Fidonet Portal






From: The Natural Philosopher (2:221/10)
To: All
Date: Wed, 22.12.21 15:25
Re: E-ink calendar and ToDo list
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>

On 22/12/2021 14:01, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 13:18:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I beg to differ. Everything on the table right now is crazy.
>> I've spent many years analysing it, and the only thing that will
>> actually work, other than a 97% drop in population and a return to the
>> sort oft technology the Greens would understand. Presumably horses whose
>> methane emanations would be forgotten in their sheer organicity... is
>> nuclear power of some sort.
>>
> You're certainly right about population. That seems to be such a bad
> thing to say that its not even whispered about by anybody. Yet, any
> attempt to prevent global warming is doomed to failure without reductions
> in both the humam population and in individual (net) resource consumption.
>

Oh purlease. What 'global warming'?

That stopped 20 years ago before they started 'adjusting' historical
records to bring it back.

The winter I am looking out at with frost on the ground is as bleak as
it was 50 years ago.

High levels of population are a proble'm but not because of lack of
abundant cheap energy, or because of 'global warming

Water is a far more urgent problem.



>> Its abundant, uranium is ubiquitous, cheap and easily stockpiled, and
>> comes already stored. The reactors are well understood known technology,
>> and it transpires that radiation isn't nearly as dangerous as we had
>> been led to believe, and we could easily achieve adequate safety at much
>> lower cost.
>>
> Maybe it can be used, presumably in small factory-produced, reactors
> similar to those used in submarines, but studies I've seen point out that
> in terms of global warming, nukes still produce around 30% of the CO2
> from conventional thermal generation once mining and refining the stuff
> is taken into account:
> Storm van Leeuwen & Smith - http://www.stormsmith.nl/
>

Well its definitely in te renewable lobbies interst to pay for a study
like that.

It is of course nonsense. You need far more concretre per lifetime MWh
generated in a windmill than a nuke


> This also fails to ignore the problem of dealing with fanatics who think
> nuking someone or something would Be A Good Idea.
>
Anyone that stupid cannot build a bomb. They cant even build a bomb
properly out of fertiliser which the IRA were much better at. If - say -
Iran were to manange to deliver a nuke into Israel and set it off, can
you imagine what would happen to Iran?


> I'n not against nuclear, PROVIDED THAT the problems of disposing of the
> radioactive waste from fuel preparation and the radioactive debris from
> decommissioning old plant can be sorted out. To date the solutions have
> mostly been to pile the junk in a corner and hope nobody notices it.

No, all of the solutions that work perfectly well have been opposed by
greens.

The simplest and most obvious and cheapest solution would be to take it
all out to the Marianas and throw it overboard in concrete cans. To join
the 4 BILLION tonnes of uranium in et seas already

uber low level waste is merely landfilled in steel cases that will do te
100 years plus needed.

uber high level is tomorrows nuclear fuel anyway.

Intermediate - the sort of thousand year slightly radioactive and
biological active shit - ceasium and the like - simply needs putting out
of reach for 1000 years.
How old are the pyramids? Stonehenge? I maen really galssifying it and
stuffing it at the bottom of a disused coal mine in a sealed box is fine.

If you want to REALLY scare yourself go and take a geiger counter to
some disused radium/uranium mine in cornwall or dartmoor and exmoor.

hundreds of times worse than a block of internediate waste.

>
>> That doesn't sort out the use of fossil fuels as chemical feedstocks of
>> course, and as the only appropriate energy density energy source to fly
>> transatlantic airliners,
>>
> True enough, do we really need so many transatlantic airliners? Also, I'm
> seeing talk of running ships on Ammonia rather then heavy oil:
>
> NH3 + O2 => N2 + H2O + energy

Well ships of course will be nuclear powered - the weight of the
shielding is not an issue - but ammonia is an interesting one. It would
certainly be a way to replace natural gas to make fertiliser anyway,
which is one of the big non-energy uses of it.

Hydrogen my well be useful as a reducing agent for smelting metals,

But its hard to see anything to beat long chain hydrocarbons for
portable energy use, and its possible that dirt cheap nuclear poweer
would allow reasonable yiled in stynethsis to make it viwable ..

>
> Is ammonia's energy content high enough to run an airliner? Gaseous
> hydrogen's isn't and nor is liquid hydrogen's once to take density/volume/
> container mass into account.
>
The volume gets you with hydrogen, plus safety and containment.

