* Marianne Williamson just learned why Trump won. (Maybe she'll switch sides, too.)
* The Democrat-predicted recession evaporated without a trace. (What's next?)
* James Comey, suddenly finds himself in the crosshairs of Congressional investigation.
* Looks like the corrupt judges protecting Hillary are gone. (And HRC's next.)
* Wonder Woman's mild-mannered alter-ego appears to be named Sidney Powell.
* Obama's DACA order was illegal?! (As if we didn't know.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Göbekli Tepe
This is my current favorite archeological site. It fascinates me. It casts a completely different light on much of official history, like the old (and rash) assumption that religion was a luxury primitive man couldn't afford. Or, as some tell it, once mankind invented (or was taught?) agriculture, an opportunity opened up to specialize, and, as a result of that, to stratify society. This specialization and stratification, in turn, allowed for the evolution of religion and a priestly class. (This is nonsense, of course. But more on than another day.) It raises so many new questions. It presents so many puzzles. But those puzzles are finally beginning to be solved. And here's the first really good analysis I've seen.
Now, mind you, I'm not quite as mystified as some of the researchers. The headless pillars don't mystify me much. There's an ancient tradition that the 'scorpion men's (whom we call Adam and Eve) heads stretched into the heavens. And this goes back to the Polar configuration, Saturn myth, Jupiter hypothesis, and others which postulate that the planets were the gods and/or the gods' heads.
And then there's the mystery of the two main pillars, clothed in animal skins. See? Not much mystery there. Why aren't the experts seeing this? Could it have to do with the male holding his penis? Oh, that's very, very relavent to us. You just don't know that because it isn't overtly taught anymore. But it's downright integral to our faith.
But there's another pretty good analysis right here:
Naturally, it's from the same guy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Recognize propaganda?
Electric cars are being pushed like abortion and immigration, which makes me suspicious. I mean, whatever happened to hybrids?
I know, I know. Fossil fuels, peak oil, carbon, blah, blah, blah. Any idea just how environmentally damaging Lithium is? Well, I mean, according to the environmentalists. But, just like oil, how can something that came out of the earth be bad for the earth? But, I diverge.
I thought we covered this.
There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Well, except for coal. At least as far as we know now, and I see no reason to doubt it. Oil, however, never had anything close to a dead dinosaur in it. Oil comes from bacteria eating rock, and expelling hydrocarbons. This is actually known, but suppressed.
You see, big oil is actually a victim of its own success. Competition is high, and prices are low, so they float the idea that oil is a scarce and limited resource. This lets them all conspire to raise prices, while, at the same time, funding environmentalists and bribing lawmakers to pass laws limiting access to existing, known oil fields. You think they didn't know about the Bakken 60 years ago? Don't be so naive! And there's more out there, and even more after that. The Saudi oil fields were supposed to have dried up by now, but they're still going strong. The only reason they aren't producing more is because we're buying less, and they have no place to store it, so they just leave it in the ground. But that has problems, too, as I told you a while back about the recurrent problems with tar, oil, even gasoline bursting through the sidewalks down in Los Angeles whenever they don't pump it out fast enough.
So, where's all this electric car stuff coming from?
China
Not only does China have a lot of coal they can (and do) burn to provide the electricity for the electric cars they hope to be selling us soon, but they also own our patents on Thorium reactors, probably the best, safest option for nuclear power. Thorium reactors are so much smaller and safer than breeder reactors, that they could easily be used in such things as ships, trains, heavy trucks, even buses.
Imagine buying a vehicle that came with its own lifetime suppy of fuel. For that matter, imagine powering your home for your lifetime with just the thorium in the first few feet of soil under your property.
And then there are the many useful things that can be done with oil besides burning it in cars. The resistance in eastern Europe made very effective use of the diesel and gasoline in their vehicles, often the only weapon available to them, to resist the Soviet tanks.
Yes, taking oil away from the individual has as much to do with gun ... or 'weapon' ... control as it does with all the other contrived excuses.
What have I got against electric cars?
First, I've seen Tesla reviews showing signifigant quality control issues. And moving to China isn't going to help that any, I can tell you.
Second, there's just no way I'm going camping, miles off the beaten path, only to find I have no charge left the morning I pack up to head home. But I might just start my own business rescuing such dummies. I'll just mount a diesel generator to a truck, and post signs at the entrances of every national recreation area.
Third, I've long advocated hybrids anyway, and precisely for the reason that the internal combustion engine, AND its transmission, are just getting too complicated. And all that complexity is ENTIRELY due to the need to provide power to at least two wheels (and, preferrably, all four) over a wide range of speeds.
If (using the series hybrid concept) you replace the transmission, drive shaft(s), and other power-delivery equipment with a generator, wires, and electric motors, you not only eliminate about 500 pounds of weight (while also gaining shocking acceleration numbers), but you also eliminate any need for the engine to operate at anything other than its optimal speed. That little fact alone allows you to radically simplify AND SHRINK the engine and fuel tank. You no longer need the variable valve timing, so out that goes. You no longer need 4 valves per cylinder, so out that goes. You no longer need overhead cams, so out they go. In fact, you no longer even need reciprocating pistons at all; you could replace the internal combustion engine with a turbine, long the panacea for all auto-makers (remember the Chrysler turbine?), and the current choice of WalMart's Advanced Vehicle Experience Concept Truck, which nearly triples the fuel mileage of semis.
