Saturday, March 30, 2019
How to grow potatoes
by JoeandZachSurvival
comment:
It is almost a sure bet that I've put up a how-to video on potatoes on the other blog. It is worth a look to go back and see.
5 veggies that are too easy to grow
by self sufficient me
comment:
I like easy. I don't like things to be too hard.
Unfortunately, I don't like these veggies.
comment:
I like easy. I don't like things to be too hard.
Unfortunately, I don't like these veggies.
Off grid post 9.4.18 ( migration from Boots and Oil Blog )
In order to keep things organized, and consistent with the previous posts on volume one, which is on the Boots and Oil blog, I am going to categorize according to the table of contents subseries format.
Thus, this post will go into the off grid general subseries ****. That will be the category name on this blog. In order to access all of these posts, just click on the label at the bottom of the screen.
It is nice to be organized.
Since the post is about an idea I had, it is going here for that reason as well. The idea is to modify a closed trailer so that I can carry my car in it. There will be a need to exit the car, which cannot be done in a closed trailer. A door can be cut out, and that will provide an entry/exit point when the car is in the trailer.
Why use a closed trailer? It has a lot of empty space which could be utilized out there. Once I get to a location, the car can come out, and there's a lot of space inside.
Update:
3.30.19:
Links to the various sub-series from the main blog. This is to give continuity to the writing part of this project. The need for it is this feeling that I may be re-inventing the wheel.
*** Note: click on the how-to category in the Boots and Oil blog in order to find a link to this post.
There's a lot of posts that didn't make the sub-series that are in the how-to category. Lots more info. Just a reminder.
Main table of contents
General
Construction
Power and Electricity
Waste and Septic
Food
Water
Thus, this post will go into the off grid general subseries ****. That will be the category name on this blog. In order to access all of these posts, just click on the label at the bottom of the screen.
It is nice to be organized.
Since the post is about an idea I had, it is going here for that reason as well. The idea is to modify a closed trailer so that I can carry my car in it. There will be a need to exit the car, which cannot be done in a closed trailer. A door can be cut out, and that will provide an entry/exit point when the car is in the trailer.
Why use a closed trailer? It has a lot of empty space which could be utilized out there. Once I get to a location, the car can come out, and there's a lot of space inside.
Update:
3.30.19:
Links to the various sub-series from the main blog. This is to give continuity to the writing part of this project. The need for it is this feeling that I may be re-inventing the wheel.
*** Note: click on the how-to category in the Boots and Oil blog in order to find a link to this post.
There's a lot of posts that didn't make the sub-series that are in the how-to category. Lots more info. Just a reminder.
Main table of contents
General
Construction
Power and Electricity
Waste and Septic
Food
Water
Friday, March 29, 2019
5 Keys to raising worms
by Green Gregs
comment:
It might be a pretty good source. He mentions how some people just make videos. His is supposed to be about truth. As long as that is indeed the truth, then it should be okay.
Here are some "keys"
comment:
It might be a pretty good source. He mentions how some people just make videos. His is supposed to be about truth. As long as that is indeed the truth, then it should be okay.
Here are some "keys"
- Worms breathe through their skin. The skin is intolerant to acid, which may build up if the compost is too wet. ( carbon dioxide turns into carbonic acid )
- Reproduction is asexual. Eggs go into a cocoon.
- They avoid light.
- He uses plywood, which is raised off the ground.
- Mold is a pest. Avoid it.
- Have a way for the bed to drain ( drain holes )
- Beds and containers for the worms.
- They live in the top six inches. Maybe a bit deeper bed for living outside.
- They live in compost, not dirt.
- When compost goes into heat phase, it will kill of the worms.
- Be careful with using paper. Peat moss must be dried out.
- Pests need to be controlled. No treated wood.
- Use pure, crushed dolomite to control insects--- not garden lime. Make sure not hydrolyzed.
- Tricks to control ants--- use a can of oil under bottom of posts.
- Some types of insects not harmful. ( springtails?)
- Centipedes and millipedes. One of these will eat worms. Dolomite gets the one that doesn't.
- Most important thing-- not too much food. No more food than a day's worth.
- A small sprinkle is all the water needed.
How to make a PVC worm tower
.........................
from the Greenshortz DIY video channel
........................
How to make a PVC worm tower
....for composting. The tower will go into a garden bed. One way to manage food waste.
*************************************************************************
Below this video is another from the Greenshortz DIY video channel. It shows how to make a flow through worm composter. The neat thing about it is that it is automatic, because it allows gravity to push the worm castings through, where they can be collected without so much work.
After this video, you can watch this one in order to see it set up. Or click on the screen at the end of the video.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************
from the Greenshortz DIY video channel
........................
How to make a PVC worm tower
....for composting. The tower will go into a garden bed. One way to manage food waste.
*************************************************************************
Below this video is another from the Greenshortz DIY video channel. It shows how to make a flow through worm composter. The neat thing about it is that it is automatic, because it allows gravity to push the worm castings through, where they can be collected without so much work.
After this video, you can watch this one in order to see it set up. Or click on the screen at the end of the video.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************
Making soap from wood ashes and lard
I looked at other videos, and this is probably not the best way to spend one's time. Yet, you can come up with a useful product if you follow this method.
How to make Wood Gas Biofuel ( updated )
Perhaps this could be useful in making a limited amount of gas for modest purposes.
Interesting idea on how to collect and purify the gas. However, it may contain hydrogen gas, which has the tendency of weakening metal containers. Therefore, getting a practical result may be elusive.
Just watched another video from this guy, and this one starts to get closer to a practical device. The gasifier is upgraded, and a storage device is built.
Update:
I thought I might make one of these for reclamation purposes. That is, to reclaim some waste products for recycling. For example, I use quite a bit of aluminum these days for cooking. If I were to put the used aluminum with food residues on it in this wood gas thing, it would burn off the food residues, and give a small amount of gas. I could also get rid of paper waste, and other possibilities.
How to make a Arizona penny can alcohol stove
This is kinda neat little gadget that might find many uses. Consider that alcohol can be made out of honey ( for mead or brandy ), you can have something pretty useful.
For example, it can make a low level flame for cooking beans, which requires several hours of burn time. Or, to boil some water for purification. Whatever makes the most sense. Honey is probably not the best choice, but there may be others that can be used for alcohol.
