On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 10:55:58 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

> >> Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That's why tanks don't have rail guns.
> >
> >All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have electricity. That's very odd.
> >
> >How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can find potential solutions?

> Your prime motivation is to insult, which makes you not very good at
> brainstorming.

How ironic; for a frivolous reason, you reject input preemptively? That's NOT
the brainstorming way, John Larkin.

>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>
>>>> Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That's why tanks don't have rail guns.
>>>
>>> All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have electricity. That's very odd.
>>>
>>> How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can find potential solutions?

I don't usually react to Ricky, as I have him killfiled.

Anyway, one of the reasons we don't make our own electricity with
chemical fuels are that small installations can't benefit from the
economy of scale. Large installations with lots of pooled resources
can do much better. Another reason is that chemical fuels are
heavily taxed for small consumers, which quells any advantage we
might gain thereby.

Jeroen Belleman

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 1:55:58 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 22:50:38 -0700, Don Y
> >> <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 9/26/2022 9:50 PM, boB wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 18:20:21 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> What a mess! Wonder what is causing the failures? Sounds like it may be more with connection issues than the hardware. They've got to do way better than this if they expect to even come close to accommodating a total EV conversion- there are going to be so many cars trying to get on the chargers.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2022-09-22/boiling-point-californias-ev-charging-network-could-use-a-jolt-a-trip-down-i-5-shows-boiling-point
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> In the southern USA where the sun works, PV will be able to charge the
> >> >> cars. If they need to be charged at night, then batteries will
> >> >> eventually be able to help that energy time shift.
> >> >>
> >> >> Make the electricity where you use it if possible.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not that good in the north of course.
> >> >
> >> >You can move electricity a lot easier than liquid fuels...
> >> >
> >> One small product pipeline moves multiples of the power of a giant HV
> >> transmission line. NG enters my house through a tiny plastic tube,
> >> much smaller than the electric lines. Much more reliable and cheaper
> >> too.
> >>
> >> I can gas up my car from 0 to 100% in 5 minutes. An equivalent
> >> electric charge at home would take about a week... if California
> >> allowed charging 24/7.
> >>
> >> Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That's why tanks don't have rail guns.
> >
> >All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have electricity. That's very odd.
> >
> >How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can find potential solutions?
> Your prime motivation is to insult, which makes you not very good at
> brainstorming.
>
> No thanks.

You can't say I do anything different from you. Well, one thing is different. I don't get insulted because people show me facts.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
> >> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >>>> Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That's why tanks don't have rail guns.
> >>>
> >>> All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have electricity. That's very odd.
> >>>
> >>> How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can find potential solutions?
> I don't usually react to Ricky, as I have him killfiled.
>
> Anyway, one of the reasons we don't make our own electricity with
> chemical fuels are that small installations can't benefit from the
> economy of scale. Large installations with lots of pooled resources
> can do much better. Another reason is that chemical fuels are
> heavily taxed for small consumers, which quells any advantage we
> might gain thereby.

Indeed. We do, however, power our transportation with very tiny engines that are very inefficient and are more expensive to operate than alternatives.

Chemical fuels are not taxed at all for any use other than transportation. That is allegedly to pay for roads, but there is no direct connection between fuel taxes and money spent on roads.

So if there were any value to generating electricity at the small end of the wire, we would be doing it. Oh, wait, we do, using solar panels mostly. We even share that with the rest of the grid.

--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 10:55:58 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> >> Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That's why tanks don't have rail guns.
>> >
>> >All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have electricity. That's very odd.
>> >
>> >How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can find potential solutions?
>
>> Your prime motivation is to insult, which makes you not very good at
>> brainstorming.
>
>How ironic; for a frivolous reason, you reject input preemptively? That's NOT
>the brainstorming way, John Larkin.

Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty. People who need to be
always right seldom are.

On 2022-09-27 21:19, Ricky wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman
> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
>>>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John
>>>>> Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That's why tanks don't have
>>>>>> rail guns.
>>>>>
>>>>> All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have
>>>>> electricity. That's very odd.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can
>>>>> find potential solutions?
>> I don't usually react to Ricky, as I have him killfiled.
>>
>> Anyway, one of the reasons we don't make our own electricity with
>> chemical fuels are that small installations can't benefit from the
>> economy of scale. Large installations with lots of pooled
>> resources can do much better. Another reason is that chemical fuels
>> are heavily taxed for small consumers, which quells any advantage
>> we might gain thereby.
>
> Indeed. We do, however, power our transportation with very tiny
> engines that are very inefficient and are more expensive to operate
> than alternatives.