"The energy density of ammonia is 22.5 MJ/kg at HHV, which is about half
of that for typical hydrocarbon fuels but higher than metal hydrides
(Zamfirescu and Dincer, 2008; Züttel et al., 2010). The raw energy
density of liquid ammonia is 11.5 MJ/L, which is higher than the 8.491
MJ/L for liquid hydrogen and the 4.5 MJ/L for compressed H2 at 690 bar
and 15°C1 . Ammonia is a good energy vector for on-board hydrogen
storage (Green, 1982; Klerke et al., 2008; Lan et al., 2012). However,
safety is regarded as the major drawback of using ammonia as the fuel.
Ammonia is toxic but it is detectable by humans in concentrations of
just 1 ppm (Reich et al., 2001). Anhydrous ammonia is lighter than air
then tends to disperse in the atmosphere. NH3 would be as safe as the
use of gasoline as a transportation fuel (Olson and Holbrook, 2007). The
ammonia released from an ammonia tank during a car accident may cause
potential safety problem but this can be solved through the application
of metal amines with low ammonia partial pressure (Klerke et al., 2008).

Compared to hydrogen, ammonia is easier to be transported. It is much
more energy efficient and much lower cost to produce, store, and deliver
hydrogen as NH3 than as compressed and/or cryogenic hydrogen (Figure 1)
(Olson and Holbrook, 2007). The infrastructure for ammonia already
exists while for hydrogen, new fueling stations have to be built, which
is a big investment (Lan et al., 2012)."

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2014.00035/full

The problem is that nitrogen don't oxidise and release energy, it
oxidises and releases nastyShit.™

You really want to reduce CO2 and water and make synthetic hydrocarbon.
Trouble is there is bugger all CO2 in the atmosphere.

So whereas it might be OK in a fuel cell in a car to go with ammonia, it
isnt really going to make a nice pollution free plane ride.

But what may in fact be the answer is bloody damned fast nuclear ships

The larger the ship the less drag at a given speed per unit weight, and
ships - containers and tankers - are conventionally operated to find a
local minimum to the cost equation. Too fast and you burn more fuel per
tonne mile, too slow and your cost of capital per tonne mile increases.

If your fuel cost is peanuts but your cost of capital is high, and
that's the case for a nukey ship, your accountant will tell you to push
it to the maximum speed it can handle, and your engineers will start
talking about lifting it out of the water on hydrofoils, or building an
ekranoplane as well.

If one wants to say, do southampton to new york in a day, before taking
a high speed electric train, that's probably 120-150mph Well within
ekranoplane range, but not sure about hydrofoils. its above the world
record for a hovercraft, but not by much.

A displacement nuclear ship should do it in 2-3 days nuclear subs have
broken 50mph as well

Anyway,. my point is that climate change and renewable energy are all
red herrings, there is no shortage of nuclear fuel and all the problems
in using it for land and sea based installations are eminently soluble.
What there is is a r9ising shortage of affordable fossil fuels.

All the problems with nuclear arise with portable power off grid. And
basic chemical feedstocks. I think the feedstock chemistry is soluble,
but portable off grid power is a real bugger.

You really want carbon based fuels, but without fossil sources, carbon
is in very short supply, and the only means of getting it out of the air
is really using biofuel of some sort - algae and the like. Possible
nuclear illuminated photosynthesis tanks to remove it from the air
might work, but we are already right on the lower limits of CO2 in the
air which allows plants to work efficiently - we really would need CO2
up around 800ppm to get that to be efficient.








--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi - the fidonet nntp junction (2:221/10)

From: Dennis Lee Bieber (2:221/10)
To: All
Date: Wed, 22.12.21 12:18
Re: E-ink calendar and ToDo list
From: Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com>

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 13:42:46 +0100, Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De>
declaimed the following:

>Theo wrote:
>> Like I said, the OP's calendar lives on Google Calendar.
>
>Perhaps I misunderstood, or at least understood differently. For you a
>Google calendar is a calendar maintained for you by Google in their
>cloud. For me it's the calendar app in my phone and provided by Google.

And that phone app typically duplicates appointments in Google's
"cloud" to make them available to other devices that also have Google's
calendar app (actually, some such apps incorporate multiple calendar
provider APIs, allowing syncing across multiple "cloud" calendars).