One problem is that there is no information as to how useful this stove is. The flame may not be all that hot. If not, then it may not be useful after all.
A little more looking and I found this video of another design, with some tests. It burned for 14 minutes, and boiled up 2 cups of water in about 5 minutes. That will give you an idea of what may be possible with this thing.
For example, it can make a low level flame for cooking beans, which requires several hours of burn time. Or, to boil some water for purification. Whatever makes the most sense. Honey is probably not the best choice, but there may be others that can be used for alcohol.
One problem is that there is no information as to how useful this stove is. The flame may not be all that hot. If not, then it may not be useful after all.
A little more looking and I found this video of another design, with some tests. It burned for 14 minutes, and boiled up 2 cups of water in about 5 minutes. That will give you an idea of what may be possible with this thing.
rocket stove ( updated )
Seems to be very efficient in terms of wood required in order to make a sufficiently hot flame.
One thing in abundance out on the property is a bunch of "twigs' like the ones he is using in this here video. May be worth trying. I did try a rocket stove out there, but windy conditions prevented a flame from starting and holding for long. This idea might work in a windy area.
Update:
Another rocket stove concept that seems similar, but claims higher efficiency. Haven't watched this one, but I will link to it for viewing later.
...and here it 'tis... This is a nice one, with perlite that lightens up the thing so it may be easier to move if desired. In contrast with the above, it is poured concrete, so it is one piece....
testing it here... he plans more improvements later on...
One thing in abundance out on the property is a bunch of "twigs' like the ones he is using in this here video. May be worth trying. I did try a rocket stove out there, but windy conditions prevented a flame from starting and holding for long. This idea might work in a windy area.
Update:
Another rocket stove concept that seems similar, but claims higher efficiency. Haven't watched this one, but I will link to it for viewing later.
...and here it 'tis... This is a nice one, with perlite that lightens up the thing so it may be easier to move if desired. In contrast with the above, it is poured concrete, so it is one piece....
testing it here... he plans more improvements later on...
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Using a clothes dryer for heating and cooling
The title says for "free", but how does the air move from the dryer through the vents? There's another video that shows how to make another piece to this set up. During that video, he discloses that you have to use an electric dryer, not a gas dryer. Therefore, it uses energy. Glad to get that cleared up.
Would this be useful? Maybe. Depends upon how much electricity is being drawn by running the dryer.
Some type of ventilation may be useful, but since this is used with a dryer, it is not going to be useful unless you are drying clothes.
PVC greenhouse in a day DIY
Well, it sure looks better than what I tried to build. Bigger too. They use a poly type cover for the top. A strong wind will probably tear it up.
Here's yet another video for me to learn from. Maybe it will turn out to be useful.
Here's yet another video for me to learn from. Maybe it will turn out to be useful.
PVC pipe bending
Another idea for construction, although this may not be handy for my purposes. Any clear pvc that can be bended this way? I was wondering because you could make a transparent glass roof, which might come in handy.
DIY fridge
You might say "cool". Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.
The actual performance of his device isn't included in this video. That could be interesting to see.
This is of interest to me for its performance in terms of electricity usage. Even a small fridge can pull a lot of electricity. If this one is a better design, then it may be worth considering as a project.
Note: He says that it requires some moving parts, which means more electricity. Also, the follow up test wasn't very informative about energy use, but he did say that he would have a newer version that might do better. Not sure if that means that this isn't very efficient in terms of energy usage. The result is a definite maybe as for making one of these myself.
Purify sea water with primitive tech
A setup similar to this can be employed with a rocket stove, seen in the previous video.
He uses a clay in order to make his stove.
Update:
Another water distillation idea using two bottles.
He uses a clay in order to make his stove.
Update:
Another water distillation idea using two bottles.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Doomsday City
Yesterday was an unusual day. For a reason I cannot remember, something made me want to watch a video about the asteroid that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs. Something about all this was a downer for me. Why it was a downer is not clear to me.
Later on towards the evening, there was a Star Trek Next Generation episode, called the Inner Light, in which the captain lived a life apart from the Enterprise, and all forty years of that life happened in just 25 minutes. The life he lived was of a civilization that was dying, and he was chosen to be a type of living memorial to their civilization.
It struck me as quite a coincidence for such similar thoughts. Why not expand upon that a bit?
When I went to bed, I recorded a memo to myself about this day. I wanted to see how I reacted to these ideas over night. When I woke up, I had forgotten about what I recorded, but I did remember that I did record something. So, I retrieved the recording, and decided to make a post about something I thought up after making the recording.
The idea was a city that was designed to survive Doomsday Scenarios. The reason for existence of this city was to ensure that the human race continued in spite of a number of these scenarios taking place.
Then I remembered that such a city might already exist. It is a NORAD facility, located inside of a mountain. However, such a facility might not survive a nuclear war scenario, as it would be a prime target for enemy missiles.
However, in case of a massive asteroid strike, such a facility could allow a small population to survive for a time. The thought occurred to me, could such a facility be useful for a long term stay of indefinite duration?
Could you grow your own food, process your own wastes, and live outside of the biosphere? Such would be the necessity if the Earth's biosphere is shattered by an asteroid strike. A similar situation would occur if you were to attempt to colonize Mars, or the Moon. Therefore, why not re-purpose a facility to do research like this? Would it not be valuable? In case of the objections of the defense establishment, an entirely new one could be constructed.
A thought that an Ice Age could occur, and the place could become iced in. Such would entomb the survivors forever, or until the ice sheet melted. Therefore, the place could be in a tropical location, far away from any possibility of icing over.
Would such an idea ever catch on?
Update a little while later:
The idea here was not dissimilar to the Biosphere experiment, but different due to its proposed scale and purpose.
The Biosphere project could be useful in studying ways to survive long term in an environment that is closed off from the rest of the world.
Another update a little while later:
The Chinese have their own system, and they ate mealworms in their experiments. They tried this on American space missions, I read, but the astronauts resisted. ( lol )
Interesting links here. Bottom line is that such a system as I envision is a very long way off.
Later on towards the evening, there was a Star Trek Next Generation episode, called the Inner Light, in which the captain lived a life apart from the Enterprise, and all forty years of that life happened in just 25 minutes. The life he lived was of a civilization that was dying, and he was chosen to be a type of living memorial to their civilization.