Better still, you can mount the engine pretty much anywhere you want, and the accessories (power steering, brakes, A/C compressor, etc.) wherever you like. And that makes a great deal of difference in what a car looks like and acts like. It also places another dream of automakers within striking distance: Six, eight, even ten-wheel cars and trucks.
Now, why on earth would anyone want that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Part 2!
Oh! There are just all kinds of reasons for wanting to move the engine and accessories. The industry calls it 'packaging', and it's a huge problem. Packaging is why we have, for example, differentials. If you can only have one engine, you have to divide the power among the wheels. And that requires drive-shafts, bearings, and universal or constant-velocity joints. And those thing add weight, and require space, space that might otherwise be used for passengers or baggage. Moreover, it all adds to rotating mass.
Have you ever wondered why the cheapest cars have dorky-looking little wheels and tires? Well, as it turns out, there's a really, really, good reason, and one you'd never think of in a million years:
Gyroscopics.
You see, cheap cars are light cars. And light cars become like paper planes in a storm when big, heavy wheels are spinning at high speed. Remember, this is how we used to control giant rockets. We called it inertial guidance. It's how many of those self-balancing motorcyles and two-wheeled cars really work. And that rotating mass can act like a giant lever jammed in the back of your little econo-box car. Just look up Rally crashes. Those cars are also very light, but have very big, oversized wheels and tires. Why? Heat dissipation. Little wheels have little tires that wear out in no time at all when spun by 700 HP at 100+MPH. But, when that car hits a pot hole, its anybody's guess what it's going to do next. It could flip and spin in a completely different direction than intuition would lead you to expect. And that's because of the rotating mass of the wheels and, to some extent, even the engine, driveshafts, and flywheel.
So, little cars are cheap cars, which are also rather flimsy cars, leaving very little metal between you and whatever you're hurtling toward. So it's really in your best interest to have as little rotating mass as possible threatening to rotate your bumper away from whatever you might be about to hit, replacing it with your roof instead.
But ... six wheels, even on a little car, distributes the weight of the car over more wheels and springs, meaning that any bump hits one sixth of the unsprung mass instead of one quarter of it. And the more wheels you have, not only the greater the weight distribution, but the lighter each wheel can be. You could literally have a dozen plastic go-cart wheels under something the size and weight of a Mini, all of which together would weigh less than the original four wheels, tires, brakes, springs, shocks, arms, and drive-shafts, but it would ride like a Bentley, and perform like a Ferarri. And, since distance from the axle is the crucial factor, all those tiny wheels together would never generate the gyroscopic forces that the original four wheels produced.
Alternatively, instead of wheels with small diameter, you could use wheels with narrow widths. To some extent, engineers have already been doing this. Look at, say, a Dodge Challenger. Notice anything odd about its tires? Seem a little narrow for a car with 700 HP? That's because tire technology has evolved far enough to allow the engineers to get away with narrower tires on high horsepower cars. Why would the engineers want to do that? Gyroscopic forces! It reduces their liability. Remember that weird accident that killed Paul Walker? (And just a mile or two from where we lived, I might add!) What was the real culprit? Those massive rear tires being spun by that powerful engine, in a very light car, and then bumping a curb, throwing the car out of control, causing the gyroscopic forces to twist the car in ways no driver, however experienced, could anticipate and counteract. They were doomed more by the weight of the wheels relative to the weight of the car than by the power itself, and that could open up an opportunity for a lawsuit. Dodge avoids that by using narrower, lighter tires.
And, instead of little, go-cart wheels, manufacturers could also use, say, eight motorcycle wheels/tires on a car, as long as the rotating mass is low and distributed. (Speaking of which, motorcycles don't even need to crash to suffer from the inherent problems flowing from the relatively heavy wheels they use. (Relative to the weight of the rest of the vehicle.) It's practically cliche to see some motorcyle racer suddenly faced with a wild, bucking bronco of a bike underneath him for no apparent reason. Harley Davidson is fighting a lawsuit right now filed by several owners complaining that their bikes spontaneously start shimmying, causing crashes.
Tatra has built their business on this concept.
Trucks get even more out of that tactic. Six-axle bogie system trucks have been developed which prove the advantage of being able to negotiate almost any terrain. There's next to no pitch or roll. Anything lower than the axle is just rolled over. The softest surface isn't sunk into. It's a real advantage, but it's never been economic because of the need for all the axles, differentials, and propeller shafts. Series hybrids simplify all of that.
Write your Congress-critter!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From my playlist
In 2008, I was blessed to be able to hire my daughter, Gabi, to work with me as an intern. It was great. She could handle the phone while I drove to and from work. Being one of the first with a mobile modem, she could even log into the system if necessary while I negotiated the LA traffic, which often stretched our 25 mile commute to 2 hours, and, occasionally, even 3 hours.
I called the playlist on the way to work, but she called it on the way home. And it was on the way home, one day, when she played some Blue October. And I found that there were several songs that I quite liked, so she moved them to the front of the queue, and we rode home together every day, jamming out to Blue October.
So, here were my favorites from those days.
Oh, by the way, he's quite insane, so, there's that.
HRSA
A song about his time in the looney-bin. (Notice the bit about the voices?)
18th Floor Balcony
One of his mellower pieces
And, finally, 'our' song. It's so appropriate, don't you think, for a daddy-daughter dynamic-duo, dashing in-and out of the crazy SoCal mobile parking-lots?
She's My Ride Home
I really miss those days. (But not California.)
Go ahead. Listen to more. If you dare.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~