F1technical.net

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2021, 09:47

Hardly, since anthropogenic influence appears to be delaying a probably overdue slide back into
the regular-recent geo-status of the Earth as being in 'ice-age' climate

So you´ve just jumped from "anthropogenic incluence in CC is not proven", to "anthropogenic influence in CC might be good because it´s delaying next ice age"?


I´m not going to comment as your argumentation speaks volumes

Solid state (3d printed) batteries are coming, and lets hope they can surpass the current Li-Ion type for density and safety.

https://www.techspot.com/news/90878-sak ... -boon.html

Zynerji wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2021, 18:30

Solid state (3d printed) batteries are coming, and lets hope they can surpass the current Li-Ion type for density and safety.

https://www.techspot.com/news/90878-sak ... -boon.html

Interesting. My priors are; this is a 3D printing company that has pivoted to batteries and now makes an "equal or better" claim to get some shareholder value. I don't think this one will amount to much.

But as a general rule, yes we are definately still in the optimisation phase of li-ions

nzjrs wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2021, 20:32

Zynerji wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2021, 18:30

Solid state (3d printed) batteries are coming, and lets hope they can surpass the current Li-Ion type for density and safety.

https://www.techspot.com/news/90878-sak ... -boon.html

Interesting. My priors are; this is a 3D printing company that has pivoted to batteries and now makes an "equal or better" claim to get some shareholder value. I don't think this one will amount to much.

But as a general rule, yes we are definately still in the optimisation phase of li-ions

They must have something to be ramping up to sell them in 2022....

I wont hold my breath, but sooner or later, one of these technologies will break through.

We need some sort of hold over until we can make solid Element 115!

nzjrs wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2021, 12:12

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2021, 09:47

Hardly, since anthropogenic influence appears to be delaying a probably overdue slide back into
the regular-recent geo-status of the Earth as being in 'ice-age' climate, ironic really, esp' since while
superconductors might do well in the cold, batteries & renewables, generally don't.

The nuclear testing done ~60 years ago in near space - excited the van Allen belts 'all to hell',
when what was expected/'modelled' was a 'clearance' so Apollo space-farers could transit safely,
yet even if 'its all done & dusted' long since - no humans in 1/2 a century have gone there,
& why is that so?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/ ... e/12588828

Whoa. Literally no idea what the underlying ideas, connecting hypothesis, or consistent intellectual principles you are trying to express here is.

Models are good/bad? small perturbation can/can-not move a large system? physical processes low order effects do / do-not dominate? it's simple/complicated so we can/can-never know anything?

Well then, this might help:

As so aptly expressed by 'Public Enemy':

"Don't, don't, don't believe, don't believe the hype!"

Doubt any/all overtly agenda driven 'factoids', & start by parsing for overt 'emotive' vocab abuse,
such as 'deniers'; 'zealots'; or oxymoronic statements, like: 'Scientists believe'/'the science is settled'.

Even hitherto - 'Just the facts, ma'am' - type scientific/technical research journal articles need to be
checked for (actual, not only acknowledged) influences, be it the socio-political bent of the 'school',
or the background funding/quality of peer-review, since subtle/insidious processes can be drivers now.

Develop a healthy tolerance for 'cognitive dissonance' & awareness of potential for 'confirmation bias',
as a salve for uncertainty, esp' since uncertainty avoidance seems a psychological plague of our times,
& ironically - one being excited by a basic biological pandemic - right now, let alone 'models' of future
life, from 'hyper-tech' at one end of the spectrum, through 'essential' devolution, to apocalyptic horror.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2021, 18:30

Solid state (3d printed) batteries are coming, and lets hope they can surpass the current Li-Ion type for density and safety.

https://www.techspot.com/news/90878-sak ... -boon.html

Those are great news, at least if they prove to be true, specially...

The process is relatively slow, but the results are batteries that are half the size and one-third the weight of their lithium-ion counterparts

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2021, 06:16

Well then, this might help:

As so aptly expressed by 'Public Enemy':

"Don't, don't, don't believe, don't believe the hype!"

Bla bla basically. I was expecting something better.

Your basic contrarianism is often the refuge people seek for whom true skepticism is too much effort.

Ultimately its a lazy cop out.

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

21 Aug 2021, 13:53

Actually, its seems you've fallen in to the 'smoothing' trap that so many 'models' rely on, since the
complexities of solar/upper-atmosphere thermo/radiation frequency reactions - are still poorly
understood (& thereby ignored/dismissed), so to claim that "balance" exists sans "chaos" - is 'bogus'.