It struck me as quite a coincidence for such similar thoughts. Why not expand upon that a bit?
When I went to bed, I recorded a memo to myself about this day. I wanted to see how I reacted to these ideas over night. When I woke up, I had forgotten about what I recorded, but I did remember that I did record something. So, I retrieved the recording, and decided to make a post about something I thought up after making the recording.
The idea was a city that was designed to survive Doomsday Scenarios. The reason for existence of this city was to ensure that the human race continued in spite of a number of these scenarios taking place.
Then I remembered that such a city might already exist. It is a NORAD facility, located inside of a mountain. However, such a facility might not survive a nuclear war scenario, as it would be a prime target for enemy missiles.
However, in case of a massive asteroid strike, such a facility could allow a small population to survive for a time. The thought occurred to me, could such a facility be useful for a long term stay of indefinite duration?
Could you grow your own food, process your own wastes, and live outside of the biosphere? Such would be the necessity if the Earth's biosphere is shattered by an asteroid strike. A similar situation would occur if you were to attempt to colonize Mars, or the Moon. Therefore, why not re-purpose a facility to do research like this? Would it not be valuable? In case of the objections of the defense establishment, an entirely new one could be constructed.
A thought that an Ice Age could occur, and the place could become iced in. Such would entomb the survivors forever, or until the ice sheet melted. Therefore, the place could be in a tropical location, far away from any possibility of icing over.
Would such an idea ever catch on?
Update a little while later:
The idea here was not dissimilar to the Biosphere experiment, but different due to its proposed scale and purpose.
The Biosphere project could be useful in studying ways to survive long term in an environment that is closed off from the rest of the world.
Another update a little while later:
The Chinese have their own system, and they ate mealworms in their experiments. They tried this on American space missions, I read, but the astronauts resisted. ( lol )
Interesting links here. Bottom line is that such a system as I envision is a very long way off.
Monday, March 25, 2019
Snake trap that works
Made from soda cans, tape, string, and some hacksaw blades.
Wonder what the dude did with his snakes. He caught two. One of them looked like a poisonous variety that wanted to bite him when he approached.
Check it out. I wouldn't think that he would eat them, but who knows?
Wonder what the dude did with his snakes. He caught two. One of them looked like a poisonous variety that wanted to bite him when he approached.
Check it out. I wouldn't think that he would eat them, but who knows?
Growing Spirulina
There may be another post on this in the first volume on the other blog. Let's just call this an update to that.
It looks simple enough to do on my own.
He provides a link on where to get the "x" system. Oops! The link doesn't work anymore. Oh, well. There are probably other providers. Let's hope so. You don't want to depend upon something that goes away.
He has his own youtube page, which still works. I don't see one about spirulina, though. He has an endless number of videos. It seem unmanageable to me.
Anyway, I think I'll look for another source of information for spirulina, although this guy seems knowledgeable enough. Here's the next one I looked at: how to grow spirulina at home.
Spirulina may have lost favor somehow. It doesn't seem to be easy to find these people. Oh, well. Another idea may have to bite the dust. Wait, I found a link at Amazon. Expensive, though.
Update a few hours later:
Here is a more recent video, with some hopefully useful links included in the comment section.
Note: They do indeed appear helpful.
It looks simple enough to do on my own.
He provides a link on where to get the "x" system. Oops! The link doesn't work anymore. Oh, well. There are probably other providers. Let's hope so. You don't want to depend upon something that goes away.
He has his own youtube page, which still works. I don't see one about spirulina, though. He has an endless number of videos. It seem unmanageable to me.
Anyway, I think I'll look for another source of information for spirulina, although this guy seems knowledgeable enough. Here's the next one I looked at: how to grow spirulina at home.
Spirulina may have lost favor somehow. It doesn't seem to be easy to find these people. Oh, well. Another idea may have to bite the dust. Wait, I found a link at Amazon. Expensive, though.
Update a few hours later:
Here is a more recent video, with some hopefully useful links included in the comment section.
Note: They do indeed appear helpful.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
off-grid post 3.24.19, concrete ideas
The main idea now is to simplify things. Here's a possibility: a 6" wide by 4" deep concrete connector would run between the posts. In other words, the posts would be connected all around with reinforced concrete. This would make the structure more rigid, and hopefully, more stable in high winds.
The advantage to this idea would be that it would take a lot less concrete than a 640 square foot slab. Or even a smaller slab for that matter.
Such a connector could be built in a week or two by yours truly working alone. Maybe another week to dig out the post holes. Finally, a third week, I could have all fifteen posts in place. This looks like a feasible project.
From that point, I would have something to build upon.
The advantage to this idea would be that it would take a lot less concrete than a 640 square foot slab. Or even a smaller slab for that matter.
Such a connector could be built in a week or two by yours truly working alone. Maybe another week to dig out the post holes. Finally, a third week, I could have all fifteen posts in place. This looks like a feasible project.
From that point, I would have something to build upon.
Saturday, March 23, 2019
SpaceX's Crew Dragon splashes down successfully
Another feather in the cap...
Successful splashdown of the #CrewDragon right on time at 8:45 a.m. ET. pic.twitter.com/0qHhHzD4Js— NASA Commercial Crew (@Commercial_Crew) March 8, 2019
Friday, March 22, 2019
How interesting
The artificial gravity equation is as follows:
This means that a spacecraft can simulate gravity by spinning at a certain rpm. The interesting thing is that if you spin up the SpaceX's Starship to 6 rpm, you can achieve 1 g, or Earth's gravitational pull. That would mean an area at the ends of the spacecraft would experience 1 g at 6 rpm.
One of the knotty problems that needs to be solved in long term spaceflight, is the human body's poor reaction to weightlessness over long time periods. If you were to find a way to simulate gravity, perhaps you can mitigate this problem. ( or eliminate it )
One possible objection ( no doubt that there are others ) is that the rotation would have to be end over end. Could this affect maneuverability? If you have to dodge something, can you move? Can you make mid-course corrections?
This means that a spacecraft can simulate gravity by spinning at a certain rpm. The interesting thing is that if you spin up the SpaceX's Starship to 6 rpm, you can achieve 1 g, or Earth's gravitational pull. That would mean an area at the ends of the spacecraft would experience 1 g at 6 rpm.
