You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
This topic is available for direct communication with Spaniard.
It is also available for NewMars members to point to particularly interesting posts by Spaniard.
I'll open with this one:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 45#p220545
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re contributions to the Forum since 2008 or so ...
Thank you for making the effort to exercise your English! We all benefit from your investment.
We are fortunate to hear from Quaoar from time to time. As you probably know he is a retired doctor who lives in Italy. He has written science fiction novels and may still be writing.
Your posts give me the impression you would appreciate the book I showed on the forum a while back. It was published by the Cato Institute, which is so far to the right of even our rightmost members, and they are looking centrist by comparison.
The book I'm referring to supports (what I understand to be) your position on the power of human ingenuity to overcome any obstacles that appear to block the road toward prosperity.
Here is one post in which I refer to the book I have:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 78#p213878
Here is a post in which I report arrival of the book:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 72#p203372
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re 89 posts ...
It is usually impossible (or impractical) to review all the posts a member might have made, but in your case I was able to scan all 89 ...
You've been interacting with folks who are still here, and with a number (such as Louis and Tom Kalbus) who are not.
You started out with some interesting ideas about the Moon, and have explored quite a range of topics since then.
I'd like to remind you that we (Admins) are open to the idea of setting up our Google Meetings at a more convenient time than midnight UTC, if one of our European members were to wish to meet others via an online session.
Right now we have a four hour time difference, so 7 PM your time would be 3 PM in New Hampshire or 2 PM in Houston.
I cracked open my copy of the CATO Institute book today, more or less at random, and found this:
This is from the opening of Chapter 7:...
The cavemen had the same natural resources at their disposal as we have today, and the difference between their standard of living and ours is the difference between the knowledge they could bring to bear on those resources and the knowledge used today. Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions(1)
It seems to me the points of view you have taken recently are somewhat sympathetic to Mr. Sowell's sentiment.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Hi!
I have an RSS "Livemarks" add-on for firefox (to replace the old scrapped functionality), to see the last forum posts titles in my browser. But it's just a few one. Like fifteen, and I checked it from time to time, so it's easy I miss interesting posts.
In any case, as you will see, I was in "sleep mode" (mostly only read from time to time) for a long time, with very few posts here and there.
The only reason of my recent high activity is because the thread about energy. I hope it isn't going too far.
It's just... it's a matter where I have debated for years, and because it has so important implications, I think it's very important to say it multiple times for people to get some ideas and spread them.
In fact, if you read my old posts, you will find the ideas about massive IRSU. The idea of the need of more and more resources, or fuel, as the colony is farther from Earth, or more physical things like the rocket equation, its very close to the idea than a energy source that feeds from itself uses more and more energy. The concept of EROEI becoming close to 1.
That's the reason I saw IRSU will be a must to make it a viable and massive space program. Similar reasoning behind.
Speaking about that, we should check soon about the idea of a mainly robotic-only colony on the Moon, if the recent advancements on AI make it cheaper.
Anyway. Thanks for the greeting, although I guess I will return to my "sleep mode" soon.
Offline
Like button can go here
I cracked open my copy of the CATO Institute book today, more or less at random, and found this:
This is from the opening of Chapter 7:...
The cavemen had the same natural resources at their disposal as we have today, and the difference between their standard of living and ours is the difference between the knowledge they could bring to bear on those resources and the knowledge used today. Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions(1)
It seems to me the points of view you have taken recently are somewhat sympathetic to Mr. Sowell's sentiment.
(th)
I don't know Mr. Sowell ideas, but I can agree without problems with that sentence.
Specially when I hear someone "We are doomed because we lack resources".
When I'm a little sarcastic I said something like
"Man... You are over a planet with septillions kilograms of mass, under the sunlight that provides more than a hundred petawatts of energy. Maybe we are using the wrong elements, or the wrong technology. Maybe we are too dumb to use the resources right. BUT WE DEFINITELY DON'T LACK RESOURCES".
About CATO Institute, I know they are pretty much a liberal lobby.
Personally I'm not a market fanatic, the kind about "any market intervention will ALWAYS things worse".
I think the market (besides have significant flaws in certain circumstances) it's a lot more reactive (when the problems arises) than proactive (before the problems arises). Private investment exists, of course, but there are a lot of ideas that generate more benefit to society than to the investors, so that kind of work is very difficult to be funded by the market.