--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com http://wlfraed.microdiversity.freeddns.org/

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi - the fidonet nntp junction (2:221/10)

From: Axel Berger (2:221/10)
To: All
Date: Wed, 22.12.21 18:25
Re: E-ink calendar and ToDo list
From: Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De>

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> And that phone app typically duplicates appointments in Google's
> "cloud" to make them available to other devices

Typically yes. As with everything it's up to you to set it up right.


--

\ / HTML | Roald-Amundsen-Stra?e 2a Fax: +49/ 221/ 7771 8069

/ \ Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi - the fidonet nntp junction (2:221/10)

From: David Higton (2:221/10)
To: All
Date: Wed, 22.12.21 17:27
Re: E-ink calendar and ToDo list
From: David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk>

In message <spt9f2$9na$1@dont-email.me>
Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:

> using the Rugbk (UK) time signal
>
>I've used Jonathon Buzzard's receiver and Rugby in the past

Just a reminder to everyone that the transmitter in question left
Rugby many years ago and is nowadays in Anthorn, Cumbria. Rather
more central to the British Isles.

Still the same time signal.

David

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi - the fidonet nntp junction (2:221/10)

From: Ahem A Rivet's Shot (2:221/10)
To: All
Date: Wed, 22.12.21 17:49
Re: E-ink calendar and ToDo list
From: Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 13:42:46 +0100
Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> wrote:

> Theo wrote:
> > Like I said, the OP's calendar lives on Google Calendar.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood, or at least understood differently. For you a
> Google calendar is a calendar maintained for you by Google in their
> cloud. For me it's the calendar app in my phone and provided by Google.

It is of course both of these - in the context of displaying it on
a wall mounted device the cloud service seems to be the appropriate
interpretation - running the app may however be part of an implementation.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi - the fidonet nntp junction (2:221/10)

From: Martin Gregorie (2:221/10)
To: All
Date: Wed, 22.12.21 20:27
Re: E-ink calendar and ToDo list
From: Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid>

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 15:25:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> "The energy density of ammonia is 22.5 MJ/kg at HHV, which is about half
> of that for typical hydrocarbon fuels but higher than metal hydrides
> (Zamfirescu and Dincer, 2008; Züttel et al., 2010). The raw energy
> density of liquid ammonia is 11.5 MJ/L, which is higher than the 8.491
> MJ/L for liquid hydrogen and the 4.5 MJ/L for compressed H2 at 690 bar
> and 15°C1 . Ammonia is a good energy vector for on-board hydrogen
> storage (Green, 1982; Klerke et al., 2008; Lan et al., 2012). However,
> safety is regarded as the major drawback of using ammonia as the fuel.
> Ammonia is toxic but it is detectable by humans in concentrations of
> just 1 ppm (Reich et al., 2001). Anhydrous ammonia is lighter than air
> then tends to disperse in the atmosphere. NH3 would be as safe as the
> use of gasoline as a transportation fuel (Olson and Holbrook, 2007). The
> ammonia released from an ammonia tank during a car accident may cause
> potential safety problem but this can be solved through the application
> of metal amines with low ammonia partial pressure (Klerke et al., 2008).
>
> Compared to hydrogen, ammonia is easier to be transported. It is much
> more energy efficient and much lower cost to produce, store, and deliver
> hydrogen as NH3 than as compressed and/or cryogenic hydrogen (Figure 1)
> (Olson and Holbrook, 2007). The infrastructure for ammonia already
> exists while for hydrogen, new fueling stations have to be built, which
> is a big investment (Lan et al., 2012)."
>
> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2014.00035/full
>
> The problem is that nitrogen don't oxidise and release energy, it
> oxidises and releases nastyShit.™
>
> You really want to reduce CO2 and water and make synthetic hydrocarbon.
> Trouble is there is bugger all CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> So whereas it might be OK in a fuel cell in a car to go with ammonia, it
> isnt really going to make a nice pollution free plane ride.
>
> But what may in fact be the answer is bloody damned fast nuclear ships
>
> The larger the ship the less drag at a given speed per unit weight, and
> ships - containers and tankers - are conventionally operated to find a
> local minimum to the cost equation. Too fast and you burn more fuel per
> tonne mile, too slow and your cost of capital per tonne mile increases.
>
> If your fuel cost is peanuts but your cost of capital is high, and
> that's the case for a nukey ship, your accountant will tell you to push
> it to the maximum speed it can handle, and your engineers will start
> talking about lifting it out of the water on hydrofoils, or building an
> ekranoplane as well.
>
> If one wants to say, do southampton to new york in a day, before taking
> a high speed electric train, that's probably 120-150mph Well within
> ekranoplane range, but not sure about hydrofoils. its above the world
> record for a hovercraft, but not by much.
>
> A displacement nuclear ship should do it in 2-3 days nuclear subs have
> broken 50mph as well
>
> Anyway,. my point is that climate change and renewable energy are all
> red herrings, there is no shortage of nuclear fuel and all the problems
> in using it for land and sea based installations are eminently soluble.
> What there is is a r9ising shortage of affordable fossil fuels.
>
> All the problems with nuclear arise with portable power off grid. And
> basic chemical feedstocks. I think the feedstock chemistry is soluble,
> but portable off grid power is a real bugger.
>
> You really want carbon based fuels, but without fossil sources, carbon
> is in very short supply, and the only means of getting it out of the air
> is really using biofuel of some sort - algae and the like. Possible
> nuclear illuminated photosynthesis tanks to remove it from the air
> might work, but we are already right on the lower limits of CO2 in the
> air which allows plants to work efficiently - we really would need CO2
> up around 800ppm to get that to be efficient.