One of the knotty problems that needs to be solved in long term spaceflight, is the human body's poor reaction to weightlessness over long time periods. If you were to find a way to simulate gravity, perhaps you can mitigate this problem. ( or eliminate it )
One possible objection ( no doubt that there are others ) is that the rotation would have to be end over end. Could this affect maneuverability? If you have to dodge something, can you move? Can you make mid-course corrections?
The energy potential in fusion power
Boots and Oil Blog: If I have Volts, and I need eV, how do I get that?...: Originally posted in 2011, updated 2.1.18 : Watching some welding work being done today reminded me of a post about electron volts. The l...
comment:
Just running some numbers, and my calculations could be wrong. In the post, I noted that the hydrogen boron fusion reaction ( aneutronic ) yields approx 8 million electron volts. Sounds like a lot, but a joule has a trillion times that much. Not to worry. A gram of hydrogen has 10 billion joules of energy, if my calculations are correct. ( My calculations could easily be wrong, but it is indeed a lot of energy ). How much is 10 billion joules? Over 2.7 gigawatt hours. Remember how Doc Brown went berserk in the movie "Back to the Future", when he realized he need gigawatts of energy?
It may not be that much, though.
Well, the idea is that you won't need much hydrogen in order to produce a bunch of energy. But we knew all of that already, did we not?
Incidentally, I read somewhere that a fusion space engine might have an ISP of a million. Now, running the numbers on that one yields some really interesting observations. For instance, in a chemical rocket, 98 percent or more of the rocket's mass is for fuel. However, if a rocket had an ISP of 1 million, 99 percent of the rocket ship could be devoted to things other than fuel. Wow.
comment:
Just running some numbers, and my calculations could be wrong. In the post, I noted that the hydrogen boron fusion reaction ( aneutronic ) yields approx 8 million electron volts. Sounds like a lot, but a joule has a trillion times that much. Not to worry. A gram of hydrogen has 10 billion joules of energy, if my calculations are correct. ( My calculations could easily be wrong, but it is indeed a lot of energy ). How much is 10 billion joules? Over 2.7 gigawatt hours. Remember how Doc Brown went berserk in the movie "Back to the Future", when he realized he need gigawatts of energy?
It may not be that much, though.
Well, the idea is that you won't need much hydrogen in order to produce a bunch of energy. But we knew all of that already, did we not?
Incidentally, I read somewhere that a fusion space engine might have an ISP of a million. Now, running the numbers on that one yields some really interesting observations. For instance, in a chemical rocket, 98 percent or more of the rocket's mass is for fuel. However, if a rocket had an ISP of 1 million, 99 percent of the rocket ship could be devoted to things other than fuel. Wow.
Thursday, March 21, 2019
NASA's Big Mistake?
Notice the question mark?
The big mistake may have been in cancelling the program. Composite tank problems was the reason given for the cancellation, but aluminum tanks were built as a backstop. In other words, the thing could have flown. Eventually, the composite tank issues were solved, but the project was suppressed "at the highest levels". Political decision in spite of the facts? Why would it be anything else? Considering what has been happening in this country in recent times, a political decision can not be ruled out.
The big mistake may have been in cancelling the program. Composite tank problems was the reason given for the cancellation, but aluminum tanks were built as a backstop. In other words, the thing could have flown. Eventually, the composite tank issues were solved, but the project was suppressed "at the highest levels". Political decision in spite of the facts? Why would it be anything else? Considering what has been happening in this country in recent times, a political decision can not be ruled out.
Thorium news
So, what's been happening with the project to bring Thorium energy to the world?
There doesn't appear to be as much going on as before. The Thorium Energy Alliance hasn't had a meeting in over a year. There isn't one planned for this year, or if there is, it isn't mentioned on their website.
Kirk Sorensen still has his Flibe Energy company going. Flibe is working on something fairly recently, but the results haven't been discussed on Sorensen's Twitter feed. There is this one tidbit:
There is something on Flibe Energy on its website, and it is dated from October of last year. The video describes an opportunity to do what they wanted to do, and was won in a competitive bid for the Energy Dept. funding. Sorensen will report on the results by the end of the year, he says.
Well, that's something. It is all I have for now.
There doesn't appear to be as much going on as before. The Thorium Energy Alliance hasn't had a meeting in over a year. There isn't one planned for this year, or if there is, it isn't mentioned on their website.
Kirk Sorensen still has his Flibe Energy company going. Flibe is working on something fairly recently, but the results haven't been discussed on Sorensen's Twitter feed. There is this one tidbit:
Our @PNNLab #NuclearEnergy team is partnering with Flibe Energy on advanced reactor R&D funded by @Energy. https://t.co/NTb9ocmpZa Our research looks at using nitrogen trifluoride to remove uranium from a #MoltenSalt fuel mixture. pic.twitter.com/t1Uj5C5g0o— Energy at PNNL (@energyPNNL) July 18, 2018
There is something on Flibe Energy on its website, and it is dated from October of last year. The video describes an opportunity to do what they wanted to do, and was won in a competitive bid for the Energy Dept. funding. Sorensen will report on the results by the end of the year, he says.
Well, that's something. It is all I have for now.
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
LOP-G or Gateway
The LOP-G ( Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway ) architecture involves putting a space station in orbit around the moon.
In an earlier post, with respect to Zubrin, it would appear to be a useless and expensive effort. Compare that with nothing at all.
The LOP-G is expected to do science. Since it is mostly a political effort, this is about as good as it gets. It is a political effort because NASA has been political since its start. Besides that, it is international. Not only do you have to deal with American politics, you have to deal with the politics of international partners. This is like herding cats.
Of the most useful scientific efforts, human health and performance in space, should be of long term interest in going to Mars. It is out of the Earth's protective shadow, so we should be able to find out the long term effects of exposure to cosmic radiation.
NASA proposes to use this Gateway as a staging point for its Deep Space Transport craft. Which is probably another boondoggle, but this is government. That is the way it is.
Like it or not, NASA has a plan. I don't know if it should be ditched just because of some successes in the private spaceflight field. Over time, those successes may make the government effort seem rather timid, but until then, it is all we got.
The LOP-G is expected to do science. Since it is mostly a political effort, this is about as good as it gets. It is a political effort because NASA has been political since its start. Besides that, it is international. Not only do you have to deal with American politics, you have to deal with the politics of international partners. This is like herding cats.