In that sense, I think the state policies can have a significant impact pushing the market in the right or wrong direction, forcing proactive politics. Also punish business against transfer costs to others (like waste).
But on other side, market does a wonderful job finding the real cost of real implementation of a working process.
In that sense, I think the state shouldn't try to replace the market. No matter how much we try to predict the future, the risk of error is high, and paper projections could be shattered easily against the reality.
I think it's a lot better just general pushing here and there, through incentives and taxation, with a constant inspecting over the data and projections and leave the market to solve the internal details of the problems, with gradual and constantly revised plans.
So... I guess I'm very afar from CATO ideas.
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re #6
Thank you for your thoughtful response to Mr. Sowell's quote. Mr. Sowell himself is associated with the Hoover Institute, which is another right wing organization. The CATO Institute is NOT a liberal organization, although I have seen it characterized as libertarian.
Here is a snippet from it's web site:
Cato Institute | Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace
www.cato.org
Promoting an American public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peaceful international relations.
Here's a snippet from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute
Cato Institute - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Cato_Institute
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch ...
Cato's Letters · Ed Crane (politician) · Robert A. Levy · David Boaz
However, in this topic, depending upon your interests and how much time you have, we have an opportunity to focus on Spain. I've not had the opportunity to visit, but Dr. GW Johnson wrote me recently about his experiences in Spain. He attended a conference there. He gave a paper at one of them. The topic was planetary defense.
I have wanted to read Don Quixote since reading about it, but never found (or made) the time.
You have the distinct advantage of being able to read Cervante's work in the original language.
Don Quixote - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Don_Quixote
Don Quixote is a Spanish epic novel by Miguel de Cervantes. It was originally published in two parts, in 1605 and 1615. Considered a founding work of ...
List of Don Quixote characters · Don Quixote (disambiguation) · Don Quixote (opera)
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re Apache Internal Server Error ...
Sooner or later this bug bites all of us ...
Several of us have spent some time trying to isolate the problem.
In some cases I have found that a single word can cause the error....
I noticed your observation about longer posts.... kbd512 is not the best example to follow ... longer posts are NOT ideal, from the perspective of the reader. If you are thinking only of kbd512, then obviously he is fine with long posts, because he creates so many of them.
However, if you want anyone else to actually read your posts, please consider keeping them short.
And I understand you have attempted to deal with one of kbd512's long posts, in composing your reply.
Something to consider is the role of the Moderator ... kbd512 is a Junior Administrator, which is a step above a Moderator. It is possible that a moderator might wish to stimulate members to argue instead of actually achieving a useful result. Please consider if you are being lulled into argument, which will produce nothing useful.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
tahanson43206,
Spaniard should feel free to use as many 1s and 0s as he requires to convey his complete thoughts. The written word has to be expressive to convey meaning and intent. If a topic requires more in-depth explanation to convey complete thoughts, rather than bits and pieces of ideas, then it does.
As far as my response to him are concerned, I want to understand if he understands how orders of magnitude (power laws) and percentages relate to one another.
If you become 50% more efficient at using energy, but your new energy source(s) require 100X to 1,000X greater mass of materials, and therefore energy input to create or transform those materials into working energy generating or consuming machines, then whether or not that is sustainable depends entirely on whether or not you have enough of those materials and enough energy to complete the transformation.
The simple answer is that it's not remotely practical to do. It may be technically feasible by the loosest definition of that term, but if the end result is that most of your materials and energy are consumed by the ravenous appetite of your new energy generating and consuming machines, then you end up with fewer and fewer material and energy resources for all other possible use cases. You're turning your economy into solar panels and batteries because you don't know what the broken window fallacy is, as it relates to economics.
The broken window fallacy illustrates why breaking all the windows in the city is not how you deal with the problem of not having enough glass workers. It's not an economics solution, it's a failure to understand that all the energy, labor, and capital expended to make new glass to replace all the windows you just broke, doesn't translate into more economic prosperity. Your glass makers may see a massive temporary boost in glass sales, but what about the energy and materials to make food or expand medical access? If you spend all your money replacing broken glass, then you're not spending it on anything else.
