[Rezwan]

Eric says the dpf used in the Texas A&M;experiments had multiple capacitors. How many capacitors? Hard to tell from the cropped picture.

Attached files

[Rezwan]

Need to develop a survey for this. Might use survey monkey. http://www.surveymonkey.com/

So, tools are handy, but now the tricky part is to craft the right questions.

[Rezwan]

But it’s true that the 1st industrial revolution mostly turned into creating new ways to conquer and enslave, and at the height of it the average lifespan for an urban worker was less than 20. The paradigm then was very much one of unenlightened self-interest; there’s no need for history to repeat itself.

What was its “height”? And I don’t know about history repeating itself, but the average worker now lives a much longer time. Perhaps you could say at the inception, conditions for workers were terrible, lifespan short, but as the affluence spread, workers stopped putting up with that. This would imply there is a progression inherent in the thing. Jeffrey Sachs puts a different spin on the industrial revolution and poverty, which I quoted a lot in this post on poverty.

[Rezwan]

He knew the terrible tales of sea otters choking on polyethylene rings from beer six-packs; of swans and gulls strangled by nylon nets and fishing lines; of a green sea turtle in Hawaii dead with a pocket comb, a foot of nylon rope, and a toy truck wheel lodged in its gut. His personal worst was a study on fulmar carcasses washed ashore on North Sea coastlines. Ninety-five percent had plastic in their stomachs—an average of 44 pieces per bird. A proportional amount in a human being would weigh nearly five pounds.

I don’t deny that in some cases, ingesting or getting caught in plastics can kill an animal. But children choke on plastic all the time as well. The point being it’s not the major cause of death for children. Or animals.

Murder (predators), I suspect is still the main cause of death for animals. Millions of birds are born every year, and millions die, and I don’t think plastics kill a disproportionate amount. Housecats probably eat more birds.

But I don’t have any numbers, so it could, indeed, be a huge problem. I doubt it.

He devised an aquarium experiment, using bottom-feeding lugworms that live on organic sediments, barnacles that filter organic matter suspended in water, and sand fleas that eat beach detritus. In the experiment, plastic particles and fibers were provided in proportionately bite-size quantities. Each creature promptly ingested them.

When the particles lodged in their intestines, the resulting constipation was terminal.

Ouch. Then again, wouldn’t evolution favor the critters that didn’t go for the plastic? And if a bunch of them die off, there will be a lot of un-processed detritus that the critters who are drawn to it would eat…

If they were small enough, they passed through the invertebrates’ digestive tracts and emerged, seemingly harmlessly, out the other end.

Great! And the waves keep pounding them smaller, so, pretty soon – the problem will be pounded out of existence.

Did that mean that plastics were so stable that they weren’t toxic?

Probably.

At what point would they start to naturally break down—and when they did, would they release some fearful chemicals that would endanger organisms sometime far in the future?

Uh…that’s why they’re such an eyesore. They don’t break down. Chemophobe.

All he knew was that soon everything alive would be eating them. “When they get as small as powder, even zooplankton will swallow them.”

Do zooplankton swallow? I don’t think they have intestines as such. Somehow I’m not worried about them getting terminal constipation.

But then again, that was the problem with CFC’s. Totally benign stuff. Great for the environment. But it kept not reacting with anything until it moved up in the atmosphere and hit the ozone layer. Hopefully all these hungry animals with big enough digestive tracts will eat up the plastic, excrete it into some form of coral and form long lasting reefs or something productive like that. And it won’t find itself up in the troposphere.

On the list of catastrophes to worry about – well I think this is pretty low.

[Rezwan]

Humans are important to humans, the rest of the universe doesn’t care – I’m with you there.

But now that I see it – I find this’s not what I meant by consciousness:

Also as it turns out, if humans are the only conscious life on earth, then we’re the only thing capable of appreciating any life at all. With humans out of the picture, if the sun goes nova and earth is boiled, no other conscious being would know or care.