Of the most useful scientific efforts, human health and performance in space, should be of long term interest in going to Mars. It is out of the Earth's protective shadow, so we should be able to find out the long term effects of exposure to cosmic radiation.
NASA proposes to use this Gateway as a staging point for its Deep Space Transport craft. Which is probably another boondoggle, but this is government. That is the way it is.
Like it or not, NASA has a plan. I don't know if it should be ditched just because of some successes in the private spaceflight field. Over time, those successes may make the government effort seem rather timid, but until then, it is all we got.
Going to Mars is a terrible idea
This guy is so negative that if you still like the idea to go to Mars, better stop here... and not watch this video!
Actually, you should watch. By the way, this is why we should continue to work in closer to Earth until we master the technologies first. This may take awhile. Getting a plausible way to getting there is just the first step.
BBC News - UK's air-breathing rocket engine set for key tests
Not ready for flight tests, it is a test of the pre-cooler systems. These tests have occurred earlier, but the upcoming tests are a bit more rigorous, if I am understanding the story correctly.
If it goes on a Skylon spaceplane, it will be a SSTO platform. Didn't someone ask the question of: do these "suck"?
The Skylon might be better than a flying gas can. That's what they said about the cancelled VentureStar SSTO program. The key is re-usability and a quick turnaround time. Smaller payloads could be justified if the turnaround time was shorter. The idea is cheaper operations. Lower cost to orbit.
BBC News - UK's air-breathing rocket engine set for key tests https://t.co/VjAWPzfoh8— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 20, 2019
SpaceX's raptor engine
An explanation for the meaning of the term "full flow staged combustion cycle". Quite a mouthful there.
Just say "new design" that hasn't been on a flight yet. In other words, it is breaking new ground. It isn't really a new design. It is simply a design that hasn't flown yet. Say what???? There have been rocket engines on test stands like this one, but nobody has actually flown one. The video doesn't explain why.
Yep, and the now cancelled VentureStar aerospike engines were tested on a stand, but never flew either. Doesn't mean that they won't work, just means that for whatever reason, they never flew.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
High temperature steam electrolysis
It is said to be more efficient than at lower temperatures. If a kilogram of hydrogen can be produced for 225 megajoules, and a gallon of gasoline ( which is equivalent to about a kilogram of hydrogen in terms of energy ) yields about 126 megajoules.
Obviously, you lose something in the conversion. Thus, you lose about 100 megajoules this way. To produce gasoline from the hydrogen thus obtained would not be very efficient at all.
The thought I had was not to make carbon based fuels, but ammonia instead. You might even do some cogeneration in order to make the energy conversions more efficient. Ammonia could be made this way, and can be used as a hydrogen carrier to boot.
One objection to fuel cells as a power source, in comparison with batteries, was the relatively lower efficiency rate. One reason for this was the necessity for compression or liquifaction of the hydrogen. To do this requires a lot of energy, and these losses degrades efficiency, thereby adding to the problem. Fuel cells are still more efficient than gasoline powered ICE engines.
To beat batteries, I suggest making ammonia, and then cracking it on an as-needed basis. The ammonia will be the hydrogen carrier, thus alleviating the necessity to achieve cryogenic temperatures, and high pressures. Ammonia crackers can possibly be put on a car, and the weight penalty might not be too bad. Less than that of batteries, I suspect. Batteries add a tremendous weight penalty.
Now, can we get the hydrogen source from a means that would increase efficiency so that the cost of operating a fuel cell car may be comparable to a gasoline powered ICE vehicle? Perhaps not, but it might not matter if the energy source is cheaper.
Let's go back to the production of hydrogen seen earlier. If it was to be produced with a molten-salt reactor, which is cheaper than coal to begin with, and if it utilized steam electrolysis to produce the the hydrogen and then ammonia, it would have to get back that 100 megajoules mentioned above in order to compete on efficiency. But, you could do that ( on the basis of price ) if the energy source is cheaper, as is the case with molten-salt reactors. With a higher efficiency than ICE engines, a fuel cell power source would get back more, if not all, of that efficiency penalty, and the rest could be made up by the lower price of the molten-salt reactor derived energy.
In the end, could it be cheaper than gasoline if you were to use this method? I think that it may be possible. Better than batteries? Maybe not in terms of efficiency, but once again, molten-salt reactor tech wins on price.
Update:
After digging in a little deeper, I found something that may throw a money wrench into this idea. If it takes 389 kilojoules of energy to break just one of the nh3 bonds, then that's the monkey wrench. In other words, the idea of using ammonia as a hydrogen carrier may be flawed. Too inefficient.
I'm gobsmacked.
Obviously, you lose something in the conversion. Thus, you lose about 100 megajoules this way. To produce gasoline from the hydrogen thus obtained would not be very efficient at all.
The thought I had was not to make carbon based fuels, but ammonia instead. You might even do some cogeneration in order to make the energy conversions more efficient. Ammonia could be made this way, and can be used as a hydrogen carrier to boot.
One objection to fuel cells as a power source, in comparison with batteries, was the relatively lower efficiency rate. One reason for this was the necessity for compression or liquifaction of the hydrogen. To do this requires a lot of energy, and these losses degrades efficiency, thereby adding to the problem. Fuel cells are still more efficient than gasoline powered ICE engines.
To beat batteries, I suggest making ammonia, and then cracking it on an as-needed basis. The ammonia will be the hydrogen carrier, thus alleviating the necessity to achieve cryogenic temperatures, and high pressures. Ammonia crackers can possibly be put on a car, and the weight penalty might not be too bad. Less than that of batteries, I suspect. Batteries add a tremendous weight penalty.
Now, can we get the hydrogen source from a means that would increase efficiency so that the cost of operating a fuel cell car may be comparable to a gasoline powered ICE vehicle? Perhaps not, but it might not matter if the energy source is cheaper.
Let's go back to the production of hydrogen seen earlier. If it was to be produced with a molten-salt reactor, which is cheaper than coal to begin with, and if it utilized steam electrolysis to produce the the hydrogen and then ammonia, it would have to get back that 100 megajoules mentioned above in order to compete on efficiency. But, you could do that ( on the basis of price ) if the energy source is cheaper, as is the case with molten-salt reactors. With a higher efficiency than ICE engines, a fuel cell power source would get back more, if not all, of that efficiency penalty, and the rest could be made up by the lower price of the molten-salt reactor derived energy.