It's an irrefutable and quantifiable fact that the energy received from the Sun is greater than the energy received or produced by all other sources used by humanity, by quite a lot. As nice as that factoid is to know, unless we cover the entire surface of the Earth with solar panels, there must be some practical limit as to how much we can harness, implying some limit to how much of the land and sea we're willing to turn into a giant photovoltaics farm. Since the energy to make enough panels to cover the Earth does not presently come from existing solar panels, and does in fact come almost entirely from coal and gas, if the end goal is to actually reduce CO2 emissions, then at some point whatever technology we use to do that, actually has to lead to that outcome. If the only answer to how much you should invest is "more", then you fail to grasp that not everything about our economy can be another solar panel. At some point, we need energy and materials for food, water, medicine, clothing, and shelter.
Switching to a source of energy like natural gas, with twice the energy density of coal, per kilo or metric ton of CO2 generated, doesn't imply less burning of burnable fuel, especially when the CO2 emissions levels from burning natural gas are rising to the same level they previously were when we were burning more coal. It does mean we're consuming twice as much energy as we received from coal.
I'm left wondering how long Spaniard thinks we can keep doing that, given that renewable energy generating capacity is not keeping up with the rate of increase in our demand for more energy. Sooner or later, something has to give. I'm guessing it will be the supply of energy and materials to keep creating more renewable energy machines. It's not arguing for sake of arguing. I actually want to understand why this makes sense to anyone. Is it because they want to believe it, or do they truly believe that they're seeing the opposite of what's actually happening?
You are free to believe that nothing useful will come of this discussion. I would like to know if other people can at least conceptualize what I see, even if they want to ignore it because it runs afoul of their beliefs, and at what point will it become so obvious to them that what we're presently doing is not working as intended, because the plan is based upon deeply flawed assumptions about efficiency improvements, energy usage, and where all of the materials come from.
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard ...
Thanks for working to make your posts valuable to readers who are not directly involved in the discussion, but who find the back-and-forth intensely interesting and helpful.
You have created one topic long ago, but it didn't catch fire. You seem to be engaged now in a discussion that has potential to grow, as more facts become known, and as the "invisible hand" of countless individual decisions creates the flows reported in market reports.
Can I interest you in creating a topic that is closer to your interests and long term objectives?
It seems highly likely to me that it is possible to make solar panels using nothing but solar energy for input.
Is that a goal you would find worth pursuing?
Are you in a position to make something happen along those lines?
Nature has filled the Earth's surface and much of the ocean with life forms, using nothing but solar energy as input.
Are humans incapable of doing the same? Perhaps! Perhaps not.
What humans ** have ** demonstrated is the ability to live well on the yolk of the egg Nature laid up for us.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
It seems highly likely to me that it is possible to make solar panels using nothing but solar energy for input.
Is that a goal you would find worth pursuing?
You must consider that if you use a source of energy that can't control the input, then the difference between the input profile and the output profile becomes too great.
It can be done, but it's a lot more expensive than a mixed combination.
One of the reasons is because solar+wind has a better match to our demand curve than any of them alone.
Also, they have a lot of times where if they lack one you have more than the other (anticyclons usually reduce wind but increase solar, while storms increases wind and decreases solar).
Still, it's not a perfect match, so other techniques and technologies are suited for different profiles of offer-demand coordination.
For example, the classic duck-curve of solar is better suited to be matched via batteries as it's a very frequently circumstance and the storage required is way below a day. (Still needs lower prices for batteries, but the goal of 50$ per kwh for sodium ion seems a LCOE of cycled kwh good enough).
The small variations and clear differences between seasons are better mitigated through some levels of curtailment with the participation of new consumers designed for very low fixed costs that can operate a small numbers of hours per year to reduce the costs of the energy generated over the unregulated demand.
While very low generation days, the infamous dunkelflaute can be solved via some generation backup through fuel and demand management.
For example you can pay to some industries that accept the accord, of being disconnected when the generation is extremely low.
That comes from the circumstance that if the number of hours per year is very low, is a lot cheaper to adapt an industry to turn of for some days per year, than pay the equivalent storage just to be used a very low number of days.
It's the smart and big equivalent to an offgrid model where the consumer adapts to the availability of energy to certain extend, to reduce the requirements on the storage.
It's not that you can't build the storage. But reduce the consumption is just cheaper if it's a small number of times per year.
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard...
I have no way of knowing your background or interests, other than the posts of your's I've seen from recently, or earlier when I went looking.
It seems to me you have deflected my offer of an opportunity to design a facility to make solar panels using nothing but solar energy.
It appears that you want to have more than just solar energy, so I'll enlarge the scope of the input to any and all renewable sources.
