Carborendum

Members
  • Posts

    3016
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    156

Everything posted by Carborendum

  1. Yes, this is certainly true. And I spoke with him about this. The philosophy about applying an exception is an unpredictable one. And we need to be careful about how we apply it. Here's the method I recommended to my son. Learn the rules Apply the rules Master the rules Break the right rules (figure out the exceptions). I gave two examples, one temporal, one spiritual. TYPING: I learned to type the common rote manner that most people are taught. I eventually became the fastest in my class. But I had one fatal weakness. I could never really get good at the numbers/punctuation on the top row. The reason was that those keys were used so infrequently, it was impossible for me to get really fluent in using them. I could never develop muscle memory. Eventually, I learned to do the 10-key really fast. So, for the numbers and the mathematical operators, I applied a work-around that was specially tailored to me and my needs/skills. But it was only after mastering the common technique and truly understanding the principles behind it that I knew that this exception would be good to go. WORD OF WISDOM: I have always obeyed the Word of Wisdom since I was a child. I learned it. I applied it. I studied it over all the many years of my life and understood what blessings came from it. I gained a testimony of it. I don't want to start another thread jack, so I won't mention details. But we all know about the one substance that is considered "on the borderline". And many people take harsh stances on which side of the line they are. I've taken the position that there will be times that I will use it (with a flavorful green flare ). But I have decided to do it only rarely and for specific circumstances. Others will choose differently for themselves. Again, with manmade rules, it is usually more acceptable to find exceptions. But only after mastering the rules first so you understand why the rule is there in the first place. With divine commandments, exceptions still exist, certainly. But we need to be much more careful about declaring an exception, and even more careful about applying the exceptions.
  2. I can see why you'd think that. It really is a good argument. But ironically, it is just the opposite. The primary point I was trying to make is that (after all things are considered) nature itself tends to have methods which will be the most efficient. It is based on the proposition that we can work *with* entropy instead of struggling against it. Gravity is an amazing force of entropy. Yet stars use it for free to generate power. It's how plants can use chlorophyll to convert light energy into chemical energy at a near 100% efficiency. Nothing man has ever produced even comes close to that. We understand this principle with natural selection, but it is just as true with planetary alignments, and fusion reactions within the cores of stars. Heck, even the Constitution was based on an analogous principle. (No thread jack intended). If we accept this philosophy (which I grant is not a hard-and-fast rule for 100% everything in nature) then man must pursue either of the two options: A) Accept that the reasonable rate of energy produced through fusion will have an upper limit of what stars produce. OR B) Provide a clear and convincing reason why man's innovation has a chance of bettering nature. I freely admit that man has been able to accomplish (B) in many instances throughout history. But so far, we have not even come close to describing why or how we can do that when it comes to fusion. So far, we've only been able to release tiny amounts of energy with a tiny amount of matter. As we increase the energy requirement to power plant levels, we're talking about increasing the mass input. As mass input goes through, we'll have lower rates of reaction. This is true of all energy production. It has taken over 100 years to get certain components into the 90% efficiency range. And a LOT of what is under the hood is geared towards that. But when all things are considered, that 90% goes down to about 25% (similar to the energy flow chart from Kyle Hill above). That's 100 years of after reaching Stage 4. I am guessing the world will fall apart a lot sooner than that. And we'll be in the Millennium (or our children will). Then angels can instruct us on how to do it right.
  3. I had an interesting conversation with my youngest son today. He is basically failing in all his school subjects. So, I delved to see what was going on. It had nothing to do with his intelligence. He gets into a lot of trouble because of his brains and lack of experience... or lack of humility. We zeroed-in on his typing program. Long story short, he was not doing what the program said to do. He decided he knew what needed doing and he did it the way he thought was best. But he just couldn't type enough to pass the tests. I had to explain to him that the method that they teach is designed to provide maximum efficiency. What he was doing was a very smart method for a few situations. But as an overall system, it really slowed him down. That was why he was failing. Part of it was that since it was only helpful in a few situations, he had to think about every word he typed, then make a decision about what method to use. He didn't realized that by doing some things instinctively greatly increased his performance even if it may seem more inefficient at the moment. Apparently his attitude of "I know better" was being applied to all subjects and even the more non-academic aspects at his school. So, he's really not advancing very far. I saw this as having a spiritual application. Whenever we're given a commandment or a guideline, we tend to think "I know better. I'm going to do it my own way." For many temporal things that may be a problem unless we really do know better. But with spiritual things, when we start saying we know better than the Lord... That's some pretty shaky ground. We'll see if my son actually applies the advice I gave him.
  4. So, our good friend Kyle Hill (Because Science) shows exactly what I was talking about with lasers. No. We have not created more energy than we started with. The claim from the NIF was basically, we put 1.3 MJ into "the reaction" (i.e. the final few steps only) and got about 30 MJ out. That ignores the fact that they started out with 400 MJ. But even Kyle doesn't take into account the steps before that. We have to gather the deuterium. That takes energy to separate from water. Then there are maintenance costs of the actual facility being subject to such high temperatures... Kyle points out that we're at step 2 of 4. And, yes, we have done that. Step 3 is another 50 to 100 years away, maybe longer (or impossible). Step 4? That will be REALLY far away. But an interesting note is that step 4 will actually be a hybrid fission/fusion reactor -- not in the way that most people think. So, if we need to utilize fission anyway, why are we not doing it now?
  5. The only thing stopping us is the political will. We have the technology. We can build them.
