It should be obvious, but it probably is not

New Zealand PM shuts down news conference because she didn't like the question.

CTH writes about this event just recently, in which someone who is not an "accredited" news person, asks a valid question about the effectiveness of the "vaccine".

The subtlety of it is what caught my eye. It should be noted that it isn't a "news" conference if valid and fair questions are not allowed to be asked. The person asked a fair question involving other nations experiences with the vaccine. That seems fair and reasonable, but the reaction definitely was NOT. The person asking the question was treated as if he was unreasonable, but that is not so. Note also the requirement that only approved people are allowed to ask questions. The "news" conference was a sham event. It was no news conference if you cannot ask valid and reasonable questions.

The subtlety of it is that the PM doesn't appear all that "flustered" or anything like that. It seemed like a very slick and well-executed diversion to regain control of the message that was being pumped out to a likely uninformed citizenry. Perhaps the citizens of New Zealand DON'T KNOW and aren't allowed to know certain things that are inconvenient to the ruling class. The citizens are UNINFORMED if they aren't allowed to know all facts relating to government policy. The idea that you can have a DEMOCRATIC type of government without free speech is counter to much of the experience of the world in the last century. The first thing a tyranny does is to shut down free speech. Not only that, but to also confiscate firearms.

All of it is being done under the radar, it seems. It is made to appear to be so natural and reasonable, but it is not. I've seen that before on a blog called Mahablog. The Mahablog is a left-wing site. Once upon a time, I read that blog and commented there. I was banned from making any further comments just because I asked a question that the blogger didn't like. It wasn't rude. It wasn't unreasonable. It was a valid question, as I recall. It took me by complete surprise. This blogger at that point seemed like a reasonable person, but that was not a reasonable way of behaving. It is a lot like the New Zealand PM.

What's the point of the discussion then, if fair and valid questions are not permitted? It is just plain and simple propaganda. Not a free exchange of information, which is what you would expect in a FREE society. The conclusion should be obvious.

Guitar theory on youtube

I've been spending a lot of time on youtube lately. Most of the time, I'm looking for stuff I can use. Sometimes it gets into stuff that really isn't practical. That happened today.

From time-to-time I've visited the Rick Beato channel. It just so happens that he has taken on the project of teaching music, as opposed to what he did before. Teaching music is not new for him, he said.

One of the videos promised to cover as much guitar theory as he could in one hour. There was so much stuff that 30 minutes in, I was way, way lost. Shoot, I was lost a lot sooner than that. This confirms that I never really learned much about the guitar. This is true despite the time that I spent on it as a teen.

One moral to that story is that the amount of time spent is in no way a determining factor in how much progress can be made. To get the most out of the time, a personal tutor who could teach what needed to be taught-- or so I would think. As for me, I had just one lesson. The other time was spent just trying to do it all on my own. Not very efficient in terms of time. But you cannot become a good player in just one hour. The practice has to mean something that is going to advance you. How to do that?

The world-wide-web is a resource that I didn't have back in the seventies when I was a teen. What a resource it is. But there's a dark side. That's the stuff of a different subject.

You can get pretty negative, but there is also another side. There is always another side. And I don't have to always be practical, either. A change doesn't have to be bad, but it isn't always a good thing either. It is just one of those things that is what it is. The choices you make are the key. Also, it matters as to what you actually want. How do you know when you are on the right track in what you are doing at the time? It is not always easy to know. Maybe you never really find "it".

YouTube video about nuke rockets

 

Sorry, I cleared the page before I got the idea to write this post. Therefore, there's no link to that page. It said that Elon Musk was considering nuke rockets for his trips to Mars. I don't know if that's true or not, but if so, it would be good news and bad news.

The good news is that it may be more realistic than using chemical rockets. Reason being that you're going to need a crap load of fuel to make the trip to Mars. A nuke rocket will help with that in reducing the amount of fuel needed for the trip. Also, if you can get the fuel up there and in great quantity, you can slice the time down for the trip. This might make a roundtrip possible if it were to be short enough in duration.

There might be a speculation alert necessary there in that last paragraph. I don't know if that's true or not, but if your launch windows are two years apart, it is for a reason. The reason is that the Earth and Mars are close enough together in their orbits to make the distance reasonable and compatible with a feasible trajectory.