We had no viable alternative until recently, and chemical fuel _was_
cheap. Granted, BEVs are getting better.

>
> Chemical fuels are not taxed at all for any use other than
> transportation. That is allegedly to pay for roads, but there is no
> direct connection between fuel taxes and money spent on roads.

Depends. In western Europe, automotive fuel is taxed around 70%
of the retail price. That sort-of discourages you from using it
for anything else.

Fuel for other purposes, agriculture, shipping, home heating and
so on is not as heavily taxed. The stuff used to heat homes with
would kill any motor-like contraption in short order. It's vile.

Jeroen Belleman

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:53:18 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2022-09-27 21:19, Ricky wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman
> > wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
> >>>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John
> >>>>> Larkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That's why tanks don't have
> >>>>>> rail guns.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have
> >>>>> electricity. That's very odd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can
> >>>>> find potential solutions?
> >> I don't usually react to Ricky, as I have him killfiled.
> >>
> >> Anyway, one of the reasons we don't make our own electricity with
> >> chemical fuels are that small installations can't benefit from the
> >> economy of scale. Large installations with lots of pooled
> >> resources can do much better. Another reason is that chemical fuels
> >> are heavily taxed for small consumers, which quells any advantage
> >> we might gain thereby.
> >
> > Indeed. We do, however, power our transportation with very tiny
> > engines that are very inefficient and are more expensive to operate
> > than alternatives.
> We had no viable alternative until recently, and chemical fuel _was_
> cheap. Granted, BEVs are getting better.

Yes, ICE vehicles have always been considered better than horses. But only because we've totally ignored the carbon emissions. This is what we do when we have hard choices. We ignore the hard parts and forge ahead.

> > Chemical fuels are not taxed at all for any use other than
> > transportation. That is allegedly to pay for roads, but there is no
> > direct connection between fuel taxes and money spent on roads.
> Depends. In western Europe, automotive fuel is taxed around 70%
> of the retail price. That sort-of discourages you from using it
> for anything else.

Why would you use automotive fuel *for* anything else? The gasoline is the same no matter where it is used. It's just not taxed the same.

> Fuel for other purposes, agriculture, shipping, home heating and
> so on is not as heavily taxed. The stuff used to heat homes with
> would kill any motor-like contraption in short order. It's vile.

You don't seem to understand the issue. You don't need to cheat. The laws allow the use of a fuel for non-road uses without tax.

We could have been using electricity for vehicles for the last two decades. It took someone with vision to see that it was not only practical, but essential. He convinced others to invest and the rest is history. Now, we are well on our way, even if a few need to be dragged along, kicking and screaming.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>
> Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty.

Nonsense; brainstorming is a formal procedure that bypasses
those pesky little impulses. Look it up.

>People who need to be
> always right seldom are.

Are you trying to mock the processes of acquiring expertise?
Why? Experts think that's a doomed-to-fail effort.

On 9/27/2022 6:30 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty.
>
> Nonsense; brainstorming is a formal procedure that bypasses
> those pesky little impulses. Look it up.

People should be free to express *rational* ideas in a brainstorming
session. People with fragile egos and inadequate thought processes
shouldn't be invited to join. Ditto "stuffed shirts" that like all
the i's dotted and t's crossed -- they'll rule ideas out simply
because they're only "half baked" (and they're unable to see beyond
the obvious due to inadequate imaginations)

I recall a guy at an offsite (yes, we took brainstorming seriously
enough that we'd "go away" together) describing how the Space Invaders
game had a *sexual* appeal (!) We were all taken aback by the claim...
until he backed it up.

"Hmmm... is this trivial little game SO successful because it speaks to
some subconscious urge?"

Everyone looks at the world from a different perspective. And,
thus, products/projects. So, for truly *revolutionary* ideas
(no one is interested in *evolutionary* ideas) you let people
"let it all hang out".

"Why do we have to do it THAT way? Why not this OTHER way?"

Accountants need not apply.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 18:30:24 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty.
>
>Nonsense; brainstorming is a formal procedure that bypasses
>those pesky little impulses. Look it up.

Formal procedure? We just do it.

>
>>People who need to be
>> always right seldom are.
>
>Are you trying to mock the processes of acquiring expertise?
>Why? Experts think that's a doomed-to-fail effort.

Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
as not, represses ideas.

