A launch pad located on the moon

8/22/26:

The calculations were a bit foolish of me to post. It's embarrassing. I'm not trained in the physics, obviously.

Nevertheless, one does not need to know too much about it in order to see that that delta-v from the lunar surface to lunar orbit is rather low in comparison to Earth.

The lunar lander during the Apollo Era used about half the wet mass of vehicle in order to touch down on the surface. Thus, if the lander masses at about 35,000 lbs, then the mass on the surface would be 17,500 approx.

Likewise, the return to lunar orbit requires that the vehicle have approx 1/2 of its mass as propellant.

In the case of the lunar modules ascent stage, that was about 10k for the upper part of the LEM, for a propellant load requirement of about 5k lbs.

Using different propellants would change the numbers a bit, but it's a good approximation. That is, unless you start doing things like the Parkin concept. Then it would require much less propellant to get to lunar orbit. That's because the ISP would be comparable to a nuclear thermal rocket, which was around 900.

It makes a lot of sense to use the moon as a waystation on the journey to Mars. Perhaps that's why Elon Musk is going to go to the moon.

Of course, that means a lot of preparation first.

11/14/12: The original post follows:

Fiddling around with idea to use beamed energy to get a lander/ascender to/from the lunar surface.  It would be about the size of the lunar module from the Apollo Era.  To guide me in the calculations, I used the link below:

Here's a link to calculate the energy

Potential energy (PE) is just weight multiplied by distance upward; this is the same weight multiplied by distance upward, which is the same as mass multiplied by acceleration of gravity, multiplied by distance:

PE = w * h = m * g * h

g for earth is about 6 times that of the moon
g for moon is 1.622 meters/sec2

 Kinetic energy is just half the mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity:

KE = ½ * m * v2

calculations for 100 km above moon:

PE = (1 kg) x (100,000 m) x ( 1.622 meters/sec2 ) equal 162200 joules
KE for escape velocity moon 2.38 km/s equal 5664400 joules
KE for 2/3 escape velocity 1271375 joules, added together to get total energy required:  equal 1,433,575 joules

A Kilowatt-Hour is 1000 Watts for one hour, which is 1000 Joules per second for 3600 seconds, or 3.6 million Joules.

Therefore to roughly approximate, to launch 1 kg in lunar orbit at 100 km is equal to   1,433,575 joules /   3,600,000  Joules or about 0.4 kilowatt hour per kg.

That equals 1810 kilowatt hours energy for lunar orbit approximately for a mass about the size of the lunar module ascent stage which was 10000 pounds or 4500 kg.

Now guessing that to deliver 20 megawatt/hr of power for .1 hr or 6 minutes would be enough energy to get to lunar orbit--- to deliver that much energy would require 200 fuel cell units that could deliver 100 kilowatts each.

The idea here is to use Parkin's concept of microwave beam energy to land and take off from the moon.  It would have a performance ISP equal to a nuclear thermal rocket, about 850 sec., which would save mass in landing and taking off.  You would have to have a fuel supply on hand for taking off, of course.  Having the fuel depot located on the moon obviates the need to bring the landing fuel with you, simplifying matters greatly.

To execute this idea, you would need a crash landing trajectory that would be interrupted by the beamed energy to slow the spacecraft down to a soft landing.  That is to say, there would be no orbiting first.  That would require even more energy than the calculations above--- but not too much more.

You would place a microwave unit on the moon with an energy source to run it.  The energy would be beamed to the incoming lander as it gets into range.  You would have to slow down from about 5000k mph to zero in less than a few minutes ( without doing the calculations).  That's true because the beam may not have a range more than say 150 miles.  At 5000k mph, you will cover that distance quickly.

Taking off, just reverse the process.  After filling up the fuel tank of course.

The next question is: how big must the microwave unit(s) be to deliver say 30 Megawatts of power?  The current guess is that you could deliver these microwave dishes in a number of landings to a yet to be determined location on the lunar surface.  Each unit itself would be about the size of the lunar lander in the Apollo Era.  The microwave dish would be on top instead of the ascent stage.  Each dish would be an integrated unit complete with power source.

How many dishes to deliver the required power?

The rest of the topic is for later discussion.

Update:

You may need multiple launches of a the new big ass rocket being developed for a pretty penny.



Source: SPACE.com: All about our solar system, outer space and exploration

Falcon XX would have lift capacity equivalent to Saturn V or new SLS rocket

Or, you could use SpaceX's new family of Super Heavy Lifters.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Gives Update Following Surgery for Husband Abraham Williams

8/21/26:

Mrs. Gabbard gives an update on her husband's progress in recovering from this disease. He must have a tremendous pain tolerance to avoid painkillers. I'd like to think I'm not that big of a wuss. By the way, I kinda wonder why they refused radiation. Was proton therapy not an option? Hard to see that it wouldn't have been. If he had chosen radiation, he would've had a lot easier time of it. Tough guy, eh?

6/4/26: The original post follows:

The Conservative Treehouse

Comment:

Same thing I was diagosed with--sacral chordoma.

He had a surgery, I elected to have proton therapy, which is a type of radiation.

He seems rather young. But I suppose this condition can crop up at any age, but most likely than not, at an older age than what he appears to be.

Chordomas can happen at young ages, but those who get it in younger ages tend to get it closer to the skull according to age. That is to say, a young person gets it in the skull, someone older, perhaps the neck, and someone OLD like me, in the sacrum.

Every case is different, I suspect. I have survived mine by nine years so far. The average lifespan after diagnosis back when I got it was five years. Let us hope Mr. Williams will have a lot of life left.

Some favorable political news for the GOP

8/21/26:

Folks have not caught on to what Trump is doing for the country. Other countries have been living off our generosity. Trump is changing that. What does this do? It makes life more affordable, which the Democrats claim that they want to do. One thing that will show up soon, but maybe not soon enough to get the message out, is to reduce prescription drug prices.

The left-wing noise machine is making out the inflation as out of control, but it isn't really. Even with higher gasoline prices, the CPI is not showing those kind of increases. Inflation is still well-controlled, and it will get better and better.

The Democrats have no answers. Just complaints, fear, and loathing.

8/15/26: The original post is below:

President Trump doesn't enjoy great favorability numbers. So he needs a boost where he can find one. Even though Trump is not on the ballot, a popular president cannot hurt the party in control. An unpopular president might well hurt the GOP's chances.

Here's some good news for the GOP: There's a manufacturing boom that isn't getting much attention. That's not surprising, since the media won't report anything that might help the president.

Another snippet of good news for the midterms: Prescription drug prices have seen the largest drop in more than 60 years. Since Democrats are running on affordability, this should blunt their message.

The rise of the wacko element of the lunatic-fringe-left doesn't hurt either. The down side to that news is that there may be too many who no longer think these people are bad news. But they are.

I guess this explains a few things

8/21/26:

There's a follow-up on Barnhardt on this crypto-Jew business.