The argument you seem to be having with others here on the forum could lead to a productive outcome if you can (with others of course) design and build a facility that makes solar panels using nothing but renewable energy as input.
At the moment, you would not win the argument, because your correspondents would rightly say that all solar panels in existence have been made using fossil fuel as the energy source.
There are some innovative people in Spain. If memory serves, the first successful mirror tower was designed, built and operated in Spain.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re business development using renewable energy ....
Your conversations/discussions/arguments with other members of the forum suggest you may have some understanding of business operations.
The forum includes members with actual business experience, but there aren't many who've revealed their backgrounds, and in any case, I get the impression their experiences were far in the past.
You may have the opportunity to collect and to inspire investors willing to accept the patient path that an all renewable industry would require.
If you search the writings of both Calliban and kbd512, you will find several (perhaps even many) examples of clearly written descriptions of what an all renewable industry might look like.
It will take someone with business talents to turn these interesting ideas into reality. The Universe is offering a near infinite amount of energy for humans to exploit, starting with our own Sun, which booms out massive amounts of energy of which humans collect only the tiniest sliver. Even the Earth itself over millions of years has only collected a slice of that output.
All the claims of gloom and doom you find in the forum archives are reflections of human failure to capture the enormous outpouring of energy from the Sun, let alone all the other sources of stored energy the Universe has laid up for us.
The Universe has been creating elements for us over billions of years, and it appears that element creation is still going on, although perhaps at a slightly slower pace than in earlier times.
If you are so inspired, and if you have the needed talents, you may be able to create an industry able to harness solar power and produce all the goods and services currently provided by fossil fuel.
Fossil fuels represent the yolk of an egg the Universe has laid up for us to give us a running start on living comfortably.
It is time for us humans to begin the transition to living on the flow from the Sun and other similarly untapped resources.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re testing of clone and possible new forums...
It would be helpful to the Admins if you might be able to spare some time to help with evaluation of the phpBB3 software, and with finding remaining bugs in the updated clone of FluxBB.
If you want to help to evaluate the phpBB3 package, you can request an id there by writing to newmarsmember@gmail.com. That email is checked every day.
If you would be willing to help find bugs in the clone, you can log in using your existing credentials.
The information about how to log in is available in dedicated topics for the clone and for phpBB3.
If you have questions at any time, or if you find a bug, please post in the related topic.
(th
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re fascinating ideas about a possible calendar for Mars.
The Calendar you see here has been in operation for two full Martian years.
It has proven flawless. It is possible you were overwhelmed by all the trials and errors that predated the inspired work of Senior Moderator RobertDyck.
I am happy to be rolling out the calendar each day because it has proven so incredibly robust.
It is far superior to the Earth Calendar.
The Business Calendar for Mars has 24 months. All months are 28 days except for quarter ends. The Calendar is synchronized with the Astronomical calendar at midnight of New Year's Eve.
Is there something that could be superior to this elegant design?
If you take the time to follow along with the daily reports, you will discover how elegant the design has proven to be.
Is there a need for further improvements?
You are welcome to offer suggestions for improvements after you have thoroughly studied the existing structure.
Update: Spaniard, you have an opportunity to help us here...
You have returned after an absence, and therefore represent a lot of folks who might return to the forum.
What could we have done to help you to understand the Business Calendar for Mars quickly and without discomfort?
It seems that you have gone to a lot of trouble to design another calendar, without being able to understand the elegant simplicity of the one we have.
Could we add something to the daily report to help?
(th) Junior Moderator
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re fascinating ideas about a possible calendar for Mars.
The Calendar you see here has been in operation for two full Martian years.
I'm sorry tahanson43206 but the thread is so long and full of things that I was unable to understand anything.
Offline
Like button can go here
The Business Calendar for Mars has 24 months. All months are 28 days except for quarter ends. The Calendar is synchronized with the Astronomical calendar at midnight of New Year's Eve.
Well... We have a problem here. Maybe I'm in the wrong, but...
First... a martian day, I understand should be aligned to the sun from the perspective of Mars.
A Mars year have 686 Earth days, but have only 668 sols or martian days. Your proposition have more days than that.
I think a Earth day is of little usage on Mars.
You have aligned your calendar to Earth days! Or I have miscalculated something.
Maybe you have synced Mars to a different reference. But I synced my calendar to Mars days (like in Earth, you will see the sun at the top at midday), and against seasons.
For the population on Mars, I think to don't do that kill the purpose of a local calendar. They will have interest on having season synchronization and sun synchronization. At least that's what I believe.
