On 15 Aug 2022 09:49:30 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>"Irreversible" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence
>>>of the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
>>>thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been
>>>swinging back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with
>>>what amounts to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may
>>>survive such swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that
>>>I want to.
>>
>> How did earth ever emerge from irreversible ice-age albedo feedback?
>
>I don't know how it happened, except that it happened on a time scale that was
>too slow for most complex species to wait out.
>
>> Emotional guessing about control theory doesn't work.
>
>As somebody who claims to know about control theory you are familiar with time
>constants associated with feedback loops, and if the time constant is orders of
>magnitude too large for the task at hand the controller is worthless. The fact
>that your mains supply is controlled to deliver 60*3600*24 cycles per day
>doesn't make it suitable for a high-accuracy reference clock on a time scale of
>less than a day.

I connected a good time-interval counter to the 60 Hz line. Most of
the time it displayed 16.666x milliseconds on single periods.

>
>> Positive feedback doesn't necessarily latch, but most people think it does.
>
>If positive feedback goes on for long enough you can consider it latched for
>all practical purposes.

Absurd. You can use positive feedback to double the gain of an
amplifier and it's perfectly stable.

Guessing about control theory doesn't work.

Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> and windmills will fly apart in decent storms
>>
>>They don't today, why should they in the future?
>
> Well I remember seeing one of the blades on the ground after a storm when I
> drove by one here.

You saw a piece of technical equipment that failed? Unbelievable. Good thing
that can't happen with coal / nuclear.

>>Tell you what: Cooling is only needed when the sun shines. No electric energy
>>storage necessary. Why not just slap solar cells onto those sprawling
>>cardboard shacks that Arizonians call "single family homes" and keep them
>>cooled to 60°F all day. It could be so easy. You don't even need a
>>thermostat.
>
> But cloudy skies .. not so much.. you need a LOT for washing machine,
> microwave, cooking plate, TV, radio, charge phones, internet, monitors,
> lights, heating / cooling / tools .

For starters I was aiming for the lowest-hanging fruits there are: Air
conditioning in a sun-soaked desert in an affluent country. If we aren't
picking those, why bother with the complicated stuff? A one-person middle class
Texas household I know has about ten times the monthly electricity bill that I
have with a five-person household (300$ versus 30$). With energy prices about
half those of Germany, that household uses about 20 times my energy. Main
difference is A/C. Solar-powered A/C would go a looong way.

> Nuclear is the only thing that can be made big enough and steady / reliable
> enough to supply all that for all people.

Yeah super reliable. France has shut down half its thermoelectrical (nuclear)
power plants because the rivers are to warm / too low. When people in middle
Europe start installing A/C, that's not going to get better.

> Not even counting electric cars!!

Oh, those run completely emission-free, haven't you heard? Zero environment
impact during manufacture, operation, and disposal.

Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> Most complex species have survived lots of such switches. Our genus has been
> around for a couple of million year and mitochondrial Eve lived about 155,000
> years ago, so she was around in the interglacial before the last ice age, so
> we qualify.

Like stated elsewhere, the survival of our genus doesn't worry me. Smaller
things than a climate crisis have brought down civilizations. I don't want
that.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 06:59:49 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

>On 15 Aug 2022 09:49:30 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>"Irreversible" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence
>>>>of the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
>>>>thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been
>>>>swinging back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with
>>>>what amounts to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may
>>>>survive such swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that
>>>>I want to.
>>>
>>> How did earth ever emerge from irreversible ice-age albedo feedback?
>>
>>I don't know how it happened, except that it happened on a time scale that was
>>too slow for most complex species to wait out.
>>
>>> Emotional guessing about control theory doesn't work.
>>
>>As somebody who claims to know about control theory you are familiar with time
>>constants associated with feedback loops, and if the time constant is orders of
>>magnitude too large for the task at hand the controller is worthless. The fact
>>that your mains supply is controlled to deliver 60*3600*24 cycles per day
>>doesn't make it suitable for a high-accuracy reference clock on a time scale of
>>less than a day.
>
>I connected a good time-interval counter to the 60 Hz line. Most of
>the time it displayed 16.666x milliseconds on single periods.
>
>>
>>> Positive feedback doesn't necessarily latch, but most people think it does.
>>
>>If positive feedback goes on for long enough you can consider it latched for
>>all practical purposes.
>
>Absurd. You can use positive feedback to double the gain of an
>amplifier and it's perfectly stable.
>
>Guessing about control theory doesn't work.

Actually, it works for a few people. Not many.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> I connected a good time-interval counter to the 60 Hz line. Most of
> the time it displayed 16.666x milliseconds on single periods.

That's about as sound as making judgements about the climate by looking out the
window. Oh wait, you do that, too.

Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:21:59 AM UTC+10, Robert Latest wrote:
>> Like stated elsewhere, the survival of our genus doesn't worry me.
>
> It should.

Why?

Billy the CO2 kid wrote:
>don't seem to have grown up enough to have understood it.

I know!

On 15 Aug 2022 15:33:28 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> I connected a good time-interval counter to the 60 Hz line. Most of
>> the time it displayed 16.666x milliseconds on single periods.
>
>That's about as sound as making judgements about the climate by looking out the
>window. Oh wait, you do that, too.

