Monday, December 31, 2018
Off-grid post: New Year's Eve 2018-19 ( yearly review )
It is a good time to review the year. Of course, this blog was dormant until about August, but the blogging on the topics here existed on the Boots and Oil blog. So, a discussion about the entire year would not be a stretch.
1) Probably have a reasonably good plan for digging post holes for footers. This will be the foundation for the structures that I wish to build out there. Other applications could use the same technique. Such as building a 30 foot ( or higher ) tower for the cell phone, and for a wind turbine.
2) There have been numerous propositions on how to conserve water. One of the experiments involved the use of soap. Seems like I found a way that might work the best, but at the moment, the water problem seems to be quite manageable. It might not be necessary to be this exacting in my methods.
3) Seems like I have found ways of cooking that use little water. I have honed these methods done down like a pretty sharp knife. It takes little water for me to run this trailer now. That includes everything. Cooking, cleaning, personal hygiene, the works.
4) I have made numerous floor plan drawings, but not posted here. It seems like I am getting settled in on a plan that would involve a small structure and the use of my trailer. This is a decision that must be made, or I am still on the drawing board, so to speak.
5) The swamp cooler success is the biggie. With this device, I can more easily manage heat in the summer. However, it uses a lot of water. Maybe it might make sense to be really strict with water after all.
6) With the arrival of the swamp cooler, I have determined that shade is going to be vital in controlling the use of electricity and water. This has become an important part of my plans.
7) Control of humidity is more of a problem than what I thought. I recall last year that there was so much water condensation in this trailer that I had to find a way to drain it off the windows. It was that much. This may be a concern, since a dehumidifier uses a lot of electricity.
With respect to the above, one fact has stood tall in all this. It should be obvious, but sometimes you have to see for yourself. The fact is that lower temperatures causes humidity to go up. This is even true in the desert region. I checked into it. There does not have to be a lot of water in the air. The fact that the temperatures are low is what causes relative humidity to go up. Therefore, cooler interior temperatures are going to need to be treated with a dehumidifier, or it will get too damp inside.
8) Finally, I am getting to the point where to survive out there doesn't seem to be that big of a challenge. I hope that I am not underestimating this. But it seems like I have a plan that could work. I am starting to get a bit anxious in trying this out.
That is where I am now. Moving out there is a very big step. There may not be any going back.
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
SpaceX news
Will use stainless steel instead of composites.
I read that these can survive reentry. So could carbon. At any rate, he is going to start testing in April or thereabouts, if things go according to plan.
I read that these can survive reentry. So could carbon. At any rate, he is going to start testing in April or thereabouts, if things go according to plan.
Musk teases new details about redesigned next-generation launch system - https://t.co/AbFcymXsk7 https://t.co/H198yZyTmP— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 26, 2018
Massive water ice deposits on Mars found
This should be big news for Mars colonization folks.
Gigantic ice filled crater 50 miles wide on the surface of Mars https://t.co/oy0BZDbOBx via @MailOnline— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 21, 2018
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
LPPFusion (Focus Fusion ) 2018 highlights
Seems to making slow and steady progress towards the goal of net energy from aneutronic fusion. Aneutronic fusion should produce little radiation, and therefore would be even better than molten-salt reactors in this regard.
Axial Field Coil and New Switches Assembled, Proton-Boron Fuel Arrives, Plans for New Experiments, LPPFusion Passes Financial Audit and More!: https://t.co/WUr3cdjKx3— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 25, 2018
Monday, December 24, 2018
Bill to revitalize zero emissions nuclear power SAILS through Congress
Comment:
Seems like a good thing. But I haven't read the bill.
Seems like a good thing. But I haven't read the bill.
Bill to revitalize zero emissions nuclear power SAILS through Congress https://t.co/TEEHjzKlhV via @TheNatSent— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 24, 2018
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Off grid post 12.22.18 ( construction ideas )
There are a few things to write about since the last time, so here goes:
1) I have been thinking up a plan for making a move out there. If I were to execute this
plan, it would involve taking the trailer to El Paso, and working for Uber in order to pay
for the rental spot. Once I figured I made enough money for the week, I would use the rest
of the week to work on the property.
2) There is a plan for construction out on the property, but this is constantly in a state
of flux. The latest plan is to make a solarium facing the south, with the trailer sitting
under a cover directly north of it on the east-west line. The latest plan would involve a
lot of work, which is why I hesitate. It could be as large as 32 feet by 20 feet wide.
3) The solarium would be designed to stay warm in the winter, but would have to have covering
for the windows. There would be a lot of glass on the south side. In the summer, the sun
may make things very hot in there. Thus the need for the coverings. Also, an overhang may
be enough to shade the windows entirely, but having a covering will be a backstop in case I
am wrong about that.
4) Don't know how big the solarium will be. If I make it the full 32 feet long, that would
mean a helluva lot of glass. In the winter, the south gets sun all day long. Maybe it would
not need to be the full 32 feet.
5) Don't know exactly if I want a floor for the solarium. The purpose of the solarium is
to warm up the interior of the trailer, or to sit in the solarium itself during the daytime
during the winter months. If I sit inside the solarium all day, then I should have a floor.
An idea just struck me. I could make the solarium not have a floor, but make it only 16
feet in size. A door could be placed between the solarium and a spot where I could spend the
day. A fan can be placed at the door, and would circulate the warmer air into the area with
the floor.
6) Been trying out the sleeping bag the last few days. On a night above 40 degrees Farenheit,
it wouldn't even be necessary to run the heat. In fact, it works so well that if it is much
above that, I break out in a sweat.
7) There is also the option of using an electric blanket. I have one, but I don't use it.
8) With those ideas, and the ideas for that I have already practiced, I think that I have
most of the water and power issues figured out.
9) Security can be an issue if I move the trailer out there. Not sure if I want to do that
though, because I would have to leave the trailer unattended for days at a time. That makes
it subject to theft.
10) Construction details follow, assuming 32x20 foot plan with 16x8 foot solarium:
a) Fifteen post holes will have to be dug. The northernmost set of five are to be only
16 inches deep. The reason is that I want the rainfall to run off from the north to the
south end. Therefore, the north end will be somewhat higher than the south.
b) The posts will be 12 feet, meaning that they should be 10 feet and 8 inches above ground.
I will attach four inches of spacers on the north row, and two inches on the middle row.
The middle row will be dug 18 inches deep, so it will rise to 10 feet 6 inches above ground.
Therefore, with a 2"x6"x8' connecting board between the posts, it will rise to 11 feet and
2 inches, with 10 feet and 10 inches of clearance on the north side. That is because some
2"x6"x8' boards will go on top of the board connecting the posts. A 2" notch will be cut
out of the board, and it will rest vertically on top of the connecting board. The 4 inches
remaining will knock the 11 foot two inch height down to 10 feet and 10 inches of clearance.
The middle row of posts will be 12 feet away, and will be 4 inches lower than the north end.
That's because of the extra spacer, and the deeper post hole. Four inches lower height
should be enough to allow rain water to drain off. Over ten feet and six inches of clearance
and the middle side should be plenty to allow the trailer to fit under the roof.
c) So, the trailer roof will have 10 post holes dedicated to it. It will share the middle
row of posts with the solarium and floored area. The posts rows will be arranged along the
east west line, with the mentioned five posts to a row.
d) The last row will only a ten foot post, with a foot and a half deep hole for it. It will
be a couple feet lower than the middle, so rainwater will run off on top of the roof, and
continue along the roof until it reaches the end on the south side, where it can be
collected.
e) The roof to the solarium, floored area will only be about eight feet in height. There
may be an overhang from the higher area to the lower area, as well as an overhang toward
the south end. That means more metal roofing material.
f) With this configuration, there will be twenty feet of floor space. With overhang, there
could be a total of 32 feet by 22 feet of rainfall catchment area available. There should
be no shortage of water, once I start collecting rainfall. For example, 32x22 feet is
704 square feet. Each inch of rain yields a possible 58.7 cubic feet. That translates into
close to 439 gallons of water. Just for each inch, mind you. For an entire year, there is
going to be more water than I can collect or use.
g) The floor will be like the roof, as far as the construction details. Only that it does
not have to slope any for rain.
h) There should be adequate ventilation, so doors will be on each side of the 8 foot solarium
/ floored section. Doors/ gates will be added on the west ends and east ends. Finally, a wall
can be constructed on the middle row of posts to block out the wind. The structure should be
protected from sun, wind, and rain. There would be a door connecting the solarium to the trailer.
Final thoughts. As discussed, this means a lot of material and a lot of work.
Fifteen post holes. 704 square feet of roofing space. 640 square feet of floor space, but
only 128 square feet of actual floor. The walls on the north side will have to be high, so
I may not make one. Instead, a "skirt", which prevents the wind from going underneath the
trailer can block the wind. Also, perhaps a slight wind block on the topside to keep the
wind from whistling above the top of the roof.
This means a lot of material, a lot of work, and a lot of money. Also, it will take a long
time, since I don't think I will set records on my speed.
It is a big challenge, and I am concerned that I may not actually get this done.
Anyway, it is a plan. It is also subject to change according to conditions.
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Focus Fusion for space travel ?
A short exposition on fusion as a means of transportation in space.
It is actually a bit too short. He doesn't go into why this is going to happen. At the moment, this seems to be in doubt.
The question that needs answering is: can we do this?
A similar approach to Focus #Fusion for space travel:https://t.co/Qrqq7VmcfK https://t.co/Qrqq7VmcfK— Focus Fusion Society (@focusfusion) November 18, 2018
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
X-33 Venture Star: Was cancellation a big mistake?