If you think your calendar do that too, and it's just a miscalculation, we can check the numbers again.
But it would be probably better to do that in the proper thread.
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re a calendar for Mars....
The calendar you see here each day has been in operation for four Earth years and two full Mars years. It has been scrubbed thoroughly.
However, this forum is set up to encourage everyone to achieve whatever they are capable of.
If you think you have a better idea for a calendar, you are welcome to create a topic and then fill that topic each day for four years, to see how well your design works.
Alternatively, you can take the time to actually study the design created by RobertDyck a number of years ago.
The design is laid out in detail in a post #82 of the Holidays topic. Here is the link:
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 57#p154257
I am hoping you will take the time to help me help other visitors who take a look at the Calendar.
It has been my privilege to post the calendar for at least four Earth years, and I have become so close to it I cannot see what you are seeing.
Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.
But before you can provide assistance, you need to invest the time to understand the calendar.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re a calendar for Mars....
The calendar you see here each day has been in operation for four Earth years and two full Mars years. It has been scrubbed thoroughly.
However, this forum is set up to encourage everyone to achieve whatever they are capable of.
If you think you have a better idea for a calendar, you are welcome to create a topic and then fill that topic each day for four years, to see how well your design works.
Alternatively, you can take the time to actually study the design created by RobertDyck a number of years ago.
The design is laid out in detail in a post #82 of the Holidays topic. Here is the link:
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 57#p154257I am hoping you will take the time to help me help other visitors who take a look at the Calendar.
It has been my privilege to post the calendar for at least four Earth years, and I have become so close to it I cannot see what you are seeing.
Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.
But before you can provide assistance, you need to invest the time to understand the calendar.
(th)
The thread is so long that it's difficult to read.
Anyway... I already understand where is the difference in days. You SUBSTRACT in quarters, instead of adding.
So you pushed upwards and remove days instead of going down (like in my calculation) and adding the remaining days.
Well... it's a different method, I guess.
I still haven't found (if you discussed that part) how your proposal counts the hours minutes seconds (or similar units) for a day on Mars.
Offline
Like button can go here
Of course, instead of my idea of the concept of the Chrono-gap, also think as an alternative to go plain
So the time goes upward beyond 24hours
After 23:59:59 goes 24:00:00
And continues until the length of a Martian day.
Up to 24:39:34 ... and then jump to 00:00:00
Equally valid, of course.
Also the thing of just readjust and invent the concept of "Martian second" slightly different from the second we know.
But that I dropped because a second has a physical description based on cesium decay. So I dislike to do that and I fixed the second by definition.
About the 24:39:34 and the chrono-gap, I choose the later because I think it's bad to make the idea of "an hour has 60 minutes except the 24 hour. And a minute is 60 except the 39 minute of the 24 hour.
Yes... I understand that it's not exactly that. But I though that move that minutes from the 24 hour to a special nomenclature could be more clear.
Anyway... if the option chosen is the 24:39:34 format (I don't know. I didn't find it in the thread.) so I guess it also works.
Last edited by Spaniard (2025-02-22 15:17:05)
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re #19
Thank you for providing more detail.
I think I can see an opportunity to provide some feedback for your analysis....
The length of a second on Mars is NOT fixed by humans. I think that is a possible source of confusion?
A second on Mars is determined by the rotation of the planet itself.
Long ago humans (astronomers) decided to call the rotation of Mars a Sol.
They divided the Sol into 24 hours, the hours into 60 minutes, and the minutes into 60 seconds.
Thus the seconds are unique to Mars, just as the second was historically determined by the revolution of the Earth.
There may be a reason to measure an interval of time and call it a second, even if it differs from any other measure of time that is also called a "second".
Please keep in mind that a second on Earth depends in duration on the elevation of the clock with respect to the gravitational field of Earth.
To be specific, a clock runs slower at ground level on Earth than it does on a mountain on Earth.
I think if you can accept Mars having it's own second, everything falls beautifully into place.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re #19
Thank you for providing more detail.
I think I can see an opportunity to provide some feedback for your analysis....
The length of a second on Mars is NOT fixed by humans. I think that is a possible source of confusion?
A second on Mars is determined by the rotation of the planet itself.
Long ago humans (astronomers) decided to call the rotation of Mars a Sol.
They divided the Sol into 24 hours, the hours into 60 minutes, and the minutes into 60 seconds.