I spent about an hour listening to this, and decided that's enough.

At some point, a person can jump the shark. It may be too early to say, but Miss Barnhardt may have really done it this time. But maybe not. I kinda doubt that anybody can take over in the manner she is saying UNLESS there is a curtailment of free speech.

If Trump ever does anything like that, I'd say it is a red flag.

But get this: Even if this was the case, and everything she says is right, he cannot do it without essentially wiping out the checks and balances in the Constitution. But she knocks the founding of America, too. Trump cannot be the Devil that casts himself out of hell. A Kingdom Divided against itself cannot stand.

In other words, you cannot "save" America by destroying it.

Yesterday:

It seems that Barnhardt has always been against Donald Trump. He's a crypto-Jew, or something like that.

I never got it, so I must be from Rio Linda.

Maybe the press will ax him if he's a crypto-Jew. That is, if the press actually gave a flip one way or the other.

One has to ax oneself this one: What if he IS Jewish? The one thing that MIGHT get me a bit riled is if he expected me to worship his ass.

I think he's a good president, maybe even the best we've had since I've been around. But I don't worship anybody, including him.

That's all for me on this subject.

SpaceX Starship Towed Near Christmas Island

8/21/26:

What's going on with shipping guy again...

8/20/26:

If SpaceX can get it into the Harbor at Christmas Island, then perhaps a semi-submersible ship can be slid underneath the ship and thus placed aboard the re-floated ship for shipment back to the States. This is how the USS Cole was retrieved after a terrorist attack on Columbus Day 2000.

Yesterday:

Which is a territory of Australia, if memory serves. Is that the plan? Or what's the plan now?

AI discussion of the joint:

please give information about christmas island

**Christmas Island** is an Australian external territory in the Indian Ocean, located approximately 224 miles (360 km) south of Java and 870 miles (1,400 km) northwest of Australia. The island covers 135 square kilometers (52 square miles) and is administered by Australia, with its capital at **Flying Fish Cove**.

**Naming and History**: The island was first sighted by Europeans in 1615 but was officially named on **Christmas Day, 1643**, by Captain William Mynors. It was annexed by Great Britain in 1888 due to its rich phosphate deposits, administered by Singapore until 1958, when it became an official Australian territory.

**Geography and Environment**: Christmas Island is the summit of an underwater mountain, with its highest point being **Murray Hill** at 1,184 feet (361 meters). The island is covered largely by tropical rainforest, with two-thirds designated as a **National Park**. It is often called the "**Galapagos of the Indian Ocean**" due to its high level of endemic species and minimal historical human disturbance.

**Wildlife**: The island is world-famous for the annual migration of the **Christmas Island red crab** (*Gecarcoidea natalis*), with populations estimated in the tens of millions. These crabs migrate from the rainforest to the coast to breed. The island also supports unique seabirds, reptiles, and insects, though the Christmas Island shrew was declared extinct in 2025.

**Accessibility and Culture**: Travel is primarily via **flights from Perth, Australia**, which take about three hours, or by yacht/cruise ship. The population is approximately 1,700–2,200 people, consisting mainly of ethnic Chinese, European, and Malay communities. The official language is English, though Malay and Chinese dialects are widely spoken. The economy relies on phosphate mining, government services, and growing tourism.

There's not much there. Maybe there's a harbor?

Yes, **Christmas Island** has a harbor located at **Flying Fish Cove**, which serves as the territory's main settlement and primary port.

### Harbor Facilities and Operations

The harbor is the only safe anchorage on the island, characterized by a steep underwater drop-off and deep-water approaches. It does not feature traditional alongside wharf berths for general docking; instead, it utilizes a **catenary buoy mooring system** with three main berths:

* **Phosphate Loading Jetty:** The main berth, capable of accommodating vessels up to 180 meters in length for exporting rock phosphate.

* **General Cargo Berth:** Located inshore, used for importing supplies and general goods.

* **Fuel Berth:** Situated at Smith Point for refueling operations.

### Accessibility and Limitations

Access to the harbor is **weather-dependent** and can be restricted by swell and surge, as the cove is open to the north.

* **Commercial Shipping:** The port handles bulk mineral exports and containerized imports, with a maximum vessel draft of approximately 6.1 meters for general cargo operations.

* **Yachts and Visitors:** Visiting yachts are welcome but must use designated mooring buoys (fees apply); **anchoring is prohibited** to protect coral formations. There is no marina, haul-out facility, or significant repair yard, making the harbor suitable only for short stopovers.

* **Cruise Ships:** Large cruise vessels cannot dock and must anchor offshore, tendering passengers to a basic cargo pier near London Village (note: this refers to Kiritimati/Christmas Island in Kiribati; for the Australian territory, facilities are similarly limited to cargo jetties).

Comment:

Not sure what's the plan here, but there's bound to be one, right?

Anyway, here's a video:  

Don't look now, but Trump may win in a landslide

8/21/26:

Doggone! There wasn't a landslide in the popular vote, but he did get about the same number of electoral votes in the actual election. He didn't get the number of black and Latino voters, but he got more than the usual GOp nominee gets.

Looking back on this, the left has managed to hold on to their voters just enough to avoid catastrophe. But how they did it is something that should worry patriots. All the phony scandals and lawfare. The disappointing part is that people fall for the nonsense.

Trump has got the be the best president in my lifetime. Better than Reagan. So what's the deal with Trump?

He's a constant promoter. Perhaps that turns people off. Well, there's that abrasive quality about him, too. If he was like Reagan in the Teflon coating department, there's no telling what he could have accomplished.

As for yours truly, I am of a practical bent. I don't give a hoot's hell about somebody's STYLE. I look for results. Which reminds me of what Lincoln was supposed to have said about General Grant. When folks objected to Grant's drinking, Lincoln replied that he understood that it was no longer a problem. But if he was still drinking, he'd inquire around and see what he was drinking and he'd give a barrel of it to the rest of his generals. Lincoln liked Grants results. He didn't give a flip about his drinking. I'm with Lincoln in that regard.

12/29/15: The original post starts just below:

What is the basis of such a speculation?  It comes from none other than the 538 site that I linked to awhile back.  Also, a poll, which claims that Trump could get 40% of the black vote and 45% of the latino vote.

That seems like a big stretch, but maybe not.  Considering that Trump is running something of a populist campaign, his appeal could result in a big victory that includes non-college educated whites, blacks, and latinos.

Testing that theory, I plugged in turnout numbers and voting percentages that came close to the poll.  What the poll didn't indicate is turnout, so I played with that number a bit.  The numbers I used were the following:

• college educated whites vote in same percentage, but turnout falls to non-college educated whites
• non-college educate whites vote in same percentage, but turnout rises to college educated whites
• blacks 61-39% in favor of Dems, but with turnout of college educated whites
• latinos 57-43% in favor of Dems with turnout the same
• asians unchanged

results  Trump wins with 53.3% of the vote and 322 electoral votes.