In the end, could it be cheaper than gasoline if you were to use this method? I think that it may be possible. Better than batteries? Maybe not in terms of efficiency, but once again, molten-salt reactor tech wins on price.
Update:
After digging in a little deeper, I found something that may throw a money wrench into this idea. If it takes 389 kilojoules of energy to break just one of the nh3 bonds, then that's the monkey wrench. In other words, the idea of using ammonia as a hydrogen carrier may be flawed. Too inefficient.
I'm gobsmacked.
A video about Thorium
And it isn't made by the Thorium guys. Perhaps a different perspective will yield a different answer to the question posed.
His answer was something on the order of "maybe".
Some of what he said seems questionable to me, but maybe I am a little biased in favor of Thorium.
Finally, you don't need Thorium in order to run a molten-salt reactor. The molten-salt reactor technology would work with uranium. Thorium is an added bonus. If you disagree with using thorium, you can still use uranium and it will work fine. As a matter of fact, there are some folks out there who would like to do that very thing.
One of the more aggressive outfits who is pursuing this strategy is Thorcon. ( Perhaps I got that wrong. Look at their name. THORcon? ) Thorcon wants to start making reactors within the five years of so. Maybe even sooner.
Be on the lookout then, for Thorcon.
His answer was something on the order of "maybe".
Some of what he said seems questionable to me, but maybe I am a little biased in favor of Thorium.
Finally, you don't need Thorium in order to run a molten-salt reactor. The molten-salt reactor technology would work with uranium. Thorium is an added bonus. If you disagree with using thorium, you can still use uranium and it will work fine. As a matter of fact, there are some folks out there who would like to do that very thing.
One of the more aggressive outfits who is pursuing this strategy is Thorcon. ( Perhaps I got that wrong. Look at their name. THORcon? ) Thorcon wants to start making reactors within the five years of so. Maybe even sooner.
Be on the lookout then, for Thorcon.
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Off-grid post, 2.18.19--- Next step
Updated,
3.17.19:
It may be better to check out the possibility that of simply turning right toward to the cabin site, instead of making all those turns. If there isn't any impediment to that, that would be the best bet.
2.18.19:
After only 3 hours out there, and nothing else done, I am now regretting that I couldn't do
more. Besides drilling a hole, and filling it back in, I did scout around a bit in the
immediate area for a possible cabin site.
This is like everything else in this project--- easier said than done. Sure, I stepped out
a possible turnaround zone for the trailer, but after examining the waypoints, it doesn't
appear to be large enough without some clearing of vegetation. That is what is needed
next.
An idea came to me to put the cabin in another spot which I had marked in an earlier trip.
This spot is just to the east of a "plowed" region that has since disappeared. The deep
rows are now worn down, and it may be easier to use that as a drive way as opposed to clearing
out a spot from this other place. The distances are okay, so it is just a matter of which
of these two spots that I will end up picking. The one with the least amount of work
should win. It may sound pretty lazy, but there are no real advantages of one over the other.
Or, I should say, no advantages except by ease of access. The area I contemplated on this
last trip would require a turnaround. This area that I am reconsidering will require no
turnaround. I would just pull straight in, after a right turn. The other would require
several turns. A right turn, then a left turn, then a circle around before pulling in.
Therefore, the simplest procedure would be to pull straight in. So, the next trip would
involve checking out this other alternative location.
After this has been decided, the next step would be to clear out the vegetation.
3.17.19:
It may be better to check out the possibility that of simply turning right toward to the cabin site, instead of making all those turns. If there isn't any impediment to that, that would be the best bet.
2.18.19:
After only 3 hours out there, and nothing else done, I am now regretting that I couldn't do
more. Besides drilling a hole, and filling it back in, I did scout around a bit in the
immediate area for a possible cabin site.
This is like everything else in this project--- easier said than done. Sure, I stepped out
a possible turnaround zone for the trailer, but after examining the waypoints, it doesn't
appear to be large enough without some clearing of vegetation. That is what is needed
next.
An idea came to me to put the cabin in another spot which I had marked in an earlier trip.
This spot is just to the east of a "plowed" region that has since disappeared. The deep
rows are now worn down, and it may be easier to use that as a drive way as opposed to clearing
out a spot from this other place. The distances are okay, so it is just a matter of which
of these two spots that I will end up picking. The one with the least amount of work
should win. It may sound pretty lazy, but there are no real advantages of one over the other.
Or, I should say, no advantages except by ease of access. The area I contemplated on this
last trip would require a turnaround. This area that I am reconsidering will require no
turnaround. I would just pull straight in, after a right turn. The other would require
several turns. A right turn, then a left turn, then a circle around before pulling in.
Therefore, the simplest procedure would be to pull straight in. So, the next trip would
involve checking out this other alternative location.
After this has been decided, the next step would be to clear out the vegetation.
Saturday, March 16, 2019
The Truth about hydrogen
This is a fairly comprehensive critique of energy efficiencies of hydrogen versus battery electric.
Sure, battery electric appears more efficient, but they are using grid electricity, not solar panels or wind turbines.
Believe me, I've studied the topic. The best combination in terms of efficiency might well be nuclear and battery electric. But battery electric has its issues as well. It's too darned heavy and too darned slow to charge. The author is probably a bit biased in favor of battery electric.
Note: There is a plug on the video for skillshare. That is an interesting idea in itself.
Sure, battery electric appears more efficient, but they are using grid electricity, not solar panels or wind turbines.
Believe me, I've studied the topic. The best combination in terms of efficiency might well be nuclear and battery electric. But battery electric has its issues as well. It's too darned heavy and too darned slow to charge. The author is probably a bit biased in favor of battery electric.
Note: There is a plug on the video for skillshare. That is an interesting idea in itself.
JP Aerospace
There aren't many posts on their blog lately. But, I found some stuff on Twitter. This is a pic of their airship design that eventually will get passengers to the Dark Sky Station. The Station will be frickin' huge, more than a mile in diameter, if memory serves.
The Dark Sky Station will be over 100k feet in altitude. It will serve as a base between the ground, and their Airship to Orbit airship. Will any of it work?