It looks like pretty impressive tech, but I am not convinced of the aerospike engines, and the cost benefit wasn't as big as SpaceX is claiming to be able to do.
Anyway, I was for the project, despite the possible flaws. It could be that the aerospike engines are really better, but the ISP numbers don't look any better, but actually worse than the Shuttle's main engines.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
off-grid post, 12.11.18 ( cabin or trailer ? )
There has been a long debate with myself about what I would build out there. It would come down to cabin, or cover for the trailer.
There are a lot of pros and cons. For example, if I were to use the trailer, I would save a lot of money and effort in building out an entire building. But the downside to that is that the trailer is not as secure as a cabin. What concerns me is that someone could steal it when I left it there. Since my idea is to work a bit in El Paso, that means it could be days in which I would not be there. In that event, any thief would have an opportunity to steal it without my knowledge ( until it is too late ).
The idea to deal with potential theft would be to take the trailer with me when I go to El Paso. There are a lot of complications in that option. It would not save much, if any, money, and it would take a lot of effort.
On the other hand, if a cabin were built, it would be secure from theft ( as to the building itself).
What are the downsides of the cabin? It would probably cost more. It would need fixtures, whereas the trailer already has those that I need.
What about a compromise of sorts? I could build a cover for the trailer, and if things worked out, I could make the trailer more permanent so as to secure it.
An idea occurred to me to build a cabin, and then take the trailer out there. But what about a cover for it? In the long run, I would have to build both, or dispose of the trailer.
If I were to make the trailer more permanent, why not wall it in? Before walling it in, and making it more permanent, I would have the flexibility to change my mind if things didn't work out.
So, I am leaning in the direction of making the cover for the trailer, and making it permanent eventually. It could give me an opportunity to do a "shake-down" cruise of the new structure, and see if things will work out before making any final commitments.
I may be able to secure a rental spot in an RV park in El Paso for a competitive rate. Whatever I spend on that, however, will be more than what I spend now, because I get my current spot for no charge.
You can't beat that price, but it has its downsides as well. "You pays your money and you takes your chances". Kinda like life itself.
There are a lot of pros and cons. For example, if I were to use the trailer, I would save a lot of money and effort in building out an entire building. But the downside to that is that the trailer is not as secure as a cabin. What concerns me is that someone could steal it when I left it there. Since my idea is to work a bit in El Paso, that means it could be days in which I would not be there. In that event, any thief would have an opportunity to steal it without my knowledge ( until it is too late ).
The idea to deal with potential theft would be to take the trailer with me when I go to El Paso. There are a lot of complications in that option. It would not save much, if any, money, and it would take a lot of effort.
On the other hand, if a cabin were built, it would be secure from theft ( as to the building itself).
What are the downsides of the cabin? It would probably cost more. It would need fixtures, whereas the trailer already has those that I need.
What about a compromise of sorts? I could build a cover for the trailer, and if things worked out, I could make the trailer more permanent so as to secure it.
An idea occurred to me to build a cabin, and then take the trailer out there. But what about a cover for it? In the long run, I would have to build both, or dispose of the trailer.
If I were to make the trailer more permanent, why not wall it in? Before walling it in, and making it more permanent, I would have the flexibility to change my mind if things didn't work out.
So, I am leaning in the direction of making the cover for the trailer, and making it permanent eventually. It could give me an opportunity to do a "shake-down" cruise of the new structure, and see if things will work out before making any final commitments.
I may be able to secure a rental spot in an RV park in El Paso for a competitive rate. Whatever I spend on that, however, will be more than what I spend now, because I get my current spot for no charge.
You can't beat that price, but it has its downsides as well. "You pays your money and you takes your chances". Kinda like life itself.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Flibe Energy news
What happened to Kirk Sorensen at Flibe Energy? Here is a video which answers that question.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Nerva video
The highly successful development, but non-implementation, of a nuclear thermal rocket engine in the sixties.
Hard to believe that this was done over fifty years ago. ( Or maybe not so hard to believe, given the subsequent national decline.)
Hard to believe that this was done over fifty years ago. ( Or maybe not so hard to believe, given the subsequent national decline.)
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Off-grid post, 12.4.18 ( Passive solar and rainfall catchment )
It has been awhile since the last of these posts. But, I am still thinking and planning for the project out west.
Lately, I have been keeping track of the sun's movements as we get closer to the winter solstice. The sun now sets quite a bit south of the east-west line. The point of all this is to plan to use the sun to the best advantage for passive heating. Also, to avoid having the sun become a problem during the summer months.
It would seem a bit nutty to have a large glass window facing the south, since the sun can enter during the summer months. As this would heat things up considerably, which is not the idea during the hot summer. However, without a window facing the south, passive solar is out of the question. This requires something of a compromise.
The compromise would entail making a small room, which is blocked off from the rest of the cabin, and which will take all of the sun's heat during the summer and winter. In addition to blocking it off from the rest of the cabin, it will make sense to cover the window with a reflective device that can be easily removed and replaced as needed.
The latest idea for a cabin is to make 24 feet of glass windows all along the south side, and also 8 feet that wraps around the southwest corner and goes west. This would make the southwest side the warmest spot all year round. I can use that to advantage, or I would like to think I can take advantage of this fact.
In addition, there will be no overhang in the south. This seems crazy again, but after noting how the overhang blocks the sun during the winter months too, then to maximize the sunlight available would require such a plan. You need a lot of sun in a tight place in order to make it hot during the winter. In the summer, it will get overbearingly hot, but once again, this can be offset with reflective coverings.
How to collect rain? Wouldn't the rainwater collection create a shadow? Yes, it would. Therefore, the highest point will be south, and it will slope downward towards the north. The north end will have the rainwater collection barrels.
So, progress is being made, but it is rather slow. The schedule for arriving out there could be as early as this time next year. Before I go out there, I would like to make a trip in order to determine if certain ideas will work. I'd like to test my drill for making post holes, and I would like to know if I can make any money in El Paso for Uber. In order to do this, I may stay for a week or so. This might happen in late March or early April.
By that time, I will be closing in on five years of owning the property. Hard to believe it has been that long.
Lately, I have been keeping track of the sun's movements as we get closer to the winter solstice. The sun now sets quite a bit south of the east-west line. The point of all this is to plan to use the sun to the best advantage for passive heating. Also, to avoid having the sun become a problem during the summer months.
It would seem a bit nutty to have a large glass window facing the south, since the sun can enter during the summer months. As this would heat things up considerably, which is not the idea during the hot summer. However, without a window facing the south, passive solar is out of the question. This requires something of a compromise.
The compromise would entail making a small room, which is blocked off from the rest of the cabin, and which will take all of the sun's heat during the summer and winter. In addition to blocking it off from the rest of the cabin, it will make sense to cover the window with a reflective device that can be easily removed and replaced as needed.
The latest idea for a cabin is to make 24 feet of glass windows all along the south side, and also 8 feet that wraps around the southwest corner and goes west. This would make the southwest side the warmest spot all year round. I can use that to advantage, or I would like to think I can take advantage of this fact.
In addition, there will be no overhang in the south. This seems crazy again, but after noting how the overhang blocks the sun during the winter months too, then to maximize the sunlight available would require such a plan. You need a lot of sun in a tight place in order to make it hot during the winter. In the summer, it will get overbearingly hot, but once again, this can be offset with reflective coverings.
How to collect rain? Wouldn't the rainwater collection create a shadow? Yes, it would. Therefore, the highest point will be south, and it will slope downward towards the north. The north end will have the rainwater collection barrels.
So, progress is being made, but it is rather slow. The schedule for arriving out there could be as early as this time next year. Before I go out there, I would like to make a trip in order to determine if certain ideas will work. I'd like to test my drill for making post holes, and I would like to know if I can make any money in El Paso for Uber. In order to do this, I may stay for a week or so. This might happen in late March or early April.
By that time, I will be closing in on five years of owning the property. Hard to believe it has been that long.
Molten-salt reactors coming to America?
Maybe soon. Perhaps in the next decade.
For a long time, cost comparisons with coal have been favorable. Is this still true? Here's an article about it.
@TerrestrialMSR USA Selected by U.S. DOE for an Award to Advance U.S. IMSR Pre-Licensing#Advancednuclear #nuclearpower @ENERGYhttps://t.co/kaf33X2j2g pic.twitter.com/z8JnLGdAIx— Terrestrial Energy (@TerrestrialMSR) November 27, 2018
For a long time, cost comparisons with coal have been favorable. Is this still true? Here's an article about it.
Highest OCC in this report works out to ~$8k per kW. https://t.co/uLQNmcmtBy pic.twitter.com/AL9sWZcEAz— Oscar Archer (@OskaArcher) November 26, 2018
Monday, December 3, 2018
Offshore wind cost 25 times more than Thorcon molten-salt reactor
Faster, please....
New US offshore wind generation costs $25/watt, compared to expensive US nuclear at $9/watt, or Korean nuclear at $3/watt, or forthcoming ThorCon liquid fission at $1/watt.... https://t.co/uPzYVQ9wz1— Thorcon Power (@ThorconPower) November 23, 2018
SpaceX launches successfully today
Note: Even though the tweet below is about the Russian launch, what I am really writing about is the SpaceX launch. There was a mention in the article.
It is the third time that the booster has flown, which is a new record.
Interesting that SpaceX flew this first stage from Collyfornia. That means the thing had to be transported all the way from Florida to Collyfornia for this launch. Even after all that, it launches the payload, and lands successfully on a barge in the Pacific.
Russian Soyuz successfully launches three astronauts https://t.co/ubflWTR4RT— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 3, 2018
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Skeleton Ultracapacitors
Looks like great tech, but the price is a bit high. More than a bit.