Thus, a populist campaign can win.  It would rely upon the demographic breakdowns that were in the poll, and a smattering perhaps of wishful thinking.  The wishful thinking relates to how this poll stacks up to anything in the real world.

If Trump is actually doing better than this poll, especially amongst whites, it's a landslide.

Storage shed

8/20/26:

If you're going to do it yourself, why not go whole-hog? Indeed, there was a change in plans back then, as I went with the quonset idea. It was attempted, with not great results.

Having attempted the quonset, would I try it again someday? Let's answer it this way: If I went out there again, I just might do it that way with the lessons learned from the first time.

The quonset idea seemed to be cheaper at the time, but there were some downsides discovered, as events unfolded. Solutions for those downsides would need to be found.

I haven't thought about it all that much recently. Once I got a travel trailer, the idea became to take it out there. But that went away, as I had to dispose of the trailer. Getting another trailer would cost too much.

I still have the 5x8 foot trailer. There were thoughts of using that one at one time as well. It would need some work. It has been outside in the elements for the last several years, and looks like it.

But not real thought has gone into it lately. The off-grid project is in deep limbo.

8/17/14: The original post below:



Link to storage shed on sale in Houston at a Home Depot.

This may be modifiable to be turned in living quarters.  This is actually quite interesting proposition.  Watch the video supplied at the site.

It is 8 by 12, which is nearly 100 sq ft.  Some of these micro houses are about the same size.  The price is affordable.  Yep, I just may be able to use this thing.  It's designed to be a do-it-yourself assembly project.

The downside is that I may need help in putting it together.

This will be incorporated into the going off-the-grid series, along with a companion post here.

Update on 8/17/14:

Other companion posts

1. Power requirements could be made with a Solar City Installation or Build your own system
2. You may want to dig some post holes in order to anchor the "RV"/Storage Shed.
3. Sewage systems would be a composting toilet and recycling of grey water.  Idea: water the grass driveway with the grey water system.

In summary, build the RV on top of a trailer.  Modify it so that it can become habitable.  Secure it to the ground.  Power it and provide water to it.  Obtain water from rain harvesting and recycling.  Looks like the plans are nearly complete.


Prev   Next.

Wonder how many people fall for this propaganda

The Fox news link's headline on Free Republic appears to paint a rosy scenario for the President, but the commentary isn't rosy scenario. If you disregard the talking heads, you'll see a dwindling ability for Iran to affect oil prices. At this time, they can rattle the sabers and scare people in the Persian Gulf. That's about it. Oil prices are elevated, but nothing like the nightmare scenarios once envisioned.

To be sure, prices are still elevated. Even so, inflation remains around targeted areas.

So I'm wondering if all the negativity will affect the midterms.

The crazy Democrats are being taken over by the even more crazies. If folks think these crazy loco weeds are going to do anything useful or positive, they're going to be disappointed.

But that's how politics goes. Some folks are disappointed in Trump. But the disappointment is unwarranted. There's has been been plenty of good developments. The ones like this story, with higher prices at the pump, are likely not to last. Indeed, the way out of this is already in the works. It may taken until after the election to see the results, but it will happen.

Iran cannot be saved by the Democrats anyway. Not unless the Dems win 2/3rds of the Senate and the House. No way that happens even in the worst case scenario. Trump can still be Trump for a couple more years in any case.

But a smashing win would be nice.

Another perspective about Houston's Big Dig from Brave AI

8/19/26:

Time to move on from this topic. Based upon what I've gathered from 2 AI sources, there isn't much in the way of detail about how this will be built out. The Devil is in the details.

The reasons given for such a massive project are more political than practical. It will not likely help traffic, although it might do so in a marginal way for a period long enough for the next time.

The price tag is excessive. The construction itself will be a nightmare, according to a comment I saw. I have no doubts about that.

It has to be sold with "a little bit of sugar to make the medicine go down". The "sugar" is the ostensible reasons for the project. Knitting together the city isn't really a problem that's worth $13 billion to "solve". It really doesn't matter to me anymore anyhow. I don't live in Houston anymore. I don't work in Houston anymore. I don't drive its freeways anymore. So I'm outta here.

8/18/26: (as of this writing, yesterday)

What's actually being done? What are the plans for the Big Dig in Houston? Here's what Brave AI had to say about it...



Brave gives you a few buttons to click for more info... One of these is "Elaborate". So I clicked...



Likewise, you can click even further, and so I did...



Not many nuts and bolts facts about exactly what they're doing. But you get the general idea. First, they do the flood control stuff with the retention ponds. Then they'll re-route I45 to follow I10 until I69. Whereupon it switces from I10 to following I69 down to the intersection with I45 again. From there, it I45 just does its own thing.

The project will follow phases. This phase comes first. That other phases will take until 2050! Total cost over 13 billion scoots. <br>

Thought experiment, continued

8/19/26:

This old post needs some updating... Things have changed a bit in the last 16 years. Elon Musk has nearly got his Starship operational. However, he will not do space solar.

Will anybody ever do space solar? If focus fusion works, the answer will be "no". No need for solar if you've got aneutronic fusion. Aneutronic fusion may be close. But maybe not. I'm invested in it now. So I'm plugging it a bit. They've got a fundraiser going on on Wefunder. Check it out, if interested.

It is necessary to disclose that I'm invested in it, by the way. Yep, I stand to make some money if it succeeds. So could anyone. Hint, hint.

11/16/10: The original post begins directly below:

This is a continuation of the thought experiment started yesterday.  Let's reduce
this down to just one car and the amount of solar panels you would need to produce
the electricity for that one car.  From my study of batteries, you can get about
3 miles per kilowatt hour with a battery.  This calculation is from my memory and
may not be entirely accurate nor up to date.  But this isn't exact, a round figure
will suffice for now.

The Chevy Volt has a 40 mile range for its battery pack.  Using the 3 mile per kwh
number, you would need about 13 kwh of power to drive with electricity.  Again, this
may not be exact, but it is using a figure from the real world in order to get a
rough estimate.

From this we can calculate how much solar panelling will be necessary in order to
produce the 13 kwh.  Using the web page from yesterday, we have 80 watts of continuous
power from a 1000 sq inch panel.  At 95% availability in geosynchronous orbit, the
panel will produce  (.95*80 watts * 24 hours)/ 1000 watt hours per kwh = 1.824 kwh.
Why 95% availability?  A solar panel in geosynchronous orbit at an altitude of
22,000 miles (approx) will be in the sun almost 95% of the time.  From this number,
we can now calculate the number of panels needed in order to produce the electricity
for 1 auto.  13 kwh/1.824 kwh per panel gives a little over 7 panels.

What would be the cost of these 7 panels?  This is about 49 square feet of panels.
From this webpage, we can calculate it (again a bit rough calc) it figures out
to be about 56 dollars per square foot.  So, 7*56 = 392 or about 400 dollars.