In my opinion, he has a plan that might work. Only time will tell if it really does work. Interesting thing about this is that in the Martian atmosphere, a thing like this could fly. It may not even need helium, since the Martian atmosphere is carbon dioxide, which much denser than oxygen and nitrogen. A simple nitrogen oxygen airship might float on Mars, perhaps.
— John M Powell (@JohnMPowell1) March 2, 2019
Friday, March 15, 2019
Fusion energy is coming. Maybe.
A quick rundown on what's out there. Didn't cover everything, like the Focus fusion device, nor the Bussard device. ( polywell )
The failure to cover these indicate to me a weakness. Yet, the video gets all the views. Why is that?
To answer that question, those processes are harder to understand. It was for me, anyway, and so I think the case could extrapolate to the general public.
The polywell doesn't heat up a plasma. The others require heating up a plasma to millions of degrees, and then controlling the plasma, which is a difficult feat to accomplish. The polywell is underfunded, as well. Isn't it a shame that people may ignore a promising area of research because the concept is hard to understand?
The failure to cover these indicate to me a weakness. Yet, the video gets all the views. Why is that?
To answer that question, those processes are harder to understand. It was for me, anyway, and so I think the case could extrapolate to the general public.
The polywell doesn't heat up a plasma. The others require heating up a plasma to millions of degrees, and then controlling the plasma, which is a difficult feat to accomplish. The polywell is underfunded, as well. Isn't it a shame that people may ignore a promising area of research because the concept is hard to understand?
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
SSTOs: Do they suck?
Nobody really wants one. But it is a catchy title. Do they suck? The VentureStar might have worked, but it was cancelled just before it went on its first flight.
We don't know if it would have sucked, since it didn't get a chance.
We don't know if it would have sucked, since it didn't get a chance.
New Glenn Rocket
It looks like its main advantage is volume of the cargo, plus weight lifting capability. A quick look at the dimensions, and it looks like it could fit in a BA-330 inflatable space station by Bigelow Aerospace, with room left over.
Everything you wanted to know about Spacesex, but you were afraid to ax
Why stainless steel over carbon composites? This video explains why.
Off-grid post, 3.13.19, building ideas
As I wrote yesterday, this was stuff off the top of my head. Today, I committed it to paper. Along with that, I made some alterations.
The rainwater collection pit could be above ground, saving me the need to excavate a lot of dirt. I could pour my slab on the south side of the site, put cinder blocks around it, and build the floor above it. Rainwater off the roof can be diverted into this tank. The cinder block walls can serve two purposes, then. As a water retention pond, and a wall. The part above the tank would be the wall.
How high for the cinder block wall? With only a small slab, it could be only a couple feet high, but with this idea, I could go higher. But a couple feet on the south side is all I should want, because this will have a glass wall. The glass wall allows sunshine in during the cold months. A cover will prevent sun from heating up the place during the summer.
The north side of the solarium will have a higher wall. The wall will face the trailer side, which is to be to the north. A smaller slab will be on the trailer side, as mentioned earlier.
These ideas are now on paper. That, and some calculations about how much materials I will need.
I didn't include wall materials. If the cinder blocks aren't going all the way up, then the walls will have to be composed of something. Perhaps metal. Metal is more expensive than plywood, and costs have to be considered. A cinder block all the way up could be cheaper, if I did it all with homemade concrete. But what a bunch of freaking work.
An idea to get the sand occurred to me. Once you break through the soil on top, the bottom layers get easier to use a shovel on. At any rate, the augur bit chewed through that sand pretty well. I could get the sand pretty easily. As for gravel, that might have to be hauled in. The less I use of that, the better.
Here's an idea: Have a dump truck deliver about 20k pounds of gravel. I'd still have to dig up 20k pounds of sand. That doesn't make me feel confident.
This has to be considered a bit further.
The rainwater collection pit could be above ground, saving me the need to excavate a lot of dirt. I could pour my slab on the south side of the site, put cinder blocks around it, and build the floor above it. Rainwater off the roof can be diverted into this tank. The cinder block walls can serve two purposes, then. As a water retention pond, and a wall. The part above the tank would be the wall.
How high for the cinder block wall? With only a small slab, it could be only a couple feet high, but with this idea, I could go higher. But a couple feet on the south side is all I should want, because this will have a glass wall. The glass wall allows sunshine in during the cold months. A cover will prevent sun from heating up the place during the summer.
The north side of the solarium will have a higher wall. The wall will face the trailer side, which is to be to the north. A smaller slab will be on the trailer side, as mentioned earlier.
These ideas are now on paper. That, and some calculations about how much materials I will need.
I didn't include wall materials. If the cinder blocks aren't going all the way up, then the walls will have to be composed of something. Perhaps metal. Metal is more expensive than plywood, and costs have to be considered. A cinder block all the way up could be cheaper, if I did it all with homemade concrete. But what a bunch of freaking work.
An idea to get the sand occurred to me. Once you break through the soil on top, the bottom layers get easier to use a shovel on. At any rate, the augur bit chewed through that sand pretty well. I could get the sand pretty easily. As for gravel, that might have to be hauled in. The less I use of that, the better.
Here's an idea: Have a dump truck deliver about 20k pounds of gravel. I'd still have to dig up 20k pounds of sand. That doesn't make me feel confident.
This has to be considered a bit further.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Off-grid post, 3.12.19
Back to the glacial mode, it appears. There has been this long gap between posts. Not that I don't think about the project at all. It just seems that I am spending a bit too much time on the other blog.
Lately, as I have written, I am considering an idea to use materials on site for construction. Also, the idea to pore a slab has occurred to me.
So, do I want to pour a slab? No. Then, what is the new idea? To pour small sections of concrete as opposed to large slabs. For instance, rather than pour that big slab, and then put a cinder block wall structure on top of it, why not just use the pod idea, and some smaller slabs so as to incorporate both ideas?
If so, then I could lay down a 2'x32' "slab" on each side, and then pull the trailer between them. After that, pour a 2'x12' slab in front and in back of the trailer, and then put up the cinder blocks all around the trailer.
Next to the cinder block structure, goes the solarium. It won't feature a concrete slab floor. Why pour all that concrete? Perhaps another 2'x32' "slab" can be laid parallel to the others. Post holes can still be dug that will be poured over, and will connect to the slab. This will give something of an anchor to the whole structure, and make it a bit more stable.