A good brainstorm mix is people with different specializations. The
ones not-expert in field X are most likely to have new ideas about X.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 20:24:56 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>On 9/27/2022 6:30 PM, whit3rd wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty.
>>
>> Nonsense; brainstorming is a formal procedure that bypasses
>> those pesky little impulses. Look it up.
>
>People should be free to express *rational* ideas in a brainstorming
>session.

Irrational ideas are at least as valuable. Maybe more so.

They break up the static friction of "in my experience..."

One way to have radical ideas is to accept that jokes are good
contributions to a session.

>People with fragile egos and inadequate thought processes
>shouldn't be invited to join. Ditto "stuffed shirts" that like all
>the i's dotted and t's crossed -- they'll rule ideas out simply
>because they're only "half baked" (and they're unable to see beyond
>the obvious due to inadequate imaginations)

Right. Some people are poisonous. Especially if they are managers or
"senior" engineers.

>
>I recall a guy at an offsite (yes, we took brainstorming seriously
>enough that we'd "go away" together) describing how the Space Invaders
>game had a *sexual* appeal (!) We were all taken aback by the claim...
>until he backed it up.
>
>"Hmmm... is this trivial little game SO successful because it speaks to
>some subconscious urge?"
>
>Everyone looks at the world from a different perspective. And,
>thus, products/projects. So, for truly *revolutionary* ideas
>(no one is interested in *evolutionary* ideas) you let people
>"let it all hang out".

We get along better and design better if we accept that individuals
are very different.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 18:30:24 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> >>People who need to be
> >> always right seldom are.
> >
> >Are you trying to mock the processes of acquiring expertise?
> >Why? Experts think that's a doomed-to-fail effort.

> Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
> as not, represses ideas.

Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
Is that what you call 'represses ideas'?

Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong,
mean... what, exactly? I'm hearing bafflegab.

> A good brainstorm mix is people with different specializations. The
> ones not-expert in field X are most likely to have new ideas about X.

Sure, that seems right. The 'field X' is a kind of limited viewpoint,
like only considering electronic components that are available in
washable surfacemount. Sometimes the limit is good, sometimes not.

Famously, mil-spec component testing regimens were wasteful and tedious,
but didn't die until AFTER they got ridiculous, and COTS became the
buzzword. Imagine boxed small-signal diodes with serial numbers...

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:13:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 18:30:24 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> >>People who need to be
>> >> always right seldom are.
>> >
>> >Are you trying to mock the processes of acquiring expertise?
>> >Why? Experts think that's a doomed-to-fail effort.
>
>> Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
>> as not, represses ideas.
>
>Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
>Is that what you call 'represses ideas'?
>
>Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong,
>mean... what, exactly? I'm hearing bafflegab.
>

You are hearing ideas that you instantly reject. QED.

>
>> A good brainstorm mix is people with different specializations. The
>> ones not-expert in field X are most likely to have new ideas about X.
>
>Sure, that seems right. The 'field X' is a kind of limited viewpoint,
>like only considering electronic components that are available in
>washable surfacemount. Sometimes the limit is good, sometimes not.
>
>Famously, mil-spec component testing regimens were wasteful and tedious,
>but didn't die until AFTER they got ridiculous, and COTS became the
>buzzword. Imagine boxed small-signal diodes with serial numbers...

That were less reliable than stuff from Allied.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:17:13 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:13:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> >> Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
> >> as not, represses ideas.
> >
> >Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
> >Is that what you call 'represses ideas'?
> >
> >Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong,
> >mean... what, exactly? I'm hearing bafflegab.
> >
> You are hearing ideas that you instantly reject. QED.

No, I'm seeing text that describes no coherent thought.

The QED belongs at the end of a stream of logic; no logic seen in
its vicinity, that time.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:51:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:17:13 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:13:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> >> Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
>> >> as not, represses ideas.
>> >
>> >Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
>> >Is that what you call 'represses ideas'?
>> >
>> >Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong,
>> >mean... what, exactly? I'm hearing bafflegab.
>> >
>> You are hearing ideas that you instantly reject. QED.
>
>No, I'm seeing text that describes no coherent thought.

Then think about it.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:38:07 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:51:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:17:13 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:13:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> >> >> Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
> >> >> as not, represses ideas.
> >> >
> >> >Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
> >> >Is that what you call 'represses ideas'?
> >> >
> >> >Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong,
> >> >mean... what, exactly? I'm hearing bafflegab.
> >> >
> >> You are hearing ideas that you instantly reject. QED.
> >
> >No, I'm seeing text that describes no coherent thought.
> Then think about it.

About incoherent text? I did think about it, it's noise overwhelming
any signal content. The 'think about it' response isn't informative, either.