Thanks for the preceeding analysis of ammonia as a general purpose
transport fuel.

I'd not previously heard anything about it, pro or con, until a piece on
Radio 4 mentioned it as a likely minimally polluting fuel for container ships,
so it seemed logical to consider if ot would also work for aircraft: the
answer seems to be 'yes'.

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi - the fidonet nntp junction (2:221/10)

From: The Natural Philosopher (2:221/10)
To: All
Date: Thu, 23.12.21 09:49
Re: E-ink calendar and ToDo list
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>

On 22/12/2021 20:27, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 15:25:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> "The energy density of ammonia is 22.5 MJ/kg at HHV, which is about half
>> of that for typical hydrocarbon fuels but higher than metal hydrides
>> (Zamfirescu and Dincer, 2008; Züttel et al., 2010). The raw energy
>> density of liquid ammonia is 11.5 MJ/L, which is higher than the 8.491
>> MJ/L for liquid hydrogen and the 4.5 MJ/L for compressed H2 at 690 bar
>> and 15°C1 . Ammonia is a good energy vector for on-board hydrogen
>> storage (Green, 1982; Klerke et al., 2008; Lan et al., 2012). However,
>> safety is regarded as the major drawback of using ammonia as the fuel.
>> Ammonia is toxic but it is detectable by humans in concentrations of
>> just 1 ppm (Reich et al., 2001). Anhydrous ammonia is lighter than air
>> then tends to disperse in the atmosphere. NH3 would be as safe as the
>> use of gasoline as a transportation fuel (Olson and Holbrook, 2007). The
>> ammonia released from an ammonia tank during a car accident may cause
>> potential safety problem but this can be solved through the application
>> of metal amines with low ammonia partial pressure (Klerke et al., 2008).
>>
>> Compared to hydrogen, ammonia is easier to be transported. It is much
>> more energy efficient and much lower cost to produce, store, and deliver
>> hydrogen as NH3 than as compressed and/or cryogenic hydrogen (Figure 1)
>> (Olson and Holbrook, 2007). The infrastructure for ammonia already
>> exists while for hydrogen, new fueling stations have to be built, which
>> is a big investment (Lan et al., 2012)."
>>
>> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2014.00035/full
>>
>> The problem is that nitrogen don't oxidise and release energy, it
>> oxidises and releases nastyShit.™
>>
>> You really want to reduce CO2 and water and make synthetic hydrocarbon.
>> Trouble is there is bugger all CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>
>> So whereas it might be OK in a fuel cell in a car to go with ammonia, it
>> isnt really going to make a nice pollution free plane ride.
>>
>> But what may in fact be the answer is bloody damned fast nuclear ships
>>
>> The larger the ship the less drag at a given speed per unit weight, and
>> ships - containers and tankers - are conventionally operated to find a
>> local minimum to the cost equation. Too fast and you burn more fuel per
>> tonne mile, too slow and your cost of capital per tonne mile increases.
>>
>> If your fuel cost is peanuts but your cost of capital is high, and
>> that's the case for a nukey ship, your accountant will tell you to push
>> it to the maximum speed it can handle, and your engineers will start
>> talking about lifting it out of the water on hydrofoils, or building an
>> ekranoplane as well.
>>
>> If one wants to say, do southampton to new york in a day, before taking
>> a high speed electric train, that's probably 120-150mph Well within
>> ekranoplane range, but not sure about hydrofoils. its above the world
>> record for a hovercraft, but not by much.
>>
>> A displacement nuclear ship should do it in 2-3 days nuclear subs have
>> broken 50mph as well
>>
>> Anyway,. my point is that climate change and renewable energy are all
>> red herrings, there is no shortage of nuclear fuel and all the problems
>> in using it for land and sea based installations are eminently soluble.
>> What there is is a r9ising shortage of affordable fossil fuels.
>>
>> All the problems with nuclear arise with portable power off grid. And
>> basic chemical feedstocks. I think the feedstock chemistry is soluble,
>> but portable off grid power is a real bugger.
>>
>> You really want carbon based fuels, but without fossil sources, carbon
>> is in very short supply, and the only means of getting it out of the air
>> is really using biofuel of some sort - algae and the like. Possible
>> nuclear illuminated photosynthesis tanks to remove it from the air
>> might work, but we are already right on the lower limits of CO2 in the
>> air which allows plants to work efficiently - we really would need CO2
>> up around 800ppm to get that to be efficient.
>
> Thanks for the preceeding analysis of ammonia as a general purpose
> transport fuel.
>
> I'd not previously heard anything about it, pro or con, until a piece on
> Radio 4 mentioned it as a likely minimally polluting fuel for container
ships,
> so it seemed logical to consider if ot would also work for aircraft: the
> answer seems to be 'yes'.
>
Well, i did consider that, but then looked again