I’m sure that lots of animals, in the midst of their predating and competing with each other, find time to enjoy the day, to wallow in the mud, roll on the grass, feel the exhilaration of leaping out of the clutches of predators. In fact, they may feel more alive than we ever could, with our guilt trips and existential angst, righteousness and ennui. And, as far as appreciative audiences go, I’m sure most life forms would rather pass up on us. I think people are the only ones who crave audiences. Animals prefer not to be seen.

And I’m sure that when a big catastrophe strikes, those animals would low and whimper and raise their eyes to witness the destruction in very real despair.

I hate tree hugging environmentalists, with their holier than thou attitude. It’s like to them nothing would be better than for humans to be removed from the equation. But without those humans, who is left to perceive the beauty? I don’t trust any big mass movements, particularly Al Gore’s kind. I think they’re just after power and control. The environment is just a Convenient Excuse.

I hear you on the holier than thou thing.

And getting us out of the equation might be nice for the animals, it wouldn’t be nice for us, and so – it’s not going to happen.

But…”Without humans, who will perceive the beauty?” Human ability to perceive natural beauty is not that high on our list of selling points. Picture some wife beater – his wife, bruised, broken bones, telling him she’s going to leave, and he says, but honey, if I wasn’t around, who would appreciate you?

I do like the idea of exploring human importance to nature, and building on that portfolio. The partnership angle. For example, we can prove our worth by developing asteroid deflecting skills and increasing habitat and diversity, which would be in the other critters’ self interest.

We’ve already figured out how to fix nitrogen – a key limiting factor in life. But we just use it for our own crops and don’t apply it carefully, so it ends up a pollutant. It doesn’t have to be. It could be a real asset to nature. In some cases, engineering could help increase habitat all around. Beavers make dams to improve habitat for the things they need. We can be like beavers! (I just had to say that.)

So, the environmental movement doesn’t resonate with me because its focus is on punishment and guilt, not on partnership with nature. It’s misanthropic. But the people who complain about the environmental movement the most tend to be even less interesting. I don’t get any vision of nature and humanity from them. Rather, the idea of nature as property is reinforced, which seems really petty to me. Miserly. Coming from a place of small-ness, and in its own way misanthropic, in that it doesn’t see people as capable of being bigger than their own petty resource needs. More worried about being regulated (which is, at heart, a power struggle/territory dispute). Conversations between these two groups I find utterly boring and depressing.

This planet and the life on it is so much more than that. And people are more than that.

Not resource-mongers.

I get so bored at parties where all people can talk about is their latest acquisitions. “In this endless race for property and privilege to be won, we must run, we must run, we must run” – Bright Eyes.

Upshot, I want to find people whose environmental vision really resonates, strikes true.

And no whiners.

Did this sound whiny?

Heh.

[Rezwan]

Warwick wrote: CO2 is the tip of the iceberg as regards environmental destruction going on right now … For instance the oceans are rapidly becoming full of tiny bits of plastic, dumped from Chinese factories, which are probably going to destroy marine ecosystems worldwide once they have been whittled small enough.

I don’t understand that. Why would small bits of plastic be a problem? They seem pretty benign. Do they react with anything? Isn’t there a lot of debris in nature? If an animal swallows a bit of plastic, wouldn’t they just poop it out?

I think plastic debris is more of an aesthetic annoyance – people see it, and it reminds them of other people – which we all tend to dislike a bit.

Check out “Life after people“. If people disappear – like the rapture comes or a unique to humans virus – and there’s no one around to maintain things, all our artifacts and impacts will just get swallowed back by nature. Most of this happens in 500 years, and, except for deserts where things don’t rot, by a few thousand years (which is NOTHING in geological time, or even natural history time) there won’t be a trace of us.

And then the sun will rise, and set, over and over, on the natural world, all those critters leading their short, intense, violent lives, escaping predators, competing for resources, eating and being eaten. Until asteroids hit or the sun blows up or whatever.

Or… with us out of the picture, I suspect something else would evolve along to take another shot at the tool/consciousness/language thing and see if they couldn’t come up with a more satisfying balance of consciousness and nature.

I think we flatter ourselves about our impact. As long as we’re here and active, of course, we constantly see the signs of our stress and excretions.