The cinder blocks can be stacked no more than eight feet. I don't want to go too high with it. It may not get anywhere near that high. Perhaps as few as two or three feet, then use metal to fill in the gaps for the walls.
Another idea was to dig a pit underneath, and that is where rainwater can be drained into. That would be an important water source. A 2'x8'x16' pit can store nearly 2k gallons of water. The floor can be built above it. Come to think of it, I could build the pit first, then install the rest of it around it.
Oh, one more idea. I was thinking of using the roof as a solar distiller/ building cooler. A glass covering for the roof over a shallow enclosure for some water to be evaporated, and condensed under the glass. Rainwater will roll off the top of the glass into the pit below.
All of this I have written is off the top of my head. It might help to make some drawings in order to visualize it better. I have the basic drawings already. These are modifications. So, I've got that going for me.
Lately, as I have written, I am considering an idea to use materials on site for construction. Also, the idea to pore a slab has occurred to me.
So, do I want to pour a slab? No. Then, what is the new idea? To pour small sections of concrete as opposed to large slabs. For instance, rather than pour that big slab, and then put a cinder block wall structure on top of it, why not just use the pod idea, and some smaller slabs so as to incorporate both ideas?
If so, then I could lay down a 2'x32' "slab" on each side, and then pull the trailer between them. After that, pour a 2'x12' slab in front and in back of the trailer, and then put up the cinder blocks all around the trailer.
Next to the cinder block structure, goes the solarium. It won't feature a concrete slab floor. Why pour all that concrete? Perhaps another 2'x32' "slab" can be laid parallel to the others. Post holes can still be dug that will be poured over, and will connect to the slab. This will give something of an anchor to the whole structure, and make it a bit more stable.
The cinder blocks can be stacked no more than eight feet. I don't want to go too high with it. It may not get anywhere near that high. Perhaps as few as two or three feet, then use metal to fill in the gaps for the walls.
Another idea was to dig a pit underneath, and that is where rainwater can be drained into. That would be an important water source. A 2'x8'x16' pit can store nearly 2k gallons of water. The floor can be built above it. Come to think of it, I could build the pit first, then install the rest of it around it.
Oh, one more idea. I was thinking of using the roof as a solar distiller/ building cooler. A glass covering for the roof over a shallow enclosure for some water to be evaporated, and condensed under the glass. Rainwater will roll off the top of the glass into the pit below.
All of this I have written is off the top of my head. It might help to make some drawings in order to visualize it better. I have the basic drawings already. These are modifications. So, I've got that going for me.
Saturday, March 9, 2019
Adobe bricks
Updated:
3.9.19:
A bit of research shows how to make concrete. One of the components is sand. The other is aggregate--- I take this to mean gravel. Therefore, if there is a source for aggregate on the property, then all of the building materials can be obtained on site. However, I don't think I have any gravel source. I'd have to obtain it nearby, hopefully.
3.8.19:
One thing I noticed in digging my hole on that last trip, is that there is a potential building material here of great abundance--- sand.
I had this idea before, and now I am thinking of it again. Indeed, I took some bentonite that I bought, and made something like adobe with it. It did crumble up a bit too easily, so I need something else besides bentonite.
Perhaps concrete mixed with sand?
This requires some research.
Here's a video. This is by no means the extent of the research.
3.9.19:
A bit of research shows how to make concrete. One of the components is sand. The other is aggregate--- I take this to mean gravel. Therefore, if there is a source for aggregate on the property, then all of the building materials can be obtained on site. However, I don't think I have any gravel source. I'd have to obtain it nearby, hopefully.
3.8.19:
One thing I noticed in digging my hole on that last trip, is that there is a potential building material here of great abundance--- sand.
I had this idea before, and now I am thinking of it again. Indeed, I took some bentonite that I bought, and made something like adobe with it. It did crumble up a bit too easily, so I need something else besides bentonite.
Perhaps concrete mixed with sand?
This requires some research.
Here's a video. This is by no means the extent of the research.
Garmin waypoints to google maps
Looks like you can translate between the two, and save your work.
After transferring all the garmin waypoints to google, I now have a better picture, ( I think ), than I did before.
It is nearly a mile to "blueberry hill" from my place. This would be as the crow flies. I thought it was about a half mile. So, there's that.
There isn't nearly enough information in the google maps. Nothing like traversing the ground to get you the complete picture. However, it is also useful to see the big picture. Each procedure complements the other.
I have been told that there are alternative routes to use if the roads flood. That is a possibility out there. Just one look at the google maps can tell you where the likely bad spots are. They can be pretty bad indeed. I was told that the road was flooded for two weeks back in 2014. This was a period of heavy rain.
On the way out, I timed it at 30 minutes or so. Actually, I took a video, and kept it on for the entire exit trip. The quality is horrendous, but it did tell me this much.
All in all, even though I spent only a few hours out there on the last trip, I did get some info. Some food for thought.
After transferring all the garmin waypoints to google, I now have a better picture, ( I think ), than I did before.
It is nearly a mile to "blueberry hill" from my place. This would be as the crow flies. I thought it was about a half mile. So, there's that.
There isn't nearly enough information in the google maps. Nothing like traversing the ground to get you the complete picture. However, it is also useful to see the big picture. Each procedure complements the other.
I have been told that there are alternative routes to use if the roads flood. That is a possibility out there. Just one look at the google maps can tell you where the likely bad spots are. They can be pretty bad indeed. I was told that the road was flooded for two weeks back in 2014. This was a period of heavy rain.
On the way out, I timed it at 30 minutes or so. Actually, I took a video, and kept it on for the entire exit trip. The quality is horrendous, but it did tell me this much.
All in all, even though I spent only a few hours out there on the last trip, I did get some info. Some food for thought.
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Carbon dioxide to carbon
How interesting.
The only downside seems to be that certain green groups oppose it. Not surprising to me that this is so. At the heart of green theory is that man's technology is the problem, therefore, all tech, including this ( even if it works), is bad.
The only downside seems to be that certain green groups oppose it. Not surprising to me that this is so. At the heart of green theory is that man's technology is the problem, therefore, all tech, including this ( even if it works), is bad.
New method to turn CO2 into coal https://t.co/XQ8VMgOUXg— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 7, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)