Something like this could be used in regenerative braking for hybrid auto applications. There are other applications mentioned, but this one is the one that interests me.
Still say that a Stirling electric hybrid auto is a doable project, and if combined with these, can minimize the size of the the battery and the engine that charges it.
Something like this could be used in regenerative braking for hybrid auto applications. There are other applications mentioned, but this one is the one that interests me.
Still say that a Stirling electric hybrid auto is a doable project, and if combined with these, can minimize the size of the the battery and the engine that charges it.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Suckers born every minute
That's why AGW works politically. People can be led to believe the most absurd things.
Hundreds gather at Flat-Earth conference https://t.co/YQ3fDCArLY— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 28, 2018
Aerospike engines: Why aren't they being used?
They are more efficient than conventional designs. Since mass ratios are so important in rocketry, the more efficient type of engine would be a big advantage, so why not use them?
The video goes into the subject and answers the question. The answer seems to be about money.
Note: There are a lot of posts about the experimental X-33 programs that nearly became operational. It featured Aerospike Engines, and would have been a single stage to orbit spacecraft--- the first of its kind. The Skylon concept would also feature aerospike engines.
An idea came to mind to use these in a staged system, but I note that the ISP really isn't an advantage. Yet, the aerospike is said to more efficient. Perhaps an explanation for why it doesn't give better ISP numbers at sea level can give the reasons why. I don't have one.
Since Elon Musk has shown that a launch booster can be recovered, then the use of aerospike engines may boost performance even further. But Musk won't pursue this line of development.
Update :
The only thing I found on this subject that can give an explanation is that the aerospike is more efficient at all altitudes, whereas a typical bell nozzle is not. Hence, it may be possible to be better overall even if it isn't at certain altitudes.
But I am not convinced of that. Another reason for aerospikes not being used is that they may have a problem with overheating. Hard to cool an engine like this.
The video goes into the subject and answers the question. The answer seems to be about money.
Note: There are a lot of posts about the experimental X-33 programs that nearly became operational. It featured Aerospike Engines, and would have been a single stage to orbit spacecraft--- the first of its kind. The Skylon concept would also feature aerospike engines.
An idea came to mind to use these in a staged system, but I note that the ISP really isn't an advantage. Yet, the aerospike is said to more efficient. Perhaps an explanation for why it doesn't give better ISP numbers at sea level can give the reasons why. I don't have one.
Since Elon Musk has shown that a launch booster can be recovered, then the use of aerospike engines may boost performance even further. But Musk won't pursue this line of development.
Update :
The only thing I found on this subject that can give an explanation is that the aerospike is more efficient at all altitudes, whereas a typical bell nozzle is not. Hence, it may be possible to be better overall even if it isn't at certain altitudes.
But I am not convinced of that. Another reason for aerospikes not being used is that they may have a problem with overheating. Hard to cool an engine like this.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Houston, the Insight has landed
And now they can do a lot of science. Whoop-de-doo.
It might be better if they figured out a way to get water around there. Plus habitats and so forth. What happens if they find life on Mars?
Then they'll say we cannot go there because we will spoil it all. Balderdash. Balls to the wall, I say. Balls to the wall.
It might be better if they figured out a way to get water around there. Plus habitats and so forth. What happens if they find life on Mars?
Then they'll say we cannot go there because we will spoil it all. Balderdash. Balls to the wall, I say. Balls to the wall.
NASA's InSight beams back breathtakingly clear photo of Mars https://t.co/FWHJHcIc4n via @nypost— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 27, 2018
Friday, November 23, 2018
NASA's InSight Mars Lander, All Systems Are Go for Monday Touchdown
Insight's mission is to:
This is a science mission, of course. It doesn't seem to pave the way for colonization. That may depend upon others, as NASA doesn't seem interested in that.to place a stationary lander equipped with a seismometer called SEIS produced by the French space agency CNES, and measure heat transfer with a heat probe called HP3 produced by the German space agency DLR to study the planet's early geological evolution....InSight's primary objective is to study the earliest evolutionary history of the processes that shaped Mars. ...InSight mission's goal is to improve the understanding of this process and, by extension, terrestrial evolution, by measuring the planetary building blocks shaped by this differentiation: a terrestrial planet's core, mantle and crust... ( source: Wikipedia )
For NASA's InSight Mars Lander, All Systems Are Go for Monday Touchdown https://t.co/8XUarLce75 via @SPACEdotcom— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 23, 2018
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Making Mead
Since I don't drink alcoholic beverages, it was unfamiliar. Somebody mentioned this as a way to make an alcoholic beverage out of honey. It got my attention, since I had considered the possibility of beekeeping on the property out west. This kind of thing could be used as a way to make some money. ( maybe ) Or, one could use it oneself. ( lol )
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Mars cannot be colonized?
Bill Nye says "no". Funny thing, unless I am reading this wrong, Limbaugh doesn't think it could be done either. After re-reading it, yes, Limbaugh doesn't believe it can be done.
Too bad for Limbaugh. He's definitely wrong on that one. But here's one thing that should be remembered--- it probably won't be done the way Elon Musk wants to do it.
You need to go to the Moon first. Live off the land, so to speak. Learn from that, and then you may be ready to move on to Mars, Venus, and other places.
Limbaugh says the libs want to get away from us, but we should be trying to get away from them instead.
Too bad for Limbaugh. He's definitely wrong on that one. But here's one thing that should be remembered--- it probably won't be done the way Elon Musk wants to do it.
You need to go to the Moon first. Live off the land, so to speak. Learn from that, and then you may be ready to move on to Mars, Venus, and other places.
Limbaugh says the libs want to get away from us, but we should be trying to get away from them instead.
Bill Nye Puts the Kibosh on Millennials’ Mars Dreams https://t.co/EKHOpFDafH via @rushlimbaugh— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 20, 2018
3D manufacturing on Moon
Screws and gears.
You can also make glass and solar panels with moon dust. Place these at the lunar poles where you can find water and other volatiles, such as ammonia and methane, and you could have a viable colony.
But you could only do it if somebody at the top wants it done.
You can also make glass and solar panels with moon dust. Place these at the lunar poles where you can find water and other volatiles, such as ammonia and methane, and you could have a viable colony.
But you could only do it if somebody at the top wants it done.
3D printed screws from fake moon dust https://t.co/OhXnwhNVHZ— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 20, 2018
Monday, November 19, 2018
Why go back to the Moon?
Let's look back at why President Kennedy wanted to go to the Moon.
An analysis of the speech is here.
Key points of the analysis:
An analysis of the speech is here.
Key points of the analysis:
- Fear of Sputnik, and the breakneck speed of advancement of that time prepared the audience in advance for the ambitious undertaking that the President advocated. America must lead that effort, he said.
- The march of progress will go on whether we lead it or not.
- Framed within the context of the Cold War, and inextricably linked to it, it was hard for opponents to be critical of the President's goal.
- Need to be challenged--- "We go to the moon not because it is easy, because it is hard."
- There will be sacrifice of life and treasure, but the sacrifice will be worth it.
- It is like the reason given for climbing Mt. Everest, "it is there".
- Finally, the speech was said to be well executed and effective.
How does that speech compare with the present? There is no Cold War, but there could be a conflict of some kind on the horizon with China. The march of progress has gone on indeed, and is much more broad based than just space. The US is in danger of being left behind across the board, in my opinion. As for the need for a challenge, it is probably more necessary now than ever. This country has become too inured to the easy way out. We need the challenge so that we don't become too soft.
Mt. Everest is still there, and so is the Moon. Why not go? We may be surprised at what we find.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
The Case for Moon First
It is an online book.
If there is such rich deposits of ammonia and water, plus with everything else we know, there could indeed be a case for going to the moon before going to Mars.
It makes a great deal of sense to at least try to find out if these rich deposits exist at the lunar poles.
Updated:
A video found in the book describes how a landing pad can be constructed.
If there is such rich deposits of ammonia and water, plus with everything else we know, there could indeed be a case for going to the moon before going to Mars.
It makes a great deal of sense to at least try to find out if these rich deposits exist at the lunar poles.
Updated:
A video found in the book describes how a landing pad can be constructed.
Off grid post, 11.17.18 ( cabin fever )
One problem that may be encountered out on the desert is a variant of cabin fever. Cabin fever may be a variant of boredom. It can be encountered in space, too.
Many years ago, there was this program about such phenomenon. Nobody could understand why a boat was abandoned in the middle of the ocean. It was speculated that the people on that boat went nuts, because of the uniformity of the surroundings imposed a type of sensory deprivation on them, driving them mad. They may have jumped overboard and drowned themselves.
Human beings require stimulation. In the absence of it, the mind may invent things that may be very much like psychotic delusions. In other words, madness.
There are such things as sensory deprivation tanks, which are designed to test this phenomenon. It has been confirmed that the experience is not a pleasant one. If someone spends too much time in one of those things, they could go nuts.
Literature on the subject includes some stories about how Artic explorers were able to deal with the isolation. One way is to stay busy. Staying busy keeps one's mind occupied, and is a way to ward off the cabin fever.
I write this after taking a completely unnecessary, and uneconomical trip of a couple hundred miles yesterday afternoon. It seems that my work off grid has slowed almost to a complete stop. It is ironic then, that my trip was a hundred miles in that direction and back.
A question for me is can I control my own tendencies to do counter productive things? Perhaps it wasn't useless trip, as I learned a little from it. On the other hand, was it really worth it? This costs money, and I don't have money to spare.