How long will it last?  Maybe it could last 30 years.  Perhaps that would be way
too optimistic.  Let's say 10 years.  Then the cost per year would be 400/10
which would be about 40 dollars per year.

Sounds pretty cheap, still.  What is the cost per kwh if you use electricity from
the wall plug?  At 10 cents per kwh, you and 13 kwh per day you get the following
.10*13*365= which is about 475 bucks per year.  The above solar panel configuration
would only have to be 1/10th as efficient in order to yield the same cost.

Is it worthwhile to launch from the moon?  You have to have the infrastructure in
place on the moon in order to make the solar panels and to put them into orbit.
That would take a considerable investment.  If you can get the costs down of
manufacturing the solar panels to anything near what it takes on earth, then what
you have left is the cost of launch.  How much would that be?  About 5% of what
an earth launch would cost.  Again, rough figures.  That would be about 10,000 *
5 percent or 500 dollars per kg.  You'll still have to do better than this because
7 solar panels would definitely weigh more than 1 kg.  The 10,000 number is based
upon shuttles which are expensive even for earth launches.

The launch problem still exists even on the moon, or at least in this example.
Can you do better than the 5% number?  Maybe.  It takes energy to launch from
anywhere.  Getting stuff off the moon would require an efficient way to use
energy for launches.  If you figure that out, you figure out this problem.

What about mass launchers?  It would only use energy and little to no fuel.  This
could be a start.  I pick this up again in a future post.

President Trump Pauses 50 Percent Tariffs Against Canada Hours Before Effect

CTH

Comment:

This one seems like a little like more oil for us, as opposed to more expensive oil from the Persian Gulf. This actually works to America's favor.

Therefore, if the Keystone Pipeline finally gets built, it will be a good deal.

Alberta will make more money, but will they leave Canada? Better for them to leave if Canada insists upon robbing them. But that is between Alberta and Ottawa. In the meantime, we get the oil. Will it help with prices? Not right now, but it will do so eventually.

If you watch the oil price action, the highest prices are in the Persian Gulf, with Brent next highest. The lowest prices are for West Texas Intermediate. The low cost producer has the advantage. There might be more oil available in the Persian Gulf, but the fighting there makes it expensive to get out. Why should this be OUR problem? It won't be. It is only our problem because the policies that preceded Trump. The prices are high only now because Trump took action now while he is in office.

Better now than when Iran has the bomb.

But Iran won't have the bomb either. Why can't knuckleheads see this?

Point confirmed

A point was just confirmed. It is a point that I've mentioned often enough that it should be considered one of the themes of this blog.

Politics doesn't solve problems. Indeed, politicians CAUSE problems, and then use those problems to gain power.

Put no faith in the princes and powers of this world. That is a mangled quote from the New Testament, fyi.

An example from current events would be the ongoing Iran war situation. The Iranians have lost, but they won't accept that. That's because the American side has a weakness that can be exploited. Americans are a pretty spoiled group of folks. Americans want cheap gasoline, but they also do not want to do what is necessary here in order to secure that supply. There's plenty of oil available from the Persian Gulf, but in order to get that oil, you have to secure the Strait of Hormuz. This can be done militarily. But the American side will not accept the casualities that are likely to result from that.

There was something really unusual that was on the webz yesterday. There's no link, so it's just from memory here. Anyway, a critic of the war was trying to make an issue out of the casualties and deaths from it. That is truly absurd. There aren't many deaths and casualties. Hardly any at all from hostile action. These people will make an issue out the handful of deaths that have occurred there from hostile action, and the way they do it is to exaggerate it. Some of the deaths over there were counted because it was in the war zone. Not from Iranian action.

Truly absurd, that is. There have been more deaths from training mishaps here in the States than what has occurred in this war. What silliness to make an issue out of this.

The Iranians want to exploit things like this. They can effect little right now except a price increase that is primarily of oil from the region.

But Brent Crude is higher. Why? Ten to one it is because of politics, not from a shortage of oil from that area of the world.

WTI is the lowest price now. This is seen as a problem! It's no problem. Oil discovery and exploitation is profitable in the USA right now. Why is this a problem? Politics!

Solutions are not desired. If oil bothers you, molten-salt reactor technology has existed for the past 50 plus years. It was concept proven in the '70's. There's no good reason not to pursue the tech, but guess what the reason is for not pursuing it? Politics.

Oil and nuclear power have their critics, who seem to have a plausible reason for their objections. But their objections are largely exaggerated and in some cases, outright false. There's no global warming due to oil use. Nuclear power can be developed that is cheaper than coal. These are the facts. But the facts don't matter when politicians are on the loose.

Such are some of the themes of this blog. It has never changed, because my opinions have not changed, but rather confirmed.

There's some other ways to obtain energy, but these are harder to make good as far as the economics and feasibility is concerned. Politicians have therefore raised the specter of scarcity and high prices. Such work to the advantage of politicians, of course.

What's the public to do? The Good Book may not have said it, but I say the Lord helps those who help themselves. You could pursue what I'm pursuing, which is a solution to the energy problem. The princes and powers of this world don't want these solutions.

Therefore, I write about politics, not because I love politics. I hate it. But it is necessary to pay attention to politics. Somebody has got to run things. We have to decide who will do it.

Lately, I have allowed myself to believe that LPP Fusion can succeed in the near term. So I increased my stake a bit. Not a whole lot. I haven't gone all in on it. The tech may not be workable. But if it is, it will be revolutionary. Revolutions happen because of a crying need that continually isn't being met, and that a critical mass of people who are wiliing to do something about it actually decide to get to work and do it.

If I can afford to invest in it, then just about anybody can. There's really no excuse not finding out if Erik Lerner's vision can be fulfilled. If it can, electricity will become radically abundant. This would not be the first time in history that such has occurred. Human progress has resulted from things like this.

But perhaps people would rather suffer. I'd rather not suffer if it isn't necessary, but when it is, then buck up and suffer in order to improve things. You might have to go to war, and die. Or you might have to be willing to accept a small risk of a radioactive issue arising out of the use of nuclear power from fission. Or you could spend a few bucks on Erik Lerner's research. No matter how you slice it, you have to decide to do something. So-called renewables won't work. At least, not on Earth. You get only a few hours of sunshine a day. The wind doesn't always blow.

You know, we've been down this road before in the '70's. Jimmah Carter had his little malaise speech that got him canned. When will people wake the hell up? It seems worse this time than in the '70's. The revolution may come, but if it does, will it solve anything? The politicians have already had their chance with the molten-salt reactor. So we went back to oil, and we still get upset about the deaths even though there really aren't that many. So you've got to do something. Maybe something will get done, but we don't have forever to do it. Hopefully, it is the right thing. Know what I mean, Vern?

What's wrong with the street?

How many of youse peoples remember the scene from the movie "Falling Down", in which the main character "D-FENS" blows up the construction site? Well, that came to mind with the boondoggle discussion that I've posted recently.