Energy density is OK, but what sort of engine will run it?

Now they were talking about fuel cells, and fuel
cells=>electricity=>electric motors=> ducted fans or propellors is not
massively efficient at higher powers and its all a bit heavy.

And that s as I see it the issue with ammonia. Its got the energy
density and its easy to synthesise and it doesn't need scarce carbon
dioxide to make it and it can use atmospheric oxygen to create power so
that doesn't need to be carried by the plane.

BUT if you run it in a fuel cell its gonna be heavy and inefficient, and
if you throw it in to burn in a gas turbine, well the chances of NOx
production are fairly high.

Its already a concern in jet engines, and with nitrogen in the fuel
itself you are going to have to smack a lot more nitrogen through the
engine for a given power level

There are no easy answers or we would already be using them.

As I said, for ships - large ones - the obvious answer is small lifetime
fuelled sealed nuclear reactors.

For aircraft? Ive not been able to construct a realistic scenario for >
1 hour duration other than hydrocarbon fuel. Just possibly lithium air
batteries.

As far as Radio 4 goes, well I grew up with the home service but I don't
listen any more.

The world they seem to live in is like a distant roseate childhood
dream. It has no relation to the reality of my life in the real world of
technology.


>
>


--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi - the fidonet nntp junction (2:221/10)

From: Giangi72 (2:221/10)
To: All
Date: Mon, 03.01.22 15:51
Re: E-ink calendar and ToDo list
From: Giangi72 <invalid@invalid.net>

Il 22/12/2021 13:42, Axel Berger ha scritto:
> Theo wrote:
>> Like I said, the OP's calendar lives on Google Calendar.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood, or at least understood differently. For you a
> Google calendar is a calendar maintained for you by Google in their
> cloud. For me it's the calendar app in my phone and provided by Google.

Sorry, probably my fault, I mean the google calendar on the cloud.
In fact while waiting for the ordered ESP32 to arrive I already created
a web service reading from my google calendar (+ public holiday
calendar) and returning a json with some informations for each event:
summary, starting and ending date.
Thanks everyone for the help and suggestions
Giangi

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi - the fidonet nntp junction (2:221/10)

ABOUT

This forum contains echomail areas hosted on Nightmare BBS You can browse local echomail areas, italian fidonet areas and a selection of international fidonet areas, reading messages posted by users in Nightmare BBS or even other BBSs all over the world. You can find file areas too (functional to fidonet technology). You can browse echomail areas and download files with no registration, but if you want to write messages in echomail areas, or use fidonet netmail (private messages with fidomet technology), you have to register. Only a minimal set of data is required, functional to echomail and netmail usage (name, password, email); a registration and login with facebook is provided too, to allow easy registration. If you won't follow rules (each echomail areas has its own, regularly posted in the echomail), your account may be suspended;

CONTACT