But it’s not about how “bad” we are to the environment, this pristine, pure thing – how corrupt and tainted we are. It’s more about how to balance two very different systems. The natural system is, ironically, a market system. Completely spontaneously developed. No regulation, creatures just eat and react and poop, and it all finds a resource maximising equilibrium.

People, on the other hand, have come in with tools and organizations, and can cheat the system, and selectively maximize – without understanding the whole system. So they inject a simplifying disiquilibrium that is really ugly in its over simplification. People are more like central planners, trying to optimize one or two things (profits! crop yeild!) in a reductive way.

Oh, and ironically, people also come in with morals and guilt, which animals don’t worry about. The killers in the animal world are actually key elements to making the system work. But with humans, we are suddenly self-conscious. Frankly, I think a lot of animals, if they could, would like our lifestyle. Animals in the wild – would many of them not prefer to live in a cushy house and get meals out of a can? Indoor cats can live an average of 12 years, while outdoor cats average 3.

In sum, the environmental lobby would be more interesting to me if the conversation was about how to overlay the natural system with the human/self-conscious one, and if it would explore values frankly, and not just keep framing it as victims (nature) and guilt. It’s hard to produce a vision out of the latter approach.

[Rezwan]

Here’s a fun example of something simple that separates (“unbundles”) land from agriculture and is geared to consumers. I love the video, in black and white, with the guy digging the earth and then his back aching. https://www.topsyturvy.com/

[Rezwan]

Yes, comments v. forums:

I think the value of a comments section would be if people limited themselves to just putting a relevant link in there, or add information that should be visible by the article. And also the cheery nod is always welcome.

I kind of like a few comments tacked on to the articles, makes me see that people are reading them. Humanizes things a bit.

So: Comments are for quick links of relevance to the post, and kudos : ), and a note if there’s an error in the post to be fixed.

The forums, in contrast, are for discussing topics in detail. Getting into the commentary, opinions and ramifications.

How to get this to happen? It kind of seems to be happening now. To improve:

1. I must get in the habit of setting up a forum post for every website post & linking them.
2. A note by the comments and forum links on each post directing people – explaining the preference.

3. Then I have to update twitter on these.
4. What about facebook/myspace/whathaveyou. We need some volunteer updaters who are dedicated to the various outlets. Anyone want to commit to manning one of these things? We have a defunct myspace page out there. And an anaemic facebook club thing…each one waiting for a dedicated person to be the official updater and put their own spin on it. Bring it to life.

Passers-by don’t have a login, they don’t write at all.

Yep. Shutting them out. I’m getting elitist with the passing seasons.

And no, there isn’t a delete button I found. There is an edit button, but even in edit mode you can’t delete an already posted reply.

Ah. Then I believe I have to wade into the back end permissions and change something. I’ll get back to you on that.

[Rezwan]

You make a good point. I hadn’t considered that.

I have been, on occasion, setting up an announcement with a simultaneous discussion link, but only when I thought it was something that would raise debate. I shall make it a habit of doing this with each new post.

This raises another issue for me – comments vs. forum. We have both capabilities. But they don’t really dovetail. The comments link will take you down the same page to where comments start. “Discuss in forums” will bring you here to the forums.

Comments are more limited. They only follow a specific article. On the forums, you can initiate topics independently. Also, forums gives you more flexibility for quoting, going back and editing, uploading images and so forth.

I guess my question here is – are comments redundant – should I just link everything up to go to forums for discussion? Or is redundancy fine? Actually, redundancy may not be the issue. More likely people miss some of the discussion by visiting either forums or just the article & its comments.

Hmmm. Another “usability” issue.

[Rezwan]

dash wrote: That looks like an interesting book, I ordered a used copy on Amazon.

Note, the book hasn’t been peer reviewed.

[Rezwan]

OK, Dash, some new updates are on the home page. https://focusfusion.org – from your initial post, it seems you don’t actually follow the website, just the forums. Is that correct?

[Rezwan]

Tulse wrote: How much need is there for government involvement in FF? …

I suppose what I’m saying is that it seems to me the model for aneutronic fusion isn’t something like the Apollo mission or the Manhattan Project, but more like the Wright brothers or James Watt — these are efforts that can demonstrate success with relatively little in the way of resources…
I think that if FF or Polywell or Tri-Alpha can demonstrate an over-unity device, the world will (as the saying goes) beat a path to their door.