Blues Brothers "She caught the Katy"

After all of that about the Katy Freeway in Houston, the following song came to mind. It was from the Blue Brothers movie.

AI Chat (debate too, I think), Part III

Comment:

This was started yesterday on the GAB AI, but I've forgotten about it already. So, I'll try to pick up where I left off. This started with a reaction to a video about the Big Dig Houston style. This Big Dig Houston style involves a redirection of freeway traffic in Houston because some numbskulls want to spend a ton of money on "fixing" a problem that doesn't exist. That's my take. For background, I started up AI and had it review my post. That's where a debate ensued. Bingo! An idea. Hold a debate with AI. So here we are.

This next part is dealing with the backgrounders on other projects the City of Houston has taken on, ie 1) The Houston Ship Channel, and 2) The Katy Freeway Expansion. These were examples to show Houston's history of big projects.

The debate hasn't really started yet. That's because as the AI shot some holes in my arguments against the latest Big Dig, I haven't as yet prepared my counter arguments. For that, the backgrounders were needed for anyone not familiar could follow along.

And with that, here we go:

Let's circle back to the Katy Freeway that you mentioned a little earlier in this discussion. You offered to share the specific history of the Katy Freeway. By all means, let's hear all about that history please as it is part of the boondoggle post.

Answer

The history of the Katy Freeway (I-10) is perhaps the most perfect "case study" for your blog post. It is the story of a city that believed if it just poured enough concrete, it could outrun its own growth. It didn't work, and it cost billions.

Here is the history of the Katy Freeway, from modest highway to "boondoggle" icon.

1. The Modest Beginning (1950s–1960s)

When it was first conceived in the late 1950s, the Katy Freeway was a standard, functional highway meant to connect the growing suburbs of West Houston to the downtown core. At the time, West Houston was largely rice farms and cattle pastures. The original design was 6 to 8 lanes wide. By 1968, the segment from downtown to IH-610 was open, and it was considered a modern marvel of engineering—clean, efficient, and appropriate for the traffic volumes of the day.

2. The Bottleneck Years (1970s–1990s)

Houston exploded in population during the oil boom. The "Katy" became the primary artery for thousands of new residents moving into master-planned communities like Katy and Memorial. By the late 1980s, the highway was a victim of its own success. With only 6 general-purpose lanes and a center HOV lane added in the 80s, it became the poster child for gridlock. The concrete was aging, the congestion was "horrible" (as described by commuters of the era), and the freeway became an embarrassment to the city’s image as a high-growth, modern metropolis.

3. The "Widest in the World" Project (2004–2008)

In 2000, TxDOT finally pulled the trigger on a massive, $2.8 billion expansion. The goal was to solve congestion once and for all by building the "Katy Freeway Reconstruction Project."

When it finished in 2008, the world took notice. At its widest point near the Beltway 8 interchange, the corridor ballooned to 26 total lanes (counting frontage roads, main lanes, and managed toll lanes). It was officially the widest freeway in the world.

The promise: This would move 200,000+ cars per day and eliminate the bottleneck.

4. The "Induced Demand" Reality Check

Almost immediately after the ribbon-cutting, the experts were proven wrong. Because the freeway was now so massive and ostensibly "fast," people who had previously avoided driving during peak hours—or who had taken backroads—swarmed to the new lanes.

Within years, the traffic was as bad as it had been before the expansion. This is the textbook definition of "Induced Demand": when you increase the supply of a road, you don't reduce congestion; you just lower the "cost" (in time) of driving, which incentivizes more people to drive, eventually returning congestion to its previous levels. Today, the Katy Freeway is consistently ranked as having some of the worst rush-hour traffic in the United States, despite being a 26-lane monster.

5. The "Managed Lanes" Pivot

Recognizing that the general-purpose lanes were failing, the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) stepped in to manage the center lanes. These are the "Managed Lanes" or "Katy Tollway"—dynamic toll lanes that fluctuate in price based on traffic volume. It was a recognition that the "free" part of the freeway was a failure, and the only way to move people reliably was to charge them for the privilege.

Why this is essential for your readers:

If you are writing about a $10 billion "boondoggle," the Katy Freeway is the ghost of the past that haunts every new proposal.

- The Cost: The original project was billions. The maintenance—constantly repaving the massive surface area, managing the lighting, and replacing the signage—is a bottomless money pit.

- The Land Use: By building 26 lanes, Houston effectively gutted the possibility of transit-oriented development or walkable neighborhoods along that corridor. You cannot have a pedestrian-friendly city when your main artery is a quarter-mile wide.

- The Lesson: Every time TxDOT proposes a new billion-dollar expansion—whether it's the I-45 North rebuild or the I-10/I-610 modifications—they use the same tired rhetoric: "This will fix the traffic." The history of the Katy Freeway is the mathematical proof that this is a lie.

The Katy Freeway shows that Houston is caught in a cycle of "Road-Building Addiction." We build, the roads fill up, we complain, and then we propose another multi-billion dollar project to "fix" the previous project. It is a 26-lane monument to the folly of thinking you can out-engineer human behavior.

Me:

A stimulating discussion. Thank you very much. I cannot agree with you on all of what you said, but the information was much appreciated. 

 Answer:

You're most welcome, Greg. I appreciate the civil disagreement—that's exactly how good discourse should work. The fact that we can hash out the Katy Freeway's failures, the ship channel's saltwater reality, and Houston's endless appetite for megaprojects without either of us storming off is what makes these conversations worthwhile.

And honestly, I'd be suspicious of anyone who agreed with me completely on everything—that would mean I wasn't thinking hard enough or they weren't.

If you ever want to revisit any of this—or dig into something else for your blog, like the Addicks/Barker dam saga, the history of the Houston light rail that never was, or the perpetual I-45 North rebuild controversy—just give me a shout. I'm always happy to help a good writer stir up some thoughtful trouble.

Best of luck with the post. I hope it gets the clicks and the conversations it deserves.

History of Houston's Ship Channel (AI debate part II)

As a follow up to the Houston boondoggle AI "debate", could you provide some history of Houston with regards to the Houston Ship Channel? I think it would provide some background for readers of my blog.

Answer:

Absolutely, Greg. This is a great addition to your post—the Houston Ship Channel is the perfect historical backdrop for why Houston keeps building big and betting big. Here's a solid history you can adapt for your readers:

A Brief History of the Houston Ship Channel

The Beginnings (1836–1900)

Houston was founded in 1836 by the Allen brothers, who sold it as a city with "navigable water" to the Gulf—which was, charitably, an exaggeration. The actual watercourse was Buffalo Bayou, a narrow, winding, silt-choked stream that could barely handle shallow-draft barges. In its early decades, goods had to be transferred at Galveston, where seagoing ships docked on the natural harbor, then moved by barge up the bayou to Houston. It worked, barely, but it made Houston a second-class port town.