Many years ago, there was this program about such phenomenon. Nobody could understand why a boat was abandoned in the middle of the ocean. It was speculated that the people on that boat went nuts, because of the uniformity of the surroundings imposed a type of sensory deprivation on them, driving them mad. They may have jumped overboard and drowned themselves.
Human beings require stimulation. In the absence of it, the mind may invent things that may be very much like psychotic delusions. In other words, madness.
There are such things as sensory deprivation tanks, which are designed to test this phenomenon. It has been confirmed that the experience is not a pleasant one. If someone spends too much time in one of those things, they could go nuts.
Literature on the subject includes some stories about how Artic explorers were able to deal with the isolation. One way is to stay busy. Staying busy keeps one's mind occupied, and is a way to ward off the cabin fever.
I write this after taking a completely unnecessary, and uneconomical trip of a couple hundred miles yesterday afternoon. It seems that my work off grid has slowed almost to a complete stop. It is ironic then, that my trip was a hundred miles in that direction and back.
A question for me is can I control my own tendencies to do counter productive things? Perhaps it wasn't useless trip, as I learned a little from it. On the other hand, was it really worth it? This costs money, and I don't have money to spare.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Ion propulsion and Vasimr
Bob Zubrin says that the Vasimr isn't as good as proven ion engines for space propulsion.
Is that really true?
I have some doubts. After studying it a bit this morning, it looks like Vasimr will produce more thrust than the best ion engines.
As for Zubrin's criticism on the size and power requirements, 100k kilowatt system is probably going to be necessary if you use thermoelectric for your electricity source. This is dumb. Nobody would use 100k kilowatts just to produce such a small thrust, but then again, Zubrin may be making a claim that isn't so.
The Vasimr engine has been tested at 100k watts, if I am not mistaken. Two of them packaged together will require 200k watts. That's watts, not kilowatts. You would need kilowatts if you used thermoelectric because it is so inefficient. Also, what sense does it make to make heat to make electricity, then turn around and use that electricity to make heat????????? Of course this is wildly inefficient. That is why I am questioning Zubrin's claims. Nobody would design such a crazy thing.
Actually, the best thing to do is use solar panels. The ISS uses 200k watts worth of them. That will run a Vasimr. If the Vasimr could be used to tow the ISS to a higher orbit, then may the ISS can be used for a space station at EML-1. That station could be used as a waypoint for missions to the lunar surface, and to points beyond.
Just my two cents. Worth a try. If you are going to retire the ISS anyway, why not try the experiment?
Is that really true?
I have some doubts. After studying it a bit this morning, it looks like Vasimr will produce more thrust than the best ion engines.
As for Zubrin's criticism on the size and power requirements, 100k kilowatt system is probably going to be necessary if you use thermoelectric for your electricity source. This is dumb. Nobody would use 100k kilowatts just to produce such a small thrust, but then again, Zubrin may be making a claim that isn't so.
The Vasimr engine has been tested at 100k watts, if I am not mistaken. Two of them packaged together will require 200k watts. That's watts, not kilowatts. You would need kilowatts if you used thermoelectric because it is so inefficient. Also, what sense does it make to make heat to make electricity, then turn around and use that electricity to make heat????????? Of course this is wildly inefficient. That is why I am questioning Zubrin's claims. Nobody would design such a crazy thing.
Actually, the best thing to do is use solar panels. The ISS uses 200k watts worth of them. That will run a Vasimr. If the Vasimr could be used to tow the ISS to a higher orbit, then may the ISS can be used for a space station at EML-1. That station could be used as a waypoint for missions to the lunar surface, and to points beyond.
Just my two cents. Worth a try. If you are going to retire the ISS anyway, why not try the experiment?
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Focus Fusion update
Doggone it. I almost forgot all about this project. It is still ongoing, and yes, they seem to be making some progress.
It is a world wide collaboration now, so a breakthrough might happen in more places than one.
Here is a link to the milestones in their research. I learned about this concept in the early days of my BNO blog. ( about 2010 or so).
At the present time, Dr. Lerner's team is preparing to do experiments with a beryllium anode ( or is it cathode?).
They have progressed through some materials, with the results that apparently matched expectations. Each new material is expected to be an upgrade from the last. The last one was tungsten. I am not up to speed on the research ( obviously ), so there's a bit of catching up to do.
It is a world wide collaboration now, so a breakthrough might happen in more places than one.
Here is a link to the milestones in their research. I learned about this concept in the early days of my BNO blog. ( about 2010 or so).
At the present time, Dr. Lerner's team is preparing to do experiments with a beryllium anode ( or is it cathode?).
They have progressed through some materials, with the results that apparently matched expectations. Each new material is expected to be an upgrade from the last. The last one was tungsten. I am not up to speed on the research ( obviously ), so there's a bit of catching up to do.
Off grid post 11.4.18 ( roof for trailer )
Updated,
11.13.18:
The roof over the trailer project has been postponed indefinitely. I would say cancelled, but it is possible that it could be built in the future, but not now. However, the odds are against building it. Unless something happens that changes my mind, that is.
original post:
Not a whole lot going on right now, but there is one big thing. If I put a roof on, I have to commit to staying for a couple years longer at this location.
A roof could cost upwards of a thousand, depending upon a few factors.
Yesterday, I practiced digging a hole with an auger bit. This hole should be deep enough for a 4x4 post. I would need 4 more for the current plan.
That's the big thing.
The little things still involve water and energy. I made a few changes to lifestyle that may limit water usage. This part of my project is coming along nicely.
Still haven't got things figured out with respect to the energy usage. Even though I have kept that way down, it is still more than I can expect to have available from solar panels out there.
Wind would work out there, but not here. So, I won't try a wind turbine idea here.
The time table gets pushed back and back and back. Two more years is a long time. Anything can happen in that amount of time.
11.13.18:
The roof over the trailer project has been postponed indefinitely. I would say cancelled, but it is possible that it could be built in the future, but not now. However, the odds are against building it. Unless something happens that changes my mind, that is.
original post:
Not a whole lot going on right now, but there is one big thing. If I put a roof on, I have to commit to staying for a couple years longer at this location.
A roof could cost upwards of a thousand, depending upon a few factors.
Yesterday, I practiced digging a hole with an auger bit. This hole should be deep enough for a 4x4 post. I would need 4 more for the current plan.
That's the big thing.
The little things still involve water and energy. I made a few changes to lifestyle that may limit water usage. This part of my project is coming along nicely.
Still haven't got things figured out with respect to the energy usage. Even though I have kept that way down, it is still more than I can expect to have available from solar panels out there.
Wind would work out there, but not here. So, I won't try a wind turbine idea here.
The time table gets pushed back and back and back. Two more years is a long time. Anything can happen in that amount of time.
Mission table
Updated:
11.13.18:
8:00 am:
A book is cited for some of the material on the page. That book is not cheap. To buy it new is 200 bucks. A used one is about 120. Too rich for my blood.
7:00 am:
Interesting quote that I will lift off this page:
The boil-off problem, with hydrogen as propellant, may be minimized if the propellant is stored in a cold place. A place like the LaGrange points could work for this purpose.
11.12.18:
Now I found it. It looks like a bit more delta-v than Mars. If you can get to Mars, you should be able to get to Ceres and back to Mars. Don't know about launch windows or such. By the way, this kind of thing is going to take a lot of time, or a lot of energy. If it is a lot of energy, then nuclear looks like the most likely thing. However, that may be a lot easier said than done.
original post:
Many years ago, I came across this thing. If you want to travel through the solar system, you need to know the delta-v requirements. I am not educated enough to know how to calculate these things, but luckily someone else is, and we have a nice little table to look at, and use it to ponder over the possibilities.
I was looking for delta v for a mission to Ceres from Mars. So far, I haven't found it.
11.13.18:
8:00 am:
A book is cited for some of the material on the page. That book is not cheap. To buy it new is 200 bucks. A used one is about 120. Too rich for my blood.
7:00 am:
Interesting quote that I will lift off this page:
In fact, transport class rocket ships working routes in orbital space can have mass proportions not far different from transport aircraft flying the longest nonstop global routes.
A jetliner taking off on a maximum-range flight may carry 40 percent of its total weight in fuel, with 45 percent for the plane itself and 15 percent in payload. A moonship, the one that gets you to lunar orbit, might be 60 percent propellant on departure from low Earth orbit, with 25 percent for the spacecraft and the same 15 percent payload. The lander that takes you to the lunar surface and back gets away with 55 percent propellant, 25 percent for the spacecraft, and 20 percent payload.
(These figures are for hydrogen and oxygen as propellants, currently somewhat out of favor because liquid hydrogen is bulky, hard to work with, and boils away so readily. But H2-O2 is the best performer, and may be available on the Moon if lunar ice appears in concentrations that can be shoveled into a hopper. Increase propellant load by about half for kerosene and oxygen, or 'storable' propellants.)
The boil-off problem, with hydrogen as propellant, may be minimized if the propellant is stored in a cold place. A place like the LaGrange points could work for this purpose.
11.12.18:
Now I found it. It looks like a bit more delta-v than Mars. If you can get to Mars, you should be able to get to Ceres and back to Mars. Don't know about launch windows or such. By the way, this kind of thing is going to take a lot of time, or a lot of energy. If it is a lot of energy, then nuclear looks like the most likely thing. However, that may be a lot easier said than done.
original post:
Many years ago, I came across this thing. If you want to travel through the solar system, you need to know the delta-v requirements. I am not educated enough to know how to calculate these things, but luckily someone else is, and we have a nice little table to look at, and use it to ponder over the possibilities.
I was looking for delta v for a mission to Ceres from Mars. So far, I haven't found it.
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Pacific Northwest National Labs overview of molten salt reactors
Here's a link to a video about molten salt reactors.