Polywell is asking for $200 million. Trialpha for 20 at least. LPP needs $4 million for proof of concept and they don’t have the full amount yet – they’ve started the experiments without the full comittment of $ under the “if you build it, they will come” theory. They’ll need another $20 mil to crank out commerical reactors. Money is very tight, and I’d say the more support from all quarters, the better. Also, it’s insurance against suppression – the more people are invested in making alternative fusion happen, the better.

As far as I know, neither Watt or the Wrights published peer-reviewed pieces during their research or required huge government attention — instead, their success was its own proof.

Watt benefited from an astute business model, and he also had government help in the form of the equivalent of a department of defense contract. Indirectly. The story (per Andy Kessler, “How We Got Here”) is that John Wilkinson, Iron Master of Shropshire, had a precision cannon-boring tool. The best in the world, could make effective cannons with narrow “windage”, the gap between cannonball and barrel. The less the gap, the farther the cannonball goes. John hasn’t patented this tool so no one can copy it. It’s his trade secret. So, John gets a big contract from King George, who wants to kill Americans (rebels in the colonies). John needs energy to blow the bellows to burn the high grade coal to get quality iron for his cannons. He tries out Watt’s steam engine and finds that it’s weak. The cylinder leaks steam with every stroke, robbing it of power. He takes it apart and realizes that it’s a cylinder issue. And he, due to cannonball precision for killing requirements, is the cylinder master. So he recast the cylinder using his tool, and it improved the machine 4to 5 times. E.g., 40 Horsepower instead of 8. So, anyway, Wilkinson, with his govt. defense contract, partnered with Watts, and the industrial age took off.

Any which way….

[Rezwan]

Ah, historic times. Celebrate! Dissidents Mass in Tehran to Subvert an Anti-U.S. Rally Yesterday was the 30 year anniversary of the US embassy takeover. The government always has their “death to America” rally on the anniversary. Kids in schools all have to rally and chant “d to A” as well. Shameful. Criticizing policies and proposing constructive changes is one thing. Chanting “death to…” is childish.

Even some government authorities seemed to grudgingly concede that the opposition had — for the first time — disrupted the annual anti-American rally. The official IRNA news agency reported in midafternoon that “rioters,” many wearing the opposition’s signature green color, had gathered in front of its offices on Valiasr Street chanting “Death to the dictator” and other antigovernment slogans.

Times they are a-changin’.

Although “death to dictator” does seem to just extend this pattern of rhetoric – except it isn’t targeting an individual per se, it’s targeting one who dictates. Like, if they chanted “death to imperialism”, rather than “death to America” that would be reasonable.

Having lived in Iran and knowing how they really go all out to coerce people to participate in the “death to America” thing – this is a great milestone. Disrupting the US embassy anniversary rally hate-speak. It’s like seeing crocuses coming up through the snow. Spring is coming.

Of course, the change has been percolating for some time. I only single this out because it’s one of those big official milestones. Like noticing a particularly large crocus…

An example of the change – a few months ago when I was still there, some folks came and spray painted “death to Khamenei” in green on the wall facing our house. Our neighbor is a high ranking official for the police and very pro Khamenei. So, he covered the opposition graffiti and painted over it “death to America”. Just then, my Mom, back from grocery shopping pulls up – she’s American. Flaming American. She walks up to him as he’s painting and says Mr. ___! What the…? You know I’m American. They talk, amicably. And then he apologizes and just paints over the whole thing. Blots it all out.

Wish they would all blot out the hate speak and just get down to practical negotiation of healthy coexistence of multiple viewpoints.

[Rezwan]

Thanks, Belbear. Good assessment of the situation.

[Rezwan]

belbear wrote: Sorry, wrong button. Now I can’t remove this….

Really? Don’t you see a “delete” button at the bottom of your own posts? You aren’t able to delete other people’s posts, unless you’re admin like me (the POWER!) but you should be able to edit or delete your own.

[Author]

Posts