And THAT WAS A MISTAKE, that it was fixed later.
You see, it's true that the units of measurement are just conventions, chosen by humans.
BUT, using a living physical reference is a terrible idea, as that physical reference can change over time AND have multiple units of reference make us doing lots of conversions that are prone to errors.
We have failed missions because that unit conversions. So NOT a trivial thing.
AT FIRST, yes, the definition of a second was that. BUT... what happen if the speed of rotation of Earth changes.
Well... not need to imagine it, as IT DOES. As the Moon get farther away slowly, it also decreases the speed rotation. Yes... it's just a tiny bit... but when extreme precision is needed, that difference ruin the calculus.
Do you imagine people trying to make sense to a century calculus, because the units of measurement changed in that time?
That's the reason was redefined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
The second [...] is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency, ΔνCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1.[1]
Yes... Of course, that arbitrary number was created to match the same time than the old definition of "a unit of time derived from the division of the day first into 24 hours, then to 60 minutes and finally to 60 seconds each (24 × 60 × 60 = 86400)".
That way we didn't have to put every calculus in the trash and redo everything. The old and the new one is the same... for now.
But the thing is... as the Earth rotation become slower, the definition of the second on the International System of Units WON'T CHANGE ANYMORE. It will change the seconds per day, increasing in seconds (fractions or whatever).
And the unit remain stable across time and space.
Second is related with the rest of the units. Speed. space/time. Power. Energy/time and so on.
If you change your definition of second... all the calculus change. if Mars where stars away and communication with Earth were anecdotal, I guess it wouldn't be so important if we had local calculus of everything with own measurement units. Although be ready to change EVERYTHING (like things as time of elements decay of the isotopes for example).
But as Mars and Earth will share a close relationship, having too different measurements systems is just a call for unit conversion errors, as you need to change from "Mars seconds" into ITU seconds (so Earth seconds) EVERY TIME.
It's just a big hassle to do that.
That's the reason I proposed that for scientific purposes, just use a timestamp. A simple big counter. Computers can do "unlimited integers" without problems. And float of arbitrary precision too.
And the date is just a transposition of the timestamp, being that only for human displays as big numbers are difficult to interpret and use directly by humans. Yes... this formula timestamp <-> local date can be rather complex, but it's just a formula, used for human interaction. Internally all values would be converted to timestamp and operated with simplicity.
So for scientific and engineering purposes, that date is not used and not having unnecessary precision errors.
Yes, of course, you can have a local date in invented units, convert it to a timestamp in ITU units and do that from that, but that will induce human mistakes as doing calculus manually will force people to remember that you can't use your local seconds mixed with ITU units. Computers can do fine, but people will stop doing anything manually or it will unnecessarily complex.
I thing is just easier to adapt to more "weird clocks" but using standardized units of time, not "local seconds" that are very easy to be confused with another unit of the same name.
That's the reason using a different second, one of the seven basic units of measurement of the physical model is a very bad idea.
IMHO, of course.
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re interesting conversation with Calliban ...
I note that in Post #21 above, you made a spirited defense of our concept of time. Let's not continue that. Your position is clear.
***
This post is to thank you for the work you put into the recent series with Calliban on how energy will be collected or generated and distributed in the years to come, if humans can avoid obliterating themselves.
Is projection of energy flows in coming decades something you'd like to work on? I have no way of knowing how much of the work of others you have time to read. Void is a contributor who creates topics and then develops them for extended periods of time. Void has learned how to use drawing tools and image storage services to make interesting posts that are often worth a busy human taking the time to read.
If you would like to use this forum as a staging area for an article you might write for a major publication, your work here would be of interest to some and (no doubt) irritating to others.
If you would like to work on something in the Real Universe, you can see Calliban's work as an example. You can select a project, let us know what you intend, and then show us your progress (including the occasional setback).
Follow up: I asked User List to show me your many posts, and was surprised to find this innovative idea in 2008:
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 84#p107884
You have (apparently) been provoking NewMars members since your first day.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
This post is to thank you for the work you put into the recent series with Calliban on how energy will be collected or generated and distributed in the years to come, if humans can avoid obliterating themselves.
Is projection of energy flows in coming decades something you'd like to work on? I have no way of knowing how much of the work of others you have time to read. Void is a contributor who creates topics and then develops them for extended periods of time. Void has learned how to use drawing tools and image storage services to make interesting posts that are often worth a busy human taking the time to read.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
From my perspective, in this forum, commenters about energy are fixed on showing the present and future from the perspective of physics, not economics.