Nuclear energy is a complex subject. You have to study it intensely in order to understand it. Even though I believe in it, even I could learn more about it.
Unfortunately, I am letting myself be distracted with things like current events, and not with learning about this potentially great technology source. It is not a new source, as it has been known for decades. The thing that could be new about it is the willingness to embrace this approach for a better, more reliable energy source. If only that could happen....
Great new Pacific Northwest National Labs overview of molten salt reactors such as ThorCon.https://t.co/vecZpnpIGr https://t.co/vecZpnpIGr— Thorcon Power (@ThorconPower) November 5, 2018
Monday, November 5, 2018
Why "Green" Energy Will Never Replace Fossil Fuels
So, what is the solution? More fossil fuels?
Fortunately, there is a solution, and that is molten-salt reactors. They can run on any fissionable fuel, which includes nuclear waste from existing reactors. From that waste alone, they could power this country's electrical needs at the current level for decades to come, without mining an ounce of uranium. Ninety nine percent of the waste will be used up, and the rest will decay into harmlessness in 300 years. That may seem like a long time, but you could encapsule the waste in concrete and sink it into the deepest part of the oceans. It could stay there until the end of time, and nobody will be the wiser.
Why "Green" Energy Will Never Replace Fossil Fuels https://t.co/Qw3LTmEokp via @powerlineUS— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 5, 2018
Saturday, November 3, 2018
Electric Planes?
A battery in a plane makes little sense to me. If there is one thing that batteries are not good for, and that for moving a plane. This technology may make the battery closer to the goal of being able to power a plane, but it is still a dumb idea.
It is better to make carbon neutral fuels from nuclear power. But that is too obvious, so there will be no effort on that method.
This was really a dumb article. It is sad to see something like this written that is supposedly connected to a high prestige organization like MIT. I am really worried about our country when stuff like this gets passed off as state of the art, and gets treated as a serious proposal. We are in a world of poop if this kind of gimmickry isn't reversed.
It is better to make carbon neutral fuels from nuclear power. But that is too obvious, so there will be no effort on that method.
This was really a dumb article. It is sad to see something like this written that is supposedly connected to a high prestige organization like MIT. I am really worried about our country when stuff like this gets passed off as state of the art, and gets treated as a serious proposal. We are in a world of poop if this kind of gimmickry isn't reversed.
A powerful new battery could give us electric planes that don’t pollute - via @techreview https://t.co/WYNletmEnr— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 3, 2018
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Moon Direct
Robert Zubrin has an article out which about a moonbase. To summarize briefly, his idea is to make a space only vehicle that goes between the lunar surface and low earth orbit. Since it doesn't have to re-enter the atmosphere, it doesn't need shielding, and therefore would be light weight. This would eliminate the need for a large rocket, and allow the moon to be aggressively explored using mostly existing technology.
Of course, the big hangup is always with the government. If the government contracted out the building of an updated lunar module, then the project might be expedited. It does seem to have the advantage of being feasible in an early timeframe, but you have to get the government moving in that direction.
On the other hand, you already have Elon Musk proposing a new rocket that can land on Earth as well as the Moon, or Mars.
Which ever way it is done, somebody is going to have to commit to it, and it may have to be the government, because Elon Musk wants Mars, but the Moon is a lot closer. Policy makers ought to consider the options and decide soon. It is still early in the Trump administration.
Of course, the big hangup is always with the government. If the government contracted out the building of an updated lunar module, then the project might be expedited. It does seem to have the advantage of being feasible in an early timeframe, but you have to get the government moving in that direction.
On the other hand, you already have Elon Musk proposing a new rocket that can land on Earth as well as the Moon, or Mars.
Which ever way it is done, somebody is going to have to commit to it, and it may have to be the government, because Elon Musk wants Mars, but the Moon is a lot closer. Policy makers ought to consider the options and decide soon. It is still early in the Trump administration.
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Hydrogen for fuel cell cars from hydrogen peroxide?
There is a group of Israeli scientists who claim to have discovered a new way to get hydrogen for fuel cell cars. It is from hydrogen peroxide.
Quote:
My take: Someone seems to be following the work of a Nobel Prize winner, but that doesn't mean that this is Nobel Prize winning work. How do you get hydrogen peroxide? Does the process make that, or do you obtain it from some other source?
The current method is described in Wikipedia thusly. If this new process produces it more cheaply, then the next step is to obtain hydrogen from the hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide will break down naturally into water and oxygen. We don't need the oxygen, though. We need hydrogen.
The trick is to get the hydrogen into the water molecule, which produces the peroxide. This process must make hydrogen peroxide in a new way. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to me yet. Or, it may split the hydrogen from the hydrogen peroxide in a new way, which cannot be done easily just yet.
Hydrogen peroxide is useful as rocket fuel, but I am not sure that oxygen alone will oxidize it.
The other part of this claim is that it doesn't use as much power, so sunlight or windpower can drive the process. We'll have to see about that.
If it all works as claimed, I am all for it.
Quote:
“Beyond the scientific breakthrough, we have shown that the photo-electrochemical reaction mechanism belongs to a family of chemical reactions for which Prof. Gerhard Ertl was awarded with a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, about a decade ago. Our discovery opens new strategies for photochemical processes,” Yochelis is quoted as saying.
My take: Someone seems to be following the work of a Nobel Prize winner, but that doesn't mean that this is Nobel Prize winning work. How do you get hydrogen peroxide? Does the process make that, or do you obtain it from some other source?
The current method is described in Wikipedia thusly. If this new process produces it more cheaply, then the next step is to obtain hydrogen from the hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide will break down naturally into water and oxygen. We don't need the oxygen, though. We need hydrogen.
The trick is to get the hydrogen into the water molecule, which produces the peroxide. This process must make hydrogen peroxide in a new way. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to me yet. Or, it may split the hydrogen from the hydrogen peroxide in a new way, which cannot be done easily just yet.
Hydrogen peroxide is useful as rocket fuel, but I am not sure that oxygen alone will oxidize it.
The other part of this claim is that it doesn't use as much power, so sunlight or windpower can drive the process. We'll have to see about that.
If it all works as claimed, I am all for it.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
BFR's potential
There was an article on NextBigFuture, mentioned courtesy of Free Republic, which was about the BFR's development cost. It is estimated to be anywhere from $2 billion to $10 billion.
Given the great potential of this rocket, it would be of the utmost national importance for the government to grant enough business to SpaceX so that they can have the necessary funds to develop the rocket.
You could do this with a moonbase project. It was estimated by NASA to be a project that was doable under the current NASA funding scheme. The actual numbers ran out to about half of the Apollo project.
If a moonbase was turned into a commitment, such as with Apollo, it could be done in ten years at a price that should be even less than the NASA number. Of course, SpaceX would have to win a competitive bidding war. But it should be done as a national priority.
The government is not likely to do this however, as funding tends to get spread out over a number of states. This doesn't work well with one company getting the lion's share of the business.
What purpose would a moonbase serve? It could process lunar regolith into fuel. The fuel could be used for deep space missions.
The most likely fuel from the moon would be oxygen. Oxygen is not a fuel, but is a reaction mass. For all intents and purposes, it is the same thing.
For the raptor engine, which uses methane, oxygen would be close to 80% of the reaction mass. In such a scenario, it would be profitable for the BFR to land on the moonbase, load the oxygen, and transport it to a refueling depot at the L1 Lagrange point.
The advantage of using these points is that it takes less energy to get to the Lagrange point than to the moon itself. Morever, the big rocket could be mostly fueled up for a trip outbound to Mars and other destinations. One big rocket can service the Lagrange point, and provide extra for more ambitious missions.
Almost all of a rocket's launch mass is fuel and oxygen, so if you can get it elsewhere as opposed to the Earth, you can vastly improve access to the Moon and points beyond.
Given the great potential of this rocket, it would be of the utmost national importance for the government to grant enough business to SpaceX so that they can have the necessary funds to develop the rocket.
You could do this with a moonbase project. It was estimated by NASA to be a project that was doable under the current NASA funding scheme. The actual numbers ran out to about half of the Apollo project.
If a moonbase was turned into a commitment, such as with Apollo, it could be done in ten years at a price that should be even less than the NASA number. Of course, SpaceX would have to win a competitive bidding war. But it should be done as a national priority.
The government is not likely to do this however, as funding tends to get spread out over a number of states. This doesn't work well with one company getting the lion's share of the business.
What purpose would a moonbase serve? It could process lunar regolith into fuel. The fuel could be used for deep space missions.
The most likely fuel from the moon would be oxygen. Oxygen is not a fuel, but is a reaction mass. For all intents and purposes, it is the same thing.
For the raptor engine, which uses methane, oxygen would be close to 80% of the reaction mass. In such a scenario, it would be profitable for the BFR to land on the moonbase, load the oxygen, and transport it to a refueling depot at the L1 Lagrange point.
The advantage of using these points is that it takes less energy to get to the Lagrange point than to the moon itself. Morever, the big rocket could be mostly fueled up for a trip outbound to Mars and other destinations. One big rocket can service the Lagrange point, and provide extra for more ambitious missions.
Almost all of a rocket's launch mass is fuel and oxygen, so if you can get it elsewhere as opposed to the Earth, you can vastly improve access to the Moon and points beyond.
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Cosmic rays aren't rays
At least it is not a ray in the sense that I understand rays. I would define a ray as a high velocity particle with no mass. A cosmic ray is a high velocity particle with mass. But not always with mass. Capiche? Or no?
A cosmic ray may not have mass if you include neutrinos. These are particles with no mass. But the totality of all cosmic rays will indeed have mass. If that isn't confusing enough...