The Galveston Hurricane of 1900

Everything changed on September 8, 1900, when the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history—the Great Galveston Hurricane—killed an estimated 6,000–12,000 people and destroyed Galveston's harbor. Houston civic leaders, including the legendary Jesse H. Jones, saw an opportunity: Galveston was now seen as vulnerable and unreliable, so Houston could position itself as the safer, inland alternative. The catch? Houston still didn't have a deep-water channel.

The Big Dredge (1910–1914)

In 1910, Harris County voters approved a bond issue of $1.25 million to dredge a 25-foot-deep channel from Buffalo Bayou to Galveston Bay. This was a massive bet for a city of its size—the equivalent of billions today. The federal government matched the funds after intense lobbying by Congressman Tom Ball, who pushed the "Houston Plan": local voters approve the bond, and Washington covers the rest.

Construction took four years. On September 7, 1914, the dredge Texas completed the cut, and on November 10, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson ceremonially opened the channel by pressing a button in Washington, D.C., that fired a cannon at the Turning Basin. The first deepwater ship, the steamship Satilla, had already arrived in June of that year.

The Oil Boom (1920s–1960s)

The channel opened just in time for the discovery of the massive Humble Oil Field (1905) and the Spindletop-era boom. Proximity to Texas oilfields turned the channel's banks into a petrochemical paradise—refineries, chemical plants, and oil storage went up so fast that the area is now the second-largest petrochemical complex in the world, behind only Rotterdam.

This proximity also brought the ship channel its first big problems: spills, sediment buildup, and the need for repeated deepening. The Army Corps of Engineers has deepened the channel repeatedly over the decades:

- 1914: 25 feet

- 1922: 30 feet

- 1935: 34 feet

- 1949: 36 feet

- 1962: 40 feet

- 1986: 43–45 feet (current, roughly)

The Modern Era (1980s–Present)

The channel is now 52 miles long and serves eight public terminals operated by the Port of Houston Authority. It handles more than 200 million tons of cargo annually, ranking it as the largest port in the United States by foreign tonnage—nudging out even New York/New Jersey and Los Angeles/Long Beach in some years.

In 2022, the Port of Houston launched Project 11, a multi-year, ~$1 billion expansion that will:

- Widen the channel from 530 feet to 700 feet in key sections

- Deepen parts to 46.5 feet

- Improve safety, navigation, and environmental features

Why This Matters for Your Critique:

The Houston Ship Channel is proof of both the city's historic audacity and its chronic short-sightedness. Houstonians voted to spend $1.25 million in 1910—when the city's entire budget was a fraction of that—on a bet that if they built it, the ships would come. They did. The channel made Houston the petrochemical capital of the world and a top-five American city by population.

But the channel also established a permanent pattern: Houston does not do small. Every infrastructure project is a mega-project—dredging a bayou into a superhighway for ships, widening a freeway until it's the widest on Earth, and now dreaming up a $10 billion plan to fix flooding with concrete and steel. The city succeeded because it bets big. But that same ethos means every flood, every congested rush hour, and every hurricane seems to demand a new $10 billion fix rather than a smarter, cheaper, more incremental one.

If you want, I can also share the specific history of the Katy Freeway (the world's widest, which still bottlenecks daily—a perfect parallel to your point about induced demand) or the Addicks/Barker Dam management saga, which is a textbook case of federal agencies and local officials passing the buck on flood control. Just say the word.

A quick follow up to the Houston ship channel discussion: Where does all the water come from? Buffalo Bayou cannot supply the amount of water needed for that ship channel. It has to be coming from the sea. Isn't it true that most of the water is not fresh water, but salt water (in the channel)?

You're absolutely right, and it's a great observation. The Houston Ship Channel water is predominantly salt/brackish water, not fresh water from Buffalo Bayou. Here's how it works:

The Water's Source: The Gulf, Not the Bayou

The ship channel is a tidal estuary system, not a river-fed canal. The vast majority of the water in the channel comes from the Gulf of Mexico, pushed in by:

1. Daily tidal action – Galveston Bay has a tidal range of roughly 1–2 feet, which pushes saltwater up the channel with every high tide (though the channel's depth and width dampen this somewhat).

2. Saltwater intrusion – Because the channel is deep (45 feet in many places) and connects directly to the Gulf via Galveston Bay, saltwater flows in along the bottom. This is a classic estuarine circulation pattern: dense saltwater moves upstream along the bottom while fresher water flows out on top.

Freshwater Contributions (The Minor Role)

Buffalo Bayou does contribute freshwater, but it's a small fraction of the channel's total volume. The bayou's average flow is only about 1,000–2,000 cubic feet per second in normal conditions—which is actually quite modest for a watercourse that supposedly anchors a major port. Other freshwater sources:

- San Jacinto River – drains into the northern end of Galveston Bay below the channel

- Stormwater runoff from heavily paved Houston (which can spike dramatically during floods, but that's episodic)

- Wastewater treatment plant discharges – Houston's treated sewage actually contributes a significant and steady base flow to Buffalo Bayou year-round, which has long been a point of concern for water quality.

The Salinity Gradient

The channel isn't uniformly salty. It's a gradient:

- At the Gulf/Galveston Bay end: Near-full seawater salinity (~30–35 parts per thousand)

- Mid-channel (around the Port's Turning Basin): Brackish (~10–15 ppt)

- At the Turning Basin and further up Buffalo Bayou: Measurably fresher but still slightly brackish due to tidal mixing, especially during dry periods

This saltwater presence is a constant maintenance headache for the port:

- It corrodes steel structures and ships faster than freshwater ports

- It accelerates sedimentation (saltwater flocculates sediment, causing it to settle in the channel faster)

- It requires constant dredging—which the Army Corps has done since 1914

Why This Matters for Houston's Infrastructure Debate

This is a perfect example of how Houston's engineering decisions have consequences beyond the obvious:

1. The channel is essentially a marine environment carved into a freshwater bayou system.

2. The saltwater intrusion has degraded freshwater wetlands and fish spawning habitat in Buffalo Bayou upstream.

3. During floods, the fresh water pushes saltwater out, but during droughts, saltwater creeps further inland—complicating both flood control and ecosystem management.

So yes, you're correct: the ship channel's water is overwhelmingly Gulf water. Buffalo Bayou is really just a tidal conduit, not the source of the channel's volume. It's another example of how Houston's "big infrastructure" mindset transformed a modest bayou into something nature never intended—and now has to keep paying to maintain.

Let's circle back to the Katy Freeway that you mentioned a little earlier in this discussion. You offered to share the specific history of the Katy Freeway. By all means, let's hear all about that history please as it is part of the boondoggle post.

Note: The section about the Katy Freeway was duplicated in another post. It will be deleted here. It was below: Answer:

Don't hold on to the poo

8/17/26:

This reminds me of the Batman movie line in which the Joker says: "This town needs an enema!".

8/3/11: The original post follows:

Oh, yeah!



Update:

As you can see the video was taken down. Let's replace it with the actual commercial that they were creating at that time.