Our world moves on economics, and economics exposes a lot more info than physics, which is different from place to place.
Every technology, every step can be done in multiple ways. At the same time, each way of working is constantly audited to search for possible improvements.
That's the reason all those physics variables involved are constantly changing, and trying to project the low level to the general values of the whole system is an error. Also, assuming a fixed technology, like how much glass is in a panel (different kinds of glass allow a thinner layer, for example, new perovskite layers help to reduce the polysilicon involved, etc.).
Because of that, analysis at the physical level is prone to errors — too many variables, always changing.
And that's the reason the market usually uses high-level projections. Kind of "every X% increase of power, price gets reduced in Y%."
That reduction is not magical. It represent minor improvements in the production chain. It's a real improvement in the real world. Just it's unpredictable which specific improvement will be.
Of course, real limits exist, and if an unsolvable problem is reached, those projections can be hollow promises. Not only for physical reasons. Also lots of human problems like wars, geopolitical shifts — whatever changes the direction of projections.
The market adapts. New projections are considered and money shifts from one kind of solution to another.
And that's how the real world is driven — using money as a unit of measurement of where we should invest our money.
If PV is the cheapest form of energy, investors are gonna put their money on it.
Of course, it is not so simple. PV has some characteristics and other forms of energy have others. The price you can sell that energy for depends on the network, on the generation pattern of the electric network, on your demand requirements.
That's the reason why you can't forget things like storage, and all of that. And because of the large number of variables involved, there is so much discussion and so many different bets from different investors in different ways of energy.
In summary, when you say "Is projection of energy flows in coming decades something you'd like to work on?" I can tell you my way of thinking is market-driven, like most people work in the real world.
People that use physics trying to understand the market are prone to fail in their predictions. Malthusianism has made those kinds of projections over and over in history, always failing.
It's not about discussing each data point. For example, now kbd512 is insisting again on getting costly prices of current installations (before a true scale economy for stationary storage is established) and projecting them into the future.
While he talks about $300K/MWh with cobalt, current stations are LFP without cobalt, while CATL presented some months ago the Naxtra battery with price future projections of $10/kWh → $10K/MWh based on sodium with a 10,000 cycle life, better than my own assumptions. I ignore the exact composition, but I doubt it will include cobalt if they really think it's gonna match that price.
Sodium based on Prussian white uses all abundant elements, if I remember correctly.
They are different things. A network battery includes a lot more infrastructure than just cells. Even his $300/kWh (which is already higher than current projects in construction), the cells are probably in the range of $130–90.
The other costs require their own improvements, both technological and scale. But it's expected it will happen.
Do you think that this argument is gonna convince him? No. I argued about this in the past, and old arguments are gonna be repeated again and again.
It's a complete waste of time.
It's all based on linear projections assuming a fixed and unadaptable market. That's not gonna happen. People working on that are not wasting time, and know more about their field than people outside it.
Even if this forum had the smartest people on Earth, they wouldn't be able to predict what kind of changes will come that will help every step of technology or every breakthrough that will happen, for a simple reason:
We lack information. Even current information is spread and closed inside each field. Companies don't share their secret sauce until they gain something or they are ready to sell it. And some information is just waiting for us to discover it in the future.
So any prediction is full of unknowns. You can just expect every person working in each field to work to solve every bottleneck they find. And if they fail, then the market will react with a different path.
I can explain why I choose that mix of storage. Why it makes sense. People could find it interesting. Instead, they reply in full rejection mode, attacking prices, repeating the EROEI argument, blablabla. My effort was wasted, so I'm not gonna insist on it.
Expecting the world will stop using PV or batteries because current technology, extrapolated to full usage, has problems is a completely wrong way of thinking. With growth in the market, variables change and money flows to the people working on it. If possible improvements exist, those improvements will happen.
You can check it against past data. While material usage has grown, as expected, the usage per power unit has decreased. And that happened usually even with moderate prices. When a sudden spike in price happens, the reduction is way more aggressive.
Knowing the past, why insist on the same way of fixed thinking about the future?
Insisting on limits that have already been overcome, like cobalt dependency, shows that it's not a debate searching for truth but a fight of egos about gaining the audience by repeating "unsolvable problems" (that some don't even exist).
I'm not gonna play that. I lack the time and I'm not interested.