A ray is like the ray of the sun. It is electromagnetic energy. But so does cosmic rays in a sense. But what makes it different is the mass. Light is said to be composed of "photons". Photons have no mass. Gamma rays, X-ray, UV light, and visible light all have photons, which have no mass.
Photons are a different thing than neutrinos. Neutrinos are harder to stop than photons. But both have no mass.
Electrons have mass, but are they rays? Electrons convey electricity, and can be made to go pretty fast. But they are still particles. It is often referred to as an "electron beam". A beam is like a ray, but it is still a particle, that is if electrons are what's in the beam. Can there be such a thing as a particle beam? It is commonly referred to as such. Your TVs use cathode ray tubes, which utilize electron beams in such a way that it can be used to view images on a screen. Perhaps cosmic rays can be said to be high energy particle beams from outer space. But don't try to watch TV with cosmic rays. It might be hazardous to your health.
This may all seem rather pedantic, but the proper use of words can be made to clarify what is misunderstood. In terms of cosmic rays, if the term "cosmic particles" were used instead, it may help people to understand that these are not rays. It is not like an X-ray or gamma ray.
However, cosmic particles can have an electric charge, because they are mostly ions. Cosmic particles are often atomic nuclei, which means they have a positive charge. Because they move at nearly light speed, they can cause damage to the nuclei with which they come into contact. "Atom smashers" may create the same kind of high energy collisions that occur naturally in the atmosphere. Human beings can only emulate nature after all.
The big atom smashers are used to break down protons into its constituent parts. It may also be a component of cosmic rays when it happens naturally in exploding stars, aka supernovas. Supernovas are said to be a source of "cosmic rays".
Cosmic particles ( or rays ) cause carbon to become radioactive. The particles strike the atmosphere, thus creating the carbon 14. Carbon 14 decays into nitrogen, which is stable. The mechanism of the creation of carbon 14 is not clear to me, but it is interesting that carbon 12 combined with an deuteron ( hydrogen plus a neutron) can create carbon 14. Is carbon 14 a result of fusion then? Nothing I see in the stuff I have read indicates such. But is merely a speculation. But it is generally believed that cosmic particles cause carbon 14 to be formed.
So what do we call them? I will call them cosmic particle beams. What do you think?
A cosmic ray may not have mass if you include neutrinos. These are particles with no mass. But the totality of all cosmic rays will indeed have mass. If that isn't confusing enough...
A ray is like the ray of the sun. It is electromagnetic energy. But so does cosmic rays in a sense. But what makes it different is the mass. Light is said to be composed of "photons". Photons have no mass. Gamma rays, X-ray, UV light, and visible light all have photons, which have no mass.
Photons are a different thing than neutrinos. Neutrinos are harder to stop than photons. But both have no mass.
Electrons have mass, but are they rays? Electrons convey electricity, and can be made to go pretty fast. But they are still particles. It is often referred to as an "electron beam". A beam is like a ray, but it is still a particle, that is if electrons are what's in the beam. Can there be such a thing as a particle beam? It is commonly referred to as such. Your TVs use cathode ray tubes, which utilize electron beams in such a way that it can be used to view images on a screen. Perhaps cosmic rays can be said to be high energy particle beams from outer space. But don't try to watch TV with cosmic rays. It might be hazardous to your health.
This may all seem rather pedantic, but the proper use of words can be made to clarify what is misunderstood. In terms of cosmic rays, if the term "cosmic particles" were used instead, it may help people to understand that these are not rays. It is not like an X-ray or gamma ray.
However, cosmic particles can have an electric charge, because they are mostly ions. Cosmic particles are often atomic nuclei, which means they have a positive charge. Because they move at nearly light speed, they can cause damage to the nuclei with which they come into contact. "Atom smashers" may create the same kind of high energy collisions that occur naturally in the atmosphere. Human beings can only emulate nature after all.
The big atom smashers are used to break down protons into its constituent parts. It may also be a component of cosmic rays when it happens naturally in exploding stars, aka supernovas. Supernovas are said to be a source of "cosmic rays".
Cosmic particles ( or rays ) cause carbon to become radioactive. The particles strike the atmosphere, thus creating the carbon 14. Carbon 14 decays into nitrogen, which is stable. The mechanism of the creation of carbon 14 is not clear to me, but it is interesting that carbon 12 combined with an deuteron ( hydrogen plus a neutron) can create carbon 14. Is carbon 14 a result of fusion then? Nothing I see in the stuff I have read indicates such. But is merely a speculation. But it is generally believed that cosmic particles cause carbon 14 to be formed.
So what do we call them? I will call them cosmic particle beams. What do you think?
Making gasoline out of goat piss
That was a line from the Blues Brothers flick. It was probably meant as a joke, but you can really do that if you have enough energy.
However, these people say that you can make gasoline out of water. Sure. You can also make ammonia out of water and air.
Ammonia is combustible as well, and can be transported as a hydrogen fuel carrier for hydrogen fuel cells.
At any rate, the energy input is nuclear, and here's another approach to nuclear in this article.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Solving a problem that isn't a problem
If you solve the alleged carbon problem with a solution that leaves you better off financially, then you can bypass the argument against AGW.
The argument is fruitless. The truth of the matter is that the AGW crowd could care less about global warming. But we can "solve" the problem this way and be better off. Funny how they oppose a solution that would work for their so-called problem , and the solution would actually improve upon the current situation whether or not there was AGW.
UN IPCC opposes stopping global warming using nuclear power, ignoring facts such as ...— Thorcon Power (@ThorconPower) October 26, 2018
Nuclear is the safest way to make... https://t.co/sRkZFcsbRj
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Some objections to nuclear power, and the answer to those
It has long been my opinion that the anti-nuclear people are doing a disservice to mankind.
But this is an opinion of an amateur. I am not a nuclear physicist type, so I cannot explain myself scientifically in all its detail. However, what I have learned about it as an observer does not dissuade me in the least with respect to its potential as a solution to a lot of problems.
The number one objection is that bombs can be made from fissionable materials. That objection is handled if you use Thorium. It stands to reason that it is true, because if it were not, somebody would have done it by now. In fact, someone already has. The USA made a bomb out of the stuff, and it was a dud, for the most part.
Look, there is no need to downplay this risk. It is going to be a risk that somebody is going to try to make bombs with these things. Yes, it can be done, but it is not easy. If it were easy, it would have been done already as mentioned. Therefore, you know the risk is small. But the risk is not zero.
This leads you to having to do a risk-reward analysis. Is the risk worth the reward? At present, the world seems to be saying "no". However, at some point, the people out there are going to have to reconsider. If you have a lot of distress coming from a lack of energy resources versus the risk of somebody making a bomb out of this stuff, I think the reward is going to start looking good at some point. That point does not yet exist. But it will.
The risk is small and manageable. There is also the risk in pursuing the current strategy of so-called renewables, which will never work. There is no workable way for that path, and eventually that must lead you back to nuclear.
If you decide that you can accept that risk, you are still not finished. There is the risk of radiation. However, that is another one of these risks that you can manage. You will also have to decide if it is worth the risk. In my opinion, the risk is even less than with a bomb, and even more manageable.
For instance, with conventional reactor technology, you have a lot of waste. Most of that is unused uranium. Therefore, you haven't created new radiation hazards. It is still the same stuff as before. There are some other wastes that are produced as well, and one of those is fissionable plutonium. However, as mentioned above, fissionable plutonium is not an issue with Thorium.
If you use Thorium, you will a decay chain that doesn't include fissionable materials. It is as simple as that. The only way you make a bomb with this stuff is with the uranium that you breed from Thorium. That stuff isn't practical for a bomb, as discussed above.
With molten-salt reactor technology combined with Thorium, you will consume all of the uranium, and you are left with much less waste. Even less radioactive stuff than what you started with.
What about the waste that is left? It is about 1% of what you started with. Seems like a good deal to me. You get all that energy, with hardly no waste. The waste that is left is not zero, however, so you have to manage it.
It is not an impossible problem. There are ideas out there to encase it in glass, and store it for about 300 years. That sounds like a long time, but if you put it in a place where it cannot be disturbed, nobody will be the wiser.
Another idea is to encase it in concrete. Concrete will last MILLIONS of years. We know that from the limestone that prehistoric creatures made. Concrete is no different than limestone, it is simply manmade.
What can go wrong? Well, what if it leaks? Not likely. Even if it does, so what? Just put it where nobody goes anyway. The bottom of the ocean is a possibility. In a deep mine shaft is another. The Earth is a big place. You can put it somewhere where it is a long way from anybody, and nobody is going to go there. If they go there, they may get sick and die. Yeah, and if they go into an erupting volcano, they will die too. People don't act like that.
What if it gets out in the environment? Again, so what? Radiation is everywhere, and there is less of this stuff than what you already had anyway. Provided that you seal it well enough, it isn't going anywhere. Three hundred years in some remote place, and it is then harmless. That is not that big of a risk. In fact, I'd say the risk is near zero. However, it is not zero.
Back to your cost benefit analysis. If you look at the "risk" and the rewards, this will look good. However, that isn't the way people think today. But as mentioned, someday it will look a lot better.
Is there any way you can end up with more radiation? Not likely. In fact, that may actually be impossible. I am not well versed enough on the subject to answer that definitively.
Of the ways to make things radioactive, there are two that I know of. One is with neutron bombardment. The waste left over may emit some neutrons, I am not sure. However, it is unlikely that it does. If it did, it could still be used to breed more uranium from the Thorium. Stands to reason that the free neutrons are all used up. The neutrons were all used up in breeding uranium from the Thorium.