& I note you've managed to studiously ignore the cited/linked matter, too...

The main message was that the total energy balance of the earth still needs to be satisfied, and that that is not affected by 'chaos' (which impacts distribution, not total amount). Remember, the topic at hand was whether 'wind energy taking energy out of the atmosphere' would affect climate; the counterpoint is no, because first off the amount of energy 'used' is minute compared to the total, and second, it doesn't disappear, and that this is not affected by chaos because it has to do with the total amount of energy. It was not a discussion on climate change in general; why you tried to make that out of it, by involving all kinds of mechanisms unrelated to the matter at hand, is beyond me.
And that's also the reason I didn't respond to your link; it was on a totally different topic, that I had no intention of discussing. Don't try to fabricate some narrative of me 'studiously avoiding' stuff when there is a much simpler reason.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2021, 20:44

We need some sort of hold over until we can make solid Element 115!

What will Moscovium bring to the party?

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2021, 09:21

I'd suggest the middle paragraph of my response was the one you should address. That pyramid rests on a foundation of robust epistemology, a foundation I don't think you have.

You are a colourful writer, don't let a couple of bla blas be a distraction.

DChemTech wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2021, 09:19

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

21 Aug 2021, 13:53

Actually, its seems you've fallen in to the 'smoothing' trap that so many 'models' rely on, since the
complexities of solar/upper-atmosphere thermo/radiation frequency reactions - are still poorly
understood (& thereby ignored/dismissed), so to claim that "balance" exists sans "chaos" - is 'bogus'.

& I note you've managed to studiously ignore the cited/linked matter, too...

The main message was that the total energy balance of the earth still needs to be satisfied, and that that is not affected by 'chaos' (which impacts distribution, not total amount). Remember, the topic at hand was whether 'wind energy taking energy out of the atmosphere' would affect climate; the counterpoint is no, because first off the amount of energy 'used' is minute compared to the total, and second, it doesn't disappear, and that this is not affected by chaos because it has to do with the total amount of energy. It was not a discussion on climate change in general; why you tried to make that out of it, by involving all kinds of mechanisms unrelated to the matter at hand, is beyond me.
And that's also the reason I didn't respond to your link; it was on a totally different topic, that I had no intention of discussing. Don't try to fabricate some narrative of me 'studiously avoiding' stuff when there is a much simpler reason.

No... Your reductionistic mindset is far too simplistic (along with so much 'modelling'), & whereas the
'theories' of Wegener & Milankovich were vindicated by empirical observation, (along with 'proofs' of the
major impact on Earth's climate) it was only after a long campaign of real science vs dogmatic academics.


(& no, you are still avoiding the science discussed in the link, which is fully on topic for this thread).

Deleted dual post.

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2021, 09:39

Ok, so the laws of thermodynamics are just an artefact of reductionism, and one cannot talk about wind energy without considering 5G-power transmission stuff. All irrefutably argued according to the principles of level 8 epistemology. You got me, obviously.

DChemTech wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2021, 09:45

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2021, 09:39

Ok, so the laws of thermodynamics are just an artefact of reductionism, and one cannot talk about wind energy without considering 5G-power transmission stuff. All irrefutably argued according to the principles of level 8 epistemology. You got me, obviously.

Entropy can be overridden by work/order/complexity, thus is civilisation.

However, unintended consequences cannot be remedied by being wished/prayed/mantra'd away,
we'll have to work the problem (not 'smooth it or flush it' all the way back to a pre-iron age),
& be more mindful of ensuring honest appraisal of issues, on an examined evidence-base,
not simply taking any kind of well-funded 'studies' (but potential bullshit) at face value...

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2021, 09:54

Ok, "...dont let a couple of bla blas be a distraction." A couple of bla blas, eh?

So.. that'd be you & your new acolyte Andres 3000? Or did you mean - Dutch chem - as your 2nd?

(Nothing to worry about mods - its only a bit of 'jolly banter' - too, right*..)


*Edit: Well that is, apart from the emotive-piqued (& off-topic) down-votes, L.O.L...

No problemo with this post from my side. Was a good word play.

Fwiw I probably disagree with Andres about 50% of the time. DC I agree with usually because I think we reason similalrly after decent parts of our career have been spent in natural and physical sciences, in public and private research institutions with adjacency to industry.

Edit: I'm not a chemist JAW