If memory serves, it takes eight months to get there with chemical rockets. If you can cut the transit time down sufficiently, that transit time could be cut into half at least. (That is speculation, I don't know if that is possible.)

I do know that the ISP of a nuke rocket is twice that of a chemical rocket, so it would need less than half the fuel ( or so I would think). That much is the good news.

The bad news is that you have to develop an entirely new rocket and find a way to get it into orbit. It couldn't be launched from the ground because... radioactivity. In space, presumably, you could light it up without sending regulatory agencies into hysterics.

Such a rocket is definitely feasible, and it could be a boost stage that wouldn't be launched from the ground. Maybe like a space tug or something that would take a starship along at higher velocities for a shorter trip to Mars.

A cargo carrying Starship could bring one up, and then its fuel tank. It could fill the tank with another launch, and then off they would go.

An eight month trip in weightless conditions would be tough on the human body. Something has to be done to lessen that impact. This could be an alternative. Another alternative would be to spin it up with artificial gravity.

Off-grid steam engine

Steam engine running an alternator

Comment:

Maybe there's a Stirling engine manufacturer out there, but I haven't seen one. Also, there may be a natural gas powered turbine engine setup out there, but I haven't seen that one either. So that leaves this low-tech option.

Maybe it is an option or maybe not. But steam DOES work. I thought it might be simple, but as the guy explains his setup, it doesn't look as simple as I thought.

I haven't looked much further than that. It is rather unique, so it caught my eye.

Environmentally hazardous coal waste diminished by citric acid

Environmentally hazardous coal waste diminished by citric acid:

https://phys.org/news/2021-10-environmentally-hazardous-coal-diminished-citric.html

comment:

Process to extract rare earth's from coal ash in an environmentally friendly way.  Turns waste into a resource.

Update:

This one deserves a bit more discussion. The molten-salt reactor posts that I did here uncovered some basic information about this very thing.

The first fact about it was that there is MORE energy in the coal ash than what was obtained by burning the coal. I once mentioned this a coal industry guy when I was doing Uber back in Houston. He was surprised to hear that. The fact is that coal has a significant amount of thorium in it.

The second fact was that wherever you find thorium, you also find rare earth elements. It is a big waste to put the materials back when mining for something else. This is actually being done, and it is DUMB.

Therefore, this discovery is of the utmost importance on a number of levels. On the basic level, the waste need not be a waste. On another level, we need better management of our government. It is the government that forces DUMB decisions upon the rest of us, and this is yet another example of that.

People have too much regard for politicians and bureaucrats. This was not always so. It becomes so only at our hazard. They don't do a lot of good, and they are capable of doing a lot of harm.

Spacex Starship news

 

Here's a way to respond to the FAA licensing with respect to the orbital class Starship launch system being developed in Boca Chica Texas.

I found it in the YouTube channel called "What about it" (WAI). He said that a link would be in the description section, which it was. The link will take you to a form that you can fill out to express your thoughts on the subject.

I filled it out and sent it in. Maybe nobody will look at it, but what the heck? I wrote that I think Musk should be given maximum opportunity to test his system to see if it can work. If it does work, it would mean a lot to mankind and to this country. Also, that all other considerations pale in comparison.

So, if that matters any, maybe it can make a difference. If not, nothing was lost.

If you care about this and didn't know about it, then go to the link at the youtube page and click on it. Let them know what you think.

Rocket stove -- mass heater concept ( video )

Rocket stove mass heater ABC acres

This looks like a good idea. The reason being that solid masses retain energy for a longer period of time than a gas does.

Whenever you hear somebody say "heat trapping gases", then think of this. A solid will retain heat, while a gas will DISPERSE it. Dispersing something is an altogether different thing than trapping.

But this isn't about politics. It is about knowing a principle and having known that principle, putting it to work to solve real problems. The greenhouse theory with respect to politics doesn't solve any real problem. It is just a way for politicians to grab more power for themselves while depriving you of anything of your own.

Recently I watched a video about the laws of stupidity. To illustrate a feature of the laws set forth, a graphic was produced. It was a chart which divided into four parts. One of those parts involved criminality. A criminal is not on the stupid side. Criminals take advantage of the stupidity of their victims.

The moral of that story is that you should strive not to be stupid, nor a criminal. The most ideal place to be is above the criminal in the PRODUCTIVE and SMART quadrant of the chart. The least desirable part is to be in the DEPENDENCY and STUPID part of the chart quadrant.