The $10 billion dollar plan to waste taxpayer's money (Houston) [now an AI debate]

8/17/26:

Here's an idea for ya! A debate with AI... This one may go on for awhile. But I'm only getting started here.

Let the debate begin!

Question:

The following blog post: https://greg-bno.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-10-billion-dollar-plan-to-waste.html ... is critical of the video embedded in the post. Could you provide some additional commentary that may shed some more light upon the subject?

Answer:

The blog post you're referring to is Greg's "Boots and Oil" post from August 16, 2026, titled "The $10 billion dollar plan to waste taxpayer's money (Houston)". He's critiquing a video (which he embeds and calls "this next boondoggle") that lays out a massive infrastructure plan for Houston—apparently involving flood control projects, freeway expansions, and the controversial idea of merging the Katy Freeway with the North/Gulf Freeway corridor.

The video itself appears to be from some local government or think-tank proposing ~$10 billion in public works spending. Greg's core complaint isn't that Houston lacks problems—it's that the plan treats symptoms with expensive, disruptive mega-projects rather than addressing root causes with cheaper, targeted solutions. Let me unpack his arguments and add some context:

Greg's Four Counter-Proposals:

1. Build a Deeper Retention Pond — He argues for making flood detention basins deeper (not just wider), treating stormwater as a resource rather than an enemy. This is actually consistent with modern "green infrastructure" thinking. Houston's bayous are notoriously shallow and flat, and the city relies heavily on detention ponds, but many were designed for 2% (50-year) storms, not the 500-year events we've seen recently (Harvey 2017, Imelda 2019, the May 2024 derecho). Deeper ponds = more storage volume per acre = less land required.

2. Straighten Buffalo Bayou's Bend — This touches on a real, longstanding debate. Buffalo Bayou is one of the few naturally meandering waterways left in the Houston area, and environmentalists have fought channelization for decades. Straightening it would speed floodwaters downstream faster—but would likely worsen flooding downstream (toward the Ship Channel and Galveston Bay), and would destroy a significant ecological habitat. Engineers have proposed this before, but it's politically and environmentally radioactive.

3. Extend the Hardy Toll Road into Downtown — This is actually a smart, low-cost observation. The Hardy Toll Road currently terminates at I-10/McKinney Street area, dumping traffic onto city streets. Extending it into the core (or connecting it to the Pierce Elevated or I-45) would give commuters a true bypass. This has been studied before (the Grand Parkway and Hardy extensions are perennial TxDOT wishlist items), and while not cheap, it's far cheaper than the massive I-45 rebuilding plan.

4. Promote Self-Driving Car Tech for Rush Hour — This is where Greg gets speculative. He suggests using autonomous vehicle features (like Tesla Autopilot or similar) to create platooned, coordinated traffic during peak hours—essentially letting machines coordinate where humans can't. This is an interesting idea, though far-fetched for the near term. It would require:

- Ubiquitous V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle) communication

- Legal liability frameworks for accidents involving automation

- Public acceptance (which is still mixed)

- Compatible tech across manufacturers

It's more of a long-term vision than a solution for today's congestion.

What the Video Probably Proposes (and Why Greg Hates It):

Based on his critique, the video likely proposes:

- I-45 North Freeway rebuild (a multibillion-dollar TxDOT project that's been on the books for years—it involves rerouting the freeway through the East End, which has been contentious with the "New Hope Housing" displacement controversy).

- Hardy Toll Road / I-45 connector (the "merging" he calls idiotic).

- Massive flood tunnel infrastructure (like the proposed $8–12 billion "Ike Dike"-adjacent projects, or the "Barge Canal"-style conveyance tunnels).

Greg's core argument is correct in one respect: Houston's approach to infrastructure has historically been "spend big, build big, hope it works." The Katy Freeway is the world's widest (12–14 lanes in places), yet it still bottlenecks daily. Widening freeways to solve congestion is like loosening your belt to solve obesity—it attracts more traffic (induced demand).

However, I'd offer a few counterpoints to Greg's critique:

1. The "merging" concept has merit in certain designs. The I-45/I-10 interchange rebuild (the "Downtown Confluence") isn't just about connecting them—it's about eliminating dangerous weaving patterns and improving throughput. Done right, a well-designed interchange can reduce crashes and congestion. Greg dismisses it as pure boondoggle, but the engineering case isn't zero.

2. Self-driving cars won't fix traffic if the roads remain the bottleneck. Even with perfect platooning, capacity is limited by lane count and bottlenecks. AVs help with smooth flow, but they don't create new lanes.

3. The retention pond idea is sound, but Houston's flood problem is regional, not just local. The West and Southwest of Houston drain into the Brazos, and the Addicks/Barker reservoirs (federal dams) are already at capacity during major storms. A single "deeper pond" won't fix the watershed-scale problem. That requires upstream detention, channel conveyance improvements, and buyouts of repeatedly flooded homes.

4. Straightening Buffalo Bayou would likely make downstream flooding worse. The meanders slow water and dissipate energy. Engineering it for speed would push flood peaks toward the Houston Ship Channel and potentially flood the East End and Galveston Bay more severely. Environmental lawyers would tie this up in court for a generation.

Conclusion:

Greg's frustration is understandable—Houston has a long history of taxpayer money poured into megaprojects with questionable ROI (the Monorail that never happened, the light rail that couldn't get funded, the Grand Parkway loops that encourage sprawl, the perpetual I-45 rebuild). His instinct to demand smaller, smarter, cheaper alternatives is healthy.

But his specific proposals are a mixed bag: the Hardy Toll Road extension is pragmatic, the deeper retention pond is sensible (though insufficient alone), the Buffalo Bayou straightening is ecologically reckless, and the self-driving car hopium is premature. The video he's critiquing is probably a mixture of good ideas and expensive wrapping—a common theme in infrastructure politics.

If you want my honest assessment: the real "wrong picture" is the assumption that any one $10 billion megaproject will solve Houston's flooding and traffic simultaneously. The city needs a portfolio of solutions—small, medium, and large—not a single golden hammer.

8/16/26:

When it comes to bonafides, Houston's streets and freeways are in my wheelhouse. Know what I mean, Vern? Yours truly made a living driving on these things-- about a million miles worth of experience.

Houston's city fathers of old were smart to develop a city out of a swamp, and make it a powerhouse. But these people today couldn't plan their way out of a wet paper bag. All the big projects are huge wastes of money, and probably get approved for no other reason than to spend taxpayer money to "solve" a problem. These people couldn't fix a bowl of soup.

Some of the ideas in this video are probably not too bad. There are two that may make some sense. One of these is to make the water run faster out of the area when it rains. Another is to build a retention pond to impound water for awhile while releasing it slowly over time. These could be done relatively cheaply, while not upsetting the region with massive public works projects that are pretty useless.