The other way to make stuff radioactive is from pions. If the process produces any of those, it is miniscule. Therefore, even if any of that is produced, there won't be enough of it to matter.
In my opinion, the risk of making more radiation is for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. The reverse is actually true. You end up with less radiation than if you did nothing. In three hundred years, you end up with nearly zero. You cannot say that with the Thorium that you started with. It has a half life of billions of years. It will be radioactive forever. Get rid of Thorium, and get energy out of it. How can you lose? If somebody did something that took tremendous effort and at great risk to themselves in order to cause harm? This is unlikely, but even so, it is manageable.
In summary, even those there are risks, they are manageable. The rewards greatly exceed any risks. Even if the worst happened, it wouldn't not end the world. The world will get by regardless of whether this is done or not. The greater risk is to do nothing. Doing nothing will result in greater distress than even the worst case scenario for the nuclear option.
But this is an opinion of an amateur. I am not a nuclear physicist type, so I cannot explain myself scientifically in all its detail. However, what I have learned about it as an observer does not dissuade me in the least with respect to its potential as a solution to a lot of problems.
The number one objection is that bombs can be made from fissionable materials. That objection is handled if you use Thorium. It stands to reason that it is true, because if it were not, somebody would have done it by now. In fact, someone already has. The USA made a bomb out of the stuff, and it was a dud, for the most part.
Look, there is no need to downplay this risk. It is going to be a risk that somebody is going to try to make bombs with these things. Yes, it can be done, but it is not easy. If it were easy, it would have been done already as mentioned. Therefore, you know the risk is small. But the risk is not zero.
This leads you to having to do a risk-reward analysis. Is the risk worth the reward? At present, the world seems to be saying "no". However, at some point, the people out there are going to have to reconsider. If you have a lot of distress coming from a lack of energy resources versus the risk of somebody making a bomb out of this stuff, I think the reward is going to start looking good at some point. That point does not yet exist. But it will.
The risk is small and manageable. There is also the risk in pursuing the current strategy of so-called renewables, which will never work. There is no workable way for that path, and eventually that must lead you back to nuclear.
If you decide that you can accept that risk, you are still not finished. There is the risk of radiation. However, that is another one of these risks that you can manage. You will also have to decide if it is worth the risk. In my opinion, the risk is even less than with a bomb, and even more manageable.
For instance, with conventional reactor technology, you have a lot of waste. Most of that is unused uranium. Therefore, you haven't created new radiation hazards. It is still the same stuff as before. There are some other wastes that are produced as well, and one of those is fissionable plutonium. However, as mentioned above, fissionable plutonium is not an issue with Thorium.
If you use Thorium, you will a decay chain that doesn't include fissionable materials. It is as simple as that. The only way you make a bomb with this stuff is with the uranium that you breed from Thorium. That stuff isn't practical for a bomb, as discussed above.
With molten-salt reactor technology combined with Thorium, you will consume all of the uranium, and you are left with much less waste. Even less radioactive stuff than what you started with.
What about the waste that is left? It is about 1% of what you started with. Seems like a good deal to me. You get all that energy, with hardly no waste. The waste that is left is not zero, however, so you have to manage it.
It is not an impossible problem. There are ideas out there to encase it in glass, and store it for about 300 years. That sounds like a long time, but if you put it in a place where it cannot be disturbed, nobody will be the wiser.
Another idea is to encase it in concrete. Concrete will last MILLIONS of years. We know that from the limestone that prehistoric creatures made. Concrete is no different than limestone, it is simply manmade.
What can go wrong? Well, what if it leaks? Not likely. Even if it does, so what? Just put it where nobody goes anyway. The bottom of the ocean is a possibility. In a deep mine shaft is another. The Earth is a big place. You can put it somewhere where it is a long way from anybody, and nobody is going to go there. If they go there, they may get sick and die. Yeah, and if they go into an erupting volcano, they will die too. People don't act like that.
What if it gets out in the environment? Again, so what? Radiation is everywhere, and there is less of this stuff than what you already had anyway. Provided that you seal it well enough, it isn't going anywhere. Three hundred years in some remote place, and it is then harmless. That is not that big of a risk. In fact, I'd say the risk is near zero. However, it is not zero.
Back to your cost benefit analysis. If you look at the "risk" and the rewards, this will look good. However, that isn't the way people think today. But as mentioned, someday it will look a lot better.
Is there any way you can end up with more radiation? Not likely. In fact, that may actually be impossible. I am not well versed enough on the subject to answer that definitively.
Of the ways to make things radioactive, there are two that I know of. One is with neutron bombardment. The waste left over may emit some neutrons, I am not sure. However, it is unlikely that it does. If it did, it could still be used to breed more uranium from the Thorium. Stands to reason that the free neutrons are all used up. The neutrons were all used up in breeding uranium from the Thorium.
The other way to make stuff radioactive is from pions. If the process produces any of those, it is miniscule. Therefore, even if any of that is produced, there won't be enough of it to matter.
In my opinion, the risk of making more radiation is for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. The reverse is actually true. You end up with less radiation than if you did nothing. In three hundred years, you end up with nearly zero. You cannot say that with the Thorium that you started with. It has a half life of billions of years. It will be radioactive forever. Get rid of Thorium, and get energy out of it. How can you lose? If somebody did something that took tremendous effort and at great risk to themselves in order to cause harm? This is unlikely, but even so, it is manageable.
In summary, even those there are risks, they are manageable. The rewards greatly exceed any risks. Even if the worst happened, it wouldn't not end the world. The world will get by regardless of whether this is done or not. The greater risk is to do nothing. Doing nothing will result in greater distress than even the worst case scenario for the nuclear option.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
An idea for an carbon neutral car
This is a compromise of sorts for the greenie types. They want a carbon-free car,
not just a carbon-neutral car. Perhaps they would settle for this. Lots of luck
with that.
Anyway, the idea is to use molten-salt reactors of the type that Thorcon is going
to make. This should be scalable, so that many reactors could be made, thus
lowering the cost. Not to mention, it is a much cheaper nuclear reactor than the
solid-fueled water-cooled conventional reactors.
You could even run it on waste from nuclear power plants, which would kill two
birds with one stone. Maybe the PETA people would object to killing birds.
There was already an idea discussed in a video I once posted somewhere, which
proposed to use molten-salt reactors to make jet fuel.
It so happens that seawater has 100 times more carbon dioxide in it than the
atmosphere. There may be enough to make this economically feasible, provided
that the costs can kept as low as possible.
The idea is nuclear methanol. The idea of using nuclear power to make methanol was
discussed on my blogs as well. This was a Japanese study , however the
price for methanol thus produced may be a bit higher than market prices. Of
course, molten-salt reactor technology should be cheaper, and mass production
of Thorcon reactors cheaper still.
Of course, if you just use hydrogen, it may be better. Why? Hydrogen is the
best for rockets because it burns hotter. The same principle could be applied
to Stirling engines. That is to say, the hotter the Stirling, gets the more
efficient it is. Make the engine small and compact.
In order to obtain the hydrogen, we can make ammonia instead of methanol. Ship
the ammonia to the point of sale, and crack it to make hydrogen. There would
be no carbon at all. Maybe that would make the greenies happy after all.
Provided that nuclear hurdle can be surpassed, which may be possible, the second
part of the system involves Stirling-electric hybrids. Stirling engines have
some setbacks as an automotive power plant, but if they are small, then they
should work in cars. In addition to making them about 25 kilowatts or so, the
batteries can be smaller as well.
The batteries add to the weight of the car, so they should be minimized. You
could use ultracapacitors for quick bursts of power as well. The ultracapacitors
will last the lifetime of the car, most likely. Batteries have to be replaced
often, and those aren't cheap.
You don't need large powerful engines. A car can cruise down the highway on
25 kilowatts of power from a Stirling electric engine. A little more power
for passing and going up hills can come from the batteries and the capacitors.
One problem for Stirling electric is that they need to warm up. The warm up
period can be electric only.
Perhaps this idea would a lot like the existing hybrids of today. However, no
existing hybrid that I know of uses Stirling engines. They still use internal
combustion engines, which aren't as efficient as Stirling engines. So, the
higher priced fuel can be partially offset by increased efficiency.
So there you have it. If the economics can be made to work, then the car concept
could be marketable. The economics of cheaper energy from molten-salt reactors
and efficiency of Stirling electric engines may make this idea economically feasible.
Monday, October 22, 2018
Tesla
One thing that I wish I could be is a guy like Elon Musk, and have the name and the money in order to put my version of an electric car on the road.
If I could, it wouldn't be a battery powered machine like his. It would be a fuel cell car.
However, there's a good reason why fuel cells won't work. The reason is because of the fuel problem.
The criticism against fuel cells that you hear out there is that there's no infrastructure. No, infrastructure is not the problem. You can transport hydrogen via ammonia. Ammonia already has an infrastructure, so you can use that infrastructure to move the hydrogen around.
Another criticism you hear is the cost of the fuel cells themselves. But that is not the problem either. There is somebody who has already made fuel cell cars, and says you can make fuel cells comparably priced with respect to internal combustion engines.
I think the problem is that fuel cells make no sense unless the energy is supplied by nuclear power. Nuclear power is out of favor, so that leaves fuel cells in the cold.
Using carbon based fuels for fuel cells is inefficient. Most of the energy from fossil fuels is from oxidizing carbon. If you take away the carbon, you lose a lot of the energy. That means the cost of the energy must be higher in order to offset this loss. Economically, it won't make sense. However, nuclear power can be cheaper than coal, but is being regulated out of existence.