I measured the local ac line period. No judgements were involved.

A simple lowpass or bandpass filter would take out the occasional
noise spike.

On a sunny day (Mon, 15 Aug 2022 07:32:59 -0700) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<h7mkfh98ho4mgicfn1khcp8fe0jprblgrd@4ax.com>:

>>amplifier and it's perfectly stable.
>>
>>Guessing about control theory doesn't work.
>
>Actually, it works for a few people. Not many.

We are all control systems
picking up something and bringing it to your mouth
(food, joint, whatever)
Kicking a ball into a goal
And our brain does not use maaz
Just followed an interesting lecture on robotics with real examples on
ZDF-info Astra1
Nice channel, all day long science today with so many subjects.
There are a million control systems in your body.
If you have an open mind you can see and feel how those work.
Eye reflex ...

As to amplifier, you can increase Q of a tuned RF circuit by adding negative resistance
resulting in less bandwidth and more output.
above a certain level it will start oscillating.
(example tunnel diode oscillator)
There is also the super-regenerative receiver, oscillates, but it radiates.. positive feedback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_circuit
old school

On 08/15/2022 03:29 AM, Robert Latest wrote:
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> We have currently no way to store that much energy,
> We don't need to. We need more flexible strategies for energy *consumption*.
> Everything nowadays is still based on the "base load + peak load" paradigm.
>
>> the climate and weather will create periods without sun (volcanic eruptions)
> Not everywhere at the same time.
>
>> and windmills will fly apart in decent storms
> They don't today, why should they in the future?
>

https://nypost.com/2022/08/10/oklahoma-wind-turbine-bent-in-half-on-fire-in-wild-video/

Okay, so it didn't fly apart, it just bent in two places and caught
fire. That was last week...

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 12:58:54 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
> On 08/15/2022 03:29 AM, Robert Latest wrote:
> > Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >> We have currently no way to store that much energy,
> > We don't need to. We need more flexible strategies for energy *consumption*.
> > Everything nowadays is still based on the "base load + peak load" paradigm.
> >
> >> the climate and weather will create periods without sun (volcanic eruptions)
> > Not everywhere at the same time.
> >
> >> and windmills will fly apart in decent storms
> > They don't today, why should they in the future?
> >
> https://nypost.com/2022/08/10/oklahoma-wind-turbine-bent-in-half-on-fire-in-wild-video/
>
> Okay, so it didn't fly apart, it just bent in two places and caught
> fire. That was last week...

There're a bunch of videos of burning wind generators. It's usually caused by a failed subsystem, like the brakes. When the topmost unit burns up and parts fall off, the assembly becomes unbalanced and the whole thing flies apart. I suspect that's what happened in the video. You've got to watch for idiots with an agenda and their videos of just a small fraction of the whole story.

Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:34:53 AM UTC+10, Robert Latest wrote:
>> Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:21:59 AM UTC+10, Robert Latest wrote:
>> >> Like stated elsewhere, the survival of our genus doesn't worry me.
>> >
>> > It should.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Other people care about their kids. They may not take kindly to actions on
> your part that threaten their long term survival.

I care about my kids, potential grandkids, other family & friends and their
offspring, and humanity in general. I don't want them to suffer, and I don't
want to die believing that they will have to suffer. But since human life will
eventually die out, there will be generations of humans that suffer from
increasingly unliveable conditions. Question is, how far into the future do I
care? If humans make it until the sun explodes in a few billion years I'd count
that as a pretty good success, so I don't care. If it happens 20 years from
now, I'd be pretty upset. So somewhere between these two points in time I stop
caring. And I'm pretty sure "our genus" will make it that long. Maybe a few
preppers who haven't run out of ammo and diesel until then.

Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 12:58:54 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
>> On 08/15/2022 03:29 AM, Robert Latest wrote:
>> > Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> >> We have currently no way to store that much energy,
>> > We don't need to. We need more flexible strategies for energy
>> > *consumption*. Everything nowadays is still based on the "base load +
>> > peak load" paradigm.
>> >
>> >> the climate and weather will create periods without sun (volcanic
>> >> eruptions)
>> > Not everywhere at the same time.
>> >
>> >> and windmills will fly apart in decent storms
>> > They don't today, why should they in the future?
>> >
>> https://nypost.com/2022/08/10/
oklahoma-wind-turbine-bent-in-half-on-fire-in-wild-video/
>>
>> Okay, so it didn't fly apart, it just bent in two places and caught fire.
>> That was last week...
>
> There're a bunch of videos of burning wind generators. It's usually caused by
> a failed subsystem, like the brakes. When the topmost unit burns up and parts
> fall off, the assembly becomes unbalanced and the whole thing flies apart. I
> suspect that's what happened in the video. You've got to watch for idiots
> with an agenda and their videos of just a small fraction of the whole story.

I still fail to see how such a thing happening is an argument for Jan's
proposal that we can solve all our problems with technology. The most
interesting technology question in this context is, why did they take a video
when a still image would have sufficed? The only think moving is the windshield
wipers of the car that the video was shot from.