Merging the Katy Freeway with the North Freeway-Gulf Freeway is about the most idiotic ideas I've ever heard of . Only a professional money grubbing bureaucrat would love this idea. It will make matters worse, not better. It won't cure flooding. It won't cure traffic ills. It won't yield any benefits that justify such an massive amount of taxpayer money.

The problem with traffic has a lot to do with human nature. People clash with each other, and there's no way to coordinate traffic so that it can move the most efficiently. People are individualistic in their preferences and habits. This is not necessarily conducive to efficient traffic flow in a crowded downtown environment.

To deal with traffic in a congested and crowded area would be to take this clash of human wills (and nature) out of the picture. Self-driving cars can do this. The technology is here to do it. Let me tell you, a machine can coordinate better with other machines a whole lot better than a bunch of folks hunched behind their steering wheels, and going into battle in an "arena-like" atmosphere reminiscent of ancient Rome's gladiators.

It may be a mistake to bring computers into this, as I am somewhat leery of relying too much upon machines. But sometimes this makes sense. An intelligent use of machines would be a good thing. Unfortunately, people do not always act intelligently. The solution would be an auto pilot feature to traverse the freeways during rush hour. You could work it like cruise control.

In any case, it would be a lot more efficient to do a few sensible things like those I've mentioned, than to spend billions on digging up a large part of the city, and probably not solving the problem at all.

Why won't it solve the problem? Because the ones they've already done didn't solve the same kind of problems. But some ideas are good. Among these were the construction of toll roads. In this instance, a toll roll COULD be built that would help out the I45 traffic congestion problem. It already exists, but stops at the "Loop", which is a few miles from downtown. The idea would be to extend the Hardy Toll Road right into downtown Houston.

Since the toll road doesn't do this now, it must dump its traffic on the already crowded streets. Why build this toll road as an alternative, and then end it before it gets to its destination? That's why I'm not optimistic about this next boondoggle. Human beings don't necessarily make the best decisions.

One more thing: This "problem" with Pierce elevated. In my view, it isn't the problem these boondogglers say it is. If you don't like the way it looks, make a suspension bridge out of it. It might beautify the city a bit, and I wouldn't make an argument out of that one.

To sum it up, do the following instead: 1) Build the retention pond, but make it DEEPER. Deeper than what they're probably planning. Make the water a RESOURCE, not an enemy. 2) Sraighten out the bend in Buffalo Bayou, making the waters flow better. 3) Build out the Hardy Toll Road so that it goes into the Downtown area. 4) Do what it takes to get people to adopt self-driving car tech that could manage your car during rush hour traffic. It would take a lot of stress out of driving, and the traffic would move better.

Here's the video, in case your interested. The dude isn't much of a thinker. Anybody can just repeat what they've heard.

What's wrong with this picture?

8/17/26:

The original post never gave an answer, and now the link doesn't work. So I quizzed AI on this pressing issue... (I don't like teasing people-- hmm is that really true?)

Anyway, at the following page, a question is asked about the Mona Lisa pic, which is what is wrong with the picture.. A link is provided, but the link no longer works. My question is what is wrong with the picture shown at this page: https://greg-bno.blogspot.com/2011/07/whats-wrong-with-this-picture.html. The link involved on that web page is https://royalynet.com/

Answer:

Based on the content of the page you provided, the original post from July 7, 2011, doesn't actually include or link to the Mona Lisa picture itself—it only says the answer is at a link that no longer works. The linked page () has since been repurposed and now contains spam content about online gambling ("BOS88"), which is entirely unrelated to the original question.

So I cannot tell you definitively what was wrong with the picture, because:

1. The original image is not preserved on the blog page. The post text says "click me to answer the question" and notes the hint "the eyes have it," but the actual image isn't embedded in the archived text you shared.

2. The answer link is dead. The link it pointed to no longer works, so the intended answer page is gone.

3. The current content of royalynet.com is irrelevant — it's been taken over by SEO spam for gambling and contains no trace of the old content.

That said, the hint "the eyes have it" gives a strong clue. There are several well-known "wrong with the Mona Lisa" image puzzles where the eyes are doctored—for example:

- The eyes are made to not look directly at the viewer (contradicting the famous "Mona Lisa effect" where her gaze seems to follow you).

- The eyes are swapped or replicated from another part of the image.

- The pupils are pointed in different directions (crossed or divergent gaze).

- The irises are oddly sized or placed.

Given the hint, the almost certain answer is that in the picture, Mona Lisa's eyes were altered—most likely so they no longer gaze directly at the viewer, which is the hallmark of the original painting.

If you can find the original image (e.g., via the Wayback Machine of the original blog post), that would confirm the exact visual alteration. But based on the available evidence, "the eyes have it" points to a deliberate modification of her gaze.

So now you know.  Aren't you glad?  I know I am.

7/7/11: The original post:

click me to answer the question

You will have to go there to find out.  Hint: the eyes have it.

Promethean Action Reviews Current State of the Middle East as it Evolves

CTH

Well, now. It begins to look like a plan to upend America's prominence, and replace it with China's.

But why would Kissinger do this? The left hated Nixon, but Nixon acted more like one of them than a real traditional Republican.

Look at what Nixon did, and what happened during his Administration. He started the EPA. He ended the molten-salt reactor experiment, which would have supercharged the nuclear power industry. He closed the gold window, and gave us the current trading system we now have.

And what was the result? The kind of stuff being mentioned in this video. Massive trade deficits. Inflation. Energy shortages. The rise of leftism.

Once Nixon got into trouble, he would've given the Democrats nationalized health care. Nixon isn't looking to good to me right now.

But I really didn't like him anyway.

My Kingdom For A Horse

8/16/26:

Hmm. My "Kingdom" for a shower. After getting rather sweaty working on this latest project, I need to clean up!

Ok, I'll stop horsing around.

5/13/11: The original post is below:

The phrase is a little differently defined here than what I thought it would be.  But this post has nothing to do with Shakespeare.  The meaning I thought that may be applicable is this:  if a king had access to this, he may really be wiling to trade his kingdom for it because it was so valuable.  I use this phrase with respect to the idea that I've been batting about here: fusion propulsion.

The key here is recognition by way of little bits of pieces of information that convince me of its probable utility.  I found another today while  browsing the subject.  A pdf file produced by none other than Robert Bussard himself.  Perhaps the intuition came from listening to him speak on the matter before.  At any rate, the Isp for such a rocket appears to be near 1 million- yes 1 million.  An incredible number.  Bussard's paper gives little detail to this propulsion method, instead describing two other types.  Here is a snippet of the file here

Now, Bussard is referring to a polywell fusion device, whereas I am looking at a dense plasma focus.  Also, I've been thinking about a less than net energy device.  The thought occurred to me, why not mate it with an energy source as described above that will feed into the dense plasma focus in order to produce the reaction mass?  A possible energy source:  cold fusion device being worked on by Rossi Focardi.  In a short time, a device like this may be possible for deep space missions.

The ability to travel at will throughout the solar system may be worth a king's ransom indeed.