Nuclear power need not be out of favor. But that is the way things are right now. If that can be changed, then electric cars can succeed. Tesla is not likely to succeed, so I have seen.
I could have said I told you so, but I didn't say I told you, so I can't say that. But I suspected it, for whatever that is worth.
If I could, it wouldn't be a battery powered machine like his. It would be a fuel cell car.
However, there's a good reason why fuel cells won't work. The reason is because of the fuel problem.
The criticism against fuel cells that you hear out there is that there's no infrastructure. No, infrastructure is not the problem. You can transport hydrogen via ammonia. Ammonia already has an infrastructure, so you can use that infrastructure to move the hydrogen around.
Another criticism you hear is the cost of the fuel cells themselves. But that is not the problem either. There is somebody who has already made fuel cell cars, and says you can make fuel cells comparably priced with respect to internal combustion engines.
I think the problem is that fuel cells make no sense unless the energy is supplied by nuclear power. Nuclear power is out of favor, so that leaves fuel cells in the cold.
Using carbon based fuels for fuel cells is inefficient. Most of the energy from fossil fuels is from oxidizing carbon. If you take away the carbon, you lose a lot of the energy. That means the cost of the energy must be higher in order to offset this loss. Economically, it won't make sense. However, nuclear power can be cheaper than coal, but is being regulated out of existence.
Nuclear power need not be out of favor. But that is the way things are right now. If that can be changed, then electric cars can succeed. Tesla is not likely to succeed, so I have seen.
I could have said I told you so, but I didn't say I told you, so I can't say that. But I suspected it, for whatever that is worth.
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Aldrin Cycler
Second man on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, conceived this concept.
The advantage is that it uses much less fuel. Perhaps one disadvantage that I see is that you must stay on Mars for a very long time. It might take five years or more to go through the cycle so that a crew can make a return journey home to Earth.
Obviously, I still don't understand this concept completely. However, I think this is a valid concern, because there is no way it can be less than two synodic periods. This means at least five years, and probably more.
Five years is a very long time.
The advantage is that it uses much less fuel. Perhaps one disadvantage that I see is that you must stay on Mars for a very long time. It might take five years or more to go through the cycle so that a crew can make a return journey home to Earth.
Obviously, I still don't understand this concept completely. However, I think this is a valid concern, because there is no way it can be less than two synodic periods. This means at least five years, and probably more.
Five years is a very long time.
Saturday, October 20, 2018
German Environmentalists Will Rally For Nuclear!
Wonder how many of these folks are around? Enough to make a difference?
German Environmentalists Will Rally For Nuclear!— Thorcon Power (@ThorconPower) October 15, 2018
Is this the tipping point of the failing anti-nuclear... https://t.co/TkFBBz8NDL
Friday, October 19, 2018
First Man: Trivializing the lunar landing
The movie is said to not be doing well at the box office. Here is a review that might explain why.
First Man: Trivializing the lunar landing https://t.co/iXkSvx3U5w— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 20, 2018
Sunday, October 14, 2018
9.25.18: Off-grid notes ( altimeter )
9:25.18:
----A close inspection of the boundary waypoints shows that -the east-west line
between the north 20 and the south 20 -- runs in a slightly north-south direction.
Distance is between 50 and 100 feet. The west side is more northern than the
south.
----The thought occurred to me that animals can crawl underneath the trailer or
cabin. Need to prevent that. Don't want animals making a home underneath mine.
----Have considered laying a slab out there to combat this, but it is way too
impractical. May seem otherwise to the professional who suggested this, but
I am the one who has to build this thing. Therefore, this idea is out. I
I would really like to make this a final decision on this item.
----An idea came to me to pull the trailer there with incinerating toilet, and then
integrating the trailer into a cabin. A cabin would be 8x24', with the last
8 feet as a bathroom. Since the trailer is only five feet wide, it will have
to be widened to line up with the rest of the structure.
----Subdivision idea could work, since other people are selling lots less than
20 acres in size out there. I think five acres is the limit, but I don't think
I will go down that small.
----Got an idea to do my own research on
a water well.
Update ( 9.27.18) :
Topography links
8 in 1 Black Backlight Multifunction Digital Altimeter Barometer Compass Weather Forecast For Outdoor Hiking - Walmart.com
8 in 1 Black Backlight Multifunction Digital Altimeter Barometer Compass Weather Forecast For Outdoor Hiking - Walmart.com
Watch "Find the Topography of Any Property in the World" on YouTube
Update ( 9.30.18):
Altimeter not in stock! I might be ordering one once they are back in stock.
Update ( 10.5.18):
Now in stock and order is on the way.
Update ( 10.14.18):
It has arrived. Actually, I have had it for several days. It is like a new toy, which I have had some time to play with. It will be useful in determining the highest point on the property. More than likely, it won't make that much difference, because the land is pretty flat. However, you cannot
go by the topographical maps, nor the Garmin, which depends upon topographical maps.
It will also be useful for weather forecasting, as it is sensitive to changes in barometric pressure.
Update ( 9.30.18):
Altimeter not in stock! I might be ordering one once they are back in stock.
Update ( 10.5.18):
Now in stock and order is on the way.
Update ( 10.14.18):
It has arrived. Actually, I have had it for several days. It is like a new toy, which I have had some time to play with. It will be useful in determining the highest point on the property. More than likely, it won't make that much difference, because the land is pretty flat. However, you cannot
go by the topographical maps, nor the Garmin, which depends upon topographical maps.
It will also be useful for weather forecasting, as it is sensitive to changes in barometric pressure.
Saturday, October 13, 2018
Roof leaks
There is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. This trailer is leaking when it rains. Now that is definitely a problem.
Given how slow I seem to move these days, getting this addressed is going to take more time than I would prefer.
What is really needed is a roof over the top of this thing. Yesterday, I spent some time studying the problem, and I think a solution can be had for a reasonable price. Trouble is, I will have to do this myself.
More than likely, I could get help. But if I am going to do such things out there away from it all, I am going to have to start handling these things myself.
Right now, I am figuring on doing the most immediate thing, which is to plug the most obvious leak. After that, I can start working on the roof. Reason being, by the time the roof gets on top of this trailer, it will have rained again. Things are so bad that another invasion of water would be a disaster. I cannot afford to have that happen.
Update from 10.11.18 post:
10.13.18:
I've managed some repairs, but the roof is still a matter of study.
Given how slow I seem to move these days, getting this addressed is going to take more time than I would prefer.
What is really needed is a roof over the top of this thing. Yesterday, I spent some time studying the problem, and I think a solution can be had for a reasonable price. Trouble is, I will have to do this myself.
More than likely, I could get help. But if I am going to do such things out there away from it all, I am going to have to start handling these things myself.
Right now, I am figuring on doing the most immediate thing, which is to plug the most obvious leak. After that, I can start working on the roof. Reason being, by the time the roof gets on top of this trailer, it will have rained again. Things are so bad that another invasion of water would be a disaster. I cannot afford to have that happen.
Update from 10.11.18 post:
10.13.18:
I've managed some repairs, but the roof is still a matter of study.
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
Reviewing my April 2015 trip
Seems like the umpteenth time that I have done this.
One thing that stands out is the lost time in looking for misplaced items. It is the same thing while I have been in this trailer for the last couple years.
Could this be a matter of shortage of space? Seems like that is what the two experiences had in common, although this trailer is a lot bigger than the van.
Another thing that stands out is the lack of endurance. I get tired too easily. This was true out there as well. It may be well to remember not to push too hard. Especially at first, when I am not used to it.
Progress was mighty slow and tortuous. For something that I thought I could get up in a day or two took almost two weeks. For something that seemed easy in principle, it was surprisingly difficult in practice.
Finally, I hope that what I saw was not discouragement. There is a lot of information available for learning and thought. I think I am going to be able to get the most that I can get out of it.
One thing that stands out is the lost time in looking for misplaced items. It is the same thing while I have been in this trailer for the last couple years.
Could this be a matter of shortage of space? Seems like that is what the two experiences had in common, although this trailer is a lot bigger than the van.
Another thing that stands out is the lack of endurance. I get tired too easily. This was true out there as well. It may be well to remember not to push too hard. Especially at first, when I am not used to it.
Progress was mighty slow and tortuous. For something that I thought I could get up in a day or two took almost two weeks. For something that seemed easy in principle, it was surprisingly difficult in practice.
Finally, I hope that what I saw was not discouragement. There is a lot of information available for learning and thought. I think I am going to be able to get the most that I can get out of it.
Volume I links ( off grid project )
The original blog is friggin' huge with so many posts. Now that I have spun off the off-grid posts into the second blog, I can ease that transition with a set of links that I want to review from time-to-time.
Here they are:
With respect to the trip in April 2015:
With respect to the early parts of this project
General all around helpful to have handy:
Finally, the How to category can be accessed on the other blog in order to find anything not here.
For review purposes, there is a video series of when I was out on property. This began on about 4.6.15, and concluded about 12 days later.
These are linked together, so that they can be watched in sequence.
Sunday, October 7, 2018
The Space Show: Space nuclear power
In my opinion, that is the way to go. Especially on the moon, where it is dark two weeks at a time.
Dr. Chris Morrison, space nuclear power - a new look!, 7PM PDT, 10 PM EDT, Listen @ https://t.co/kY8igW2Yy5; Call Chris @ 1 866 687-7223. #fb #in.— Dr. David Livingston (@SpaceShow) October 2, 2018
Saturday, October 6, 2018
Japanese Rovers are Now on the Surface of an Asteroid
Japanese Rovers are Now on the Surface of an Asteroid, Sending Back Amazing Pictures https://t.co/QV1WhAzDb0 via @universetoday— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 4, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)