  6. Standard lasers only reach efficiencies of about 10% at best. Diode lasers have been known to be as high as 60% or so. HOWEVER, diodes are limited in their application. Today's diodes can only be used in low power applications. To scale up to a practical power grid type scenario, we'd have to research new diode technology that can be used in high energy, large scale applications. That puts the diodes at least 30 years into the future. Then fusion another 25 years beyond that. So, there has to be some sort of unanticipated breakthrough for fusion to be a reality. All this talk of 25 years is just flapping our gums. But it's worse than that. The main reason why it will be impossible is the biggest model of a fusion reactor we have -- the sun. OK, it's not just a model. It's the real deal. But think about this: That's not a huge energy rate for a given volume, especially when considering that the sun's core has a specific gravity of about 150. Modern power plants are usually in the 100s of MW range. How many m^3 of solar mass would we need?* The sun requires no energy to fuse the atoms together. It's all done by gravity. And that is the rate of energy that is possible with that much mass. So, were are we going to get that much mass? How are we going to fuse it together at a rate more efficient than gravity? Where are we going to put a reactor large enough to process that much hydrogen at a rate sufficient to produce any useful amount of energy? And that is just to produce the heat. Then we have to change that heat into mechanical energy to generate electrical energy. They're so busy trying to push the big picture that they forget that the little details already prohibit it. I'll start believing in it when they get a working power plant that doesn't blow up an area larger than Rhode Island.
  7. This right here is a big clue that this process is massively inefficient.
  8. Although, I think it was sheer luck rather than foresight, Biden did something good for the oil supply. He released 50 million barrels from our Strategic Petroleum Reserves so the Democrats could win elections. He said that he'd buy oil when it was cheaper (it was at historic highs). I was afraid that this would leave us without power or heating oil during the winter. Well, the price went from very high for Summer (I believe the high was around $137/bbl) to very high for winter (we're down at around $75/barrel). Now he's buying the dip to refill the reserves. What I'd really like to know is if the US government "sells" the oil or "gives it away" when "releasing." If they sell it, that's a good way to make money. If it was "given" away, SMH.
  9. I was thinking the same thing. That is quite interesting. Oh, of course.
  10. It's good that you done that, Vort.
  11. Welcome back. We were wondering.
  12. I believe the state has every right to govern what is taught at state-run schools. That's why I homeschooled my children. When we're paying for it, then we have every right to teach our children what we think is best. Prior to public education, we had religious schools, charity schools, and private schools. Each were governed by the source of funding. And it seemed to work well. Why do we believe that public schools should have any less power to govern what they fund? The only problem with our current system is that we have compulsory attendance from K-12. If they got rid of that, we'd actually have better education, not worse. But no one in this state-school-saturated society will even consider the truth of those words much less listen to the reasons why.
  13. Indeed. Have you heard of permaculture method known as a "forest garden"?
  14. Sometimes I forget that you're an Aussie. Then you pull something like this and it's just right there in bright TechniCOLOR.
  15. I think the point is being lost here, so let me make it clear if the title on the OP didn't do so. This is not about bakers and Chipotle serving or not serving customers. That's a completely different issue. This is about ANY group or individual that does everything they can to fight one side of the argument and then realizes that the side they signed up for is now going to oppress them. It's basically a case of "you made your bed, now you've got to lie in it." If I were Senator Cotton, I would be of the position that, yes, I'll vote to help you out. But you've basically tied my hands so that my vote doesn't mean much. So, how do you expect me to carry the water (go through extra efforts to try to persuade the other side) when you've cut off my hands? And as the senator says, I'm sorry this is happening to him. But what do you expect Republicans to do about it?
  16. What I don't see is where any conservative Christian has gone to Democrat Senators to ask for relief from oppression by their Republican Senators. I also don't see where any conservative organization has silenced other voices at their places of work.
  17. I'm sorry that's happening to you. Best of luck. CLASSIC.
  18. On that note, I'm going to give @Anddenex the benefit of the doubt here and note that we have two methodologies of terminology we're applying. "The name of the round": The formal name of a given round that is industry standard (which would certainly differentiate between a .22 & a .223). This takes into account much more than simply the diameter of the round. "Definition of caliber": The generic definition of "caliber" which is simply the diameter of the bullet being propelled. By this method, we're really splitting hairs when we say that a .223 is "completely" different from a .22 cal. Most gun enthusiasts use the first method. And it is (IMHO) the proper way to do it. But many still abide by a common definition. They're not exactly "wrong". They just don't think of the "name of the round". They're only thinking of the diameter. Then there is also "context" in which we throw around these terms.
  19. @Anddenex, I'm going to take a different tack to what (I believe) you're trying to say. With the current state of the gun-control lobby and the level of knowledge of Democrat legislators (and even the general public) we have to be concerned about the language of the bill not being too broad or vague (which is often done on purpose). If they were to ban a gun capable of firing a .223 round, it takes no stretch of the imagination to apply that legislation to a gun capable of firing a .22 round. They don't even know the definition of "semi-automatic". It's just "scary sounding." That's all they know. "Weapons of war" is a meaningless term. Every gun is made for war. Some are more effective or have different purposes. But any gun can be used effectively in war. That's the whole point. Trump banned bump-stocks through executive order because it was, indeed, a "cheat" (IMHO). But the Dem reps didn't even know what a bump-stock was. They just had another "term" to rally against. They completely fabricated the term "assault rifle" for no reason other than to ban "scary-looking" guns that were functionally no different than many other guns that were ignored. Given the people we are dealing with in Washington, does anyone really think that any legislation aimed at .223 weapons will not be applied to .22 weapons?