell fusion device. So, what if you were to use the lasers to confine the electrons a bit better? Perhaps a combination of magnetism and lasers could do the trick. There was a "cusp" in the magnetic field that allowed the electron loss. Position a laser in those cusps, and perhaps there wouldn't be any losses.

Electrons have mass, and light pressure from a laser could push the electrons back into the well where they are useful. A lot less laser power would be needed, I would think, since the mass of electrons is so low. Only 1/2000ths of the mass of a proton.

Perhaps the confinement of electrons thusly has been tried before, and has failed. Worth looking into, I'd think. Anyway, it is an idea.