If you would like to use this forum as a staging area for an article you might write for a major publication, your work here would be of interest to some and (no doubt) irritating to others.
If you would like to work on something in the Real Universe, you can see Calliban's work as an example. You can select a project, let us know what you intend, and then show us your progress (including the occasional setback).
No need for that.
It's just that I was involved in the peak oil movement in Spain decades ago. I was there when they translated the EROEI term into TRE (Tasa de Retorno Energético). It's more or less the same concept in Spanish.
I saw their projections and how they failed multiple times. Until I accepted that this way of thinking is doomed to fail. The economic argument was right. And those arguments I saw debated two decades ago still live today, doing the same mistake over and over. They will never die.
I have seen the errors myself, but also the intentional malicious attacks and group dynamics.
The energy transition struck a chord with me. And I am sometimes unable to ignore the FUD spread about renewables, knowing how important it is to remove our fossil fuel dependency as soon as possible.
I guess it was a mistake to intervene again. I know I don't have the best communication skills (especially in English), nor the time.
Besides, this is a very polarized debate where people involved never change their positions. I have two decades of experience to know that.
It only makes sense to do it when other undecided people read the forum so they can see that the spread idea is challenged. Otherwise, it's a total waste of time.
Follow up: I asked User List to show me your many posts, and was surprised to find this innovative idea in 2008:
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 84#p107884You have (apparently) been provoking NewMars members since your first day.
(th)
Well, yes. Outside of energy debate, I'm a fan of space, that it's the main reason I subscribed to this forum.
Because I like to project into the future, I think the space is the path humankind should walk.
Besides I think being "gardeners of the galaxy" is an exciting concept that can inspire humankind in a future where we have transcended from living for needs or short term wishes but we search for a greater purpose.
I think technology has the chance of break our limits about our current economic model and we will need new ways of thinking to avoid end in disinterest and depression.
That's the reason I think push humankind into long term projects (space colonization, star travel, terraforming) that transcend their own self satisfaction and even their lives it will have a profound importance in the future culture.
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re Post #23 and Economics in general
I created a Bookmark for your post: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 99#p233499
It is unlikely (but not impossible) that you have heard of a book called "Superabundance" by members of the CATO Institute in the US.
I've described this book previously in the forum, but you were not present, and the post(s) slipped into the history unread.
This is a thick book about how innovation has increased the quality of living for humans over eons. The book does not contain the word "energy" in the index. There is one small paragraph that relates to energy as it is often discussed by non-economists in this forum. It is on page 402, where the authors decided to mention atomic energy as an example of "good ideas". This is a book that I think you would find refreshing and possibly even encouraging.
In case a reader of this forum would like to do a quick lookup on the book, the authors are Marian L. Tupy and Gale L. Pooley.
We have six topics that include the word "economics". We could create a new one if there is something you would like to develop over a period of time.
I'd like to point out that the feedback you may be receiving in this forum is from folks who find your writing energizing. I suspect that folks who agree with your writing just nod and go on. In that sense, please consider that your exercise here is not a "waste of time" if you assume you are writing for those who appreciate your efforts, and just use the feedback you ** do ** receive as a useful foil for developing your theme.
Here are the topics we have now:
Search results
Topic Forum Replies Last post
Economics of Mars by louis [ 1 2 3 ]
Martian Politics and Economy 72 2025-07-18 09:32:11 by tahanson43206Why Economics Favors Mass Drivers Over Heavy Lift Rockets by kbd512
Single Stage To Orbit 11 2025-01-22 07:14:28 by tahanson43206The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics? by Oldfart1939 [ 1 2 ]
Human missions 40 2024-06-01 16:59:47 by Mars_B4_MoonHarvesting Asteroids - Economics and Practice of by tahanson43206 [ 1 2 ]
Unmanned probes 40 2024-04-04 08:28:16 by tahanson43206Impact of Post-scarcity economics by Terraformer
Not So Free Chat 11 2021-07-08 08:12:44 by tahanson43206Interesting article on Space X economics by louis
Interplanetary transportation 3 2017-12-28 04:40:26 by elderflower
Pages:1
My report on "Superabundance" may be found in Terraformer's topic: How far to the abundance economy"
Added item: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 06#p233506
In this post I report on development of a new way to enrich Uranium using lasers.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For Spaniard re offtherock....
Please take a look at posts by our new member from Germany, offtherock.
He recently commented upon one of your topics.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1