Nuclear drive trains for long haul transport

Nuclear drive trains for long haul transport

Despite the obvious fact that CO2 has no discernible influence on climate nor weather.

Despite the fact higher CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a literally greener planet.

Doom sayers profess any CO2 content in the atmosphere higher than 350 ppm will be our downfall. Regardless that farmers using enclosed growing facilities upping the CO2 to 1000 ppm to get the best crop results without killing the workers by some incomprehensible mechanism part of humanity is convinced that more CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming, global cooling and changes in weather patterns.

Ok.

Assuming that what are the alternatives? Wind and solar are too independent on natures whims and the day/night cycle to be a reliable source of sustainable energy as United Kingdom/Germany/Australia and many other nations have empirically proven.

So what is a real alternative? Only one. Direct matter->energy conversion. At this point in time the most efficient one, nuclear fusion, is unfortunately not yet within our level of technical prowess.

So the next best thing, Nuclear Fission, is our only realistic alternative to wind/solar. It delivers reliable energy with the least accidents per capita per kw/h per person.

How does this tie in with transport? Well since space-stations need a safe, reliable powerplants the development of those come to being.

Examples which could be adapted to transport are:

The SAFE-400 space fission reactor (Safe Affordable Fission Engine) is a 400 kWt HPS of 100 kWe to power a space vehicle using two Brayton power systems – gas turbines driven directly by the hot gas from the reactor. Heat exchanger outlet temperature is 880°C. The reactor has 127 identical heatpipe modules made of molybdenum, or niobium with 1% zirconium. Each has three fuel pins 1 cm diameter, nesting together into a compact hexagonal core 25 cm across. The fuel pins are 70 cm long (fuelled length 56 cm), the total heatpipe length is 145 cm, extending 75 cm above the core, where they are coupled with the heat exchangers. The core with reflector has a 51 cm diameter. The mass of the core is about 512 kg and each heat exchanger is 72 kg. SAFE has also been tested with an electric ion drive.

A smaller version of this kind of reactor is the HOMER-15 – the Heatpipe-Operated Mars Exploration Reactor. It is a15 kW thermal unit similar to the larger SAFE model, and stands 2.4 metres tall including its heat exchanger and 3 kWe Stirling engine (see above). It operates at only 600°C and is therefore able to use stainless steel for fuel pins and heatpipes, which are 1.6 cm diameter. It has 19 sodium heatpipe modules with 102 fuel pins bonded to them, 4 or 6 per pipe, and holding a total of 72 kg of fuel. The heatpipes are 106 cm long and fuel height 36 cm. The core is hexagonal (18 cm across) with six BeO pins in the corners. The total mass of reactor system is 214 kg, and diameter is 41 cm.

Source

With minimal investment/longevity/efficiency as compared to EV Long Haul vehicles those vehicles equipped with such an derived reactor could not only drive around for 10 years on a single refuel, they could also be powered to haul long haul truck trains as currently being used in Australia.

Even better, when not being used as transport vehicle the onboard reactor could be fitted with a generator and supply electricity to the local grid.

All it needs is an open mind and a reasonable amount of engineering capability

Self determination

Self determination

To start with let’s get the religieus aspect out of the way.

No god exists, there  is no afterlife ( if ever some  contradictio in terminis ever was more true). so i am a nihilist.Or rather a realist.

Any-road. I am of the conviction everyone has the right to decide his/her end of life fulfillment . Nobody should be forced to give a reason. Which is is why i wholeheartedly support  the Dutch initiative to provide the elderly with a ‘death pill’.

Subscribed by a  well balanced group of professionals this medication should be available to everyone.

Freedom from persecution and a small but important alteration of current laws suffices. Why i wonder there  exists in the Netherlands the concept of

    • the patient’s suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
    • the patient’s request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
    • the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects, and options
    • there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
    • the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, and the doctor must be present
    • the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

It’s my life, i decide how or when i end it.

Nobody else has that right. I decide if i suffer. Not you, nor you. For some the suffering might be the idea of working past 50, for some it might be working at all.

Existence itself can be a burden just to wake up everyday thinking, crap again?

So holier than thou ethical persons. Please keep your fear of death to yourself and stop forcing your instinct to live to yourselves. Please let those who’d seen life and decided ‘mwah’ decide for their selves.

Who are you to decide for me? Are you some kind of god?

I can  end life now if i choose so, anyone can. But is it not a huge burden on the EMT staff to be confronted with the often stinky corpse? I can’t call them to tell them I’ve had it.

Anymore i can stand some person has to clean up the mess after some time decomposing.

I live in France so my options are limited. Jump on the train track, drown myself, hang myself. Even typing this risks me being admitted to a mental hospital for life.

Imagine you suffer from life, you must be mad. And yes i took all medication in existence, yes i did the therapy tour.Yes i had many fulfilling relations. Didin’t work

Finally i’m alone. Free.

 

Postdictive Illusion of Choice (free will doesn’t exist)

Postdictive Illusion of Choice (free will doesn’t exist)

Conclusion

Given what we know about how our brains function, the notion of a postdictive illusion of choice makes sense. Our brains generally construct a narrative of reality in a very active process that involves perceptual attention, filtering, and selection, significant processing that weaves the various sensory streams together with our knowledge, expectations, and internal dialogue, and adding a generous helping of pure confabulation to fill in any missing pieces and make everything internally consistent. We already know that there is a temporal dimension to this construction. It is certainly plausible and consistent with existing evidence that the illusion of choice, even when that choice comes after events, can be part of that constructive process.

It also seems from this and other experiments that the question of whether or not choices are conscious or unconscious is not black or white. They are a combination, depending on events. There are certainly times when we consciously deliberate our choices, even while we may not be entirely aware of all the subconscious influences. Other choices, however, may be more automatic and involve little to no conscious choice.

Regardless of how much a choice is conscious or unconscious, we seem to be wired to have the illusion that our choices are conscious, even to the point of thinking we made a choice before we could have made it.

Source

which perfectly syncs with my idea :

This has far reaching consequences for the premise of ‘free will’. Who has the free will, which consciousness we hold accountable. Or do we just hold the one accountable which can make itself heard even though in reality that consciousness actually hasn’t a clue why his body did what it did and has to concoct an explanation itself.

It also places emotions. Emotions are not ‘our’ emotions but the expression of the state of the other consciousness which for lack of further interaction the neocortex also has to determine via interpretative analysis.

Your thoughts don’t reflect your mind

Your thoughts don’t reflect your mind

The reason we know our own thoughts better than those of others is simply that we have more sensory data to draw on – not only perceptions of our own speech and behaviour, but also our emotional responses, bodily senses (pain, limb position, and so on), and a rich variety of mental imagery, including a steady stream of inner speech. (There is strong evidence that mental images involve the same brain mechanisms as perceptions and are processed like them.) Carruthers calls this the Interpretive Sensory-Access (ISA) theory, and he marshals a huge array of experimental evidence in support of it.

The ISA theory has some startling consequences. One is that (with limited exceptions), we do not have conscious thoughts or make conscious decisions. For, if we did, we would be aware of them directly, not through interpretation. The conscious events we undergo are all sensory states of some kind, and what we take to be conscious thoughts and decisions are really sensory images – in particular, episodes of inner speech. These images might express thoughts, but they need to be interpreted.

Another consequence is that we might be sincerely mistaken about our own beliefs. Return to my question about racial stereotypes. I guess you said you think they are false. But if the ISA theory is correct, you can’t be sure you think that. Studies show that people who sincerely say that racial stereotypes are false often continue to behave as if they are true when not paying attention to what they are doing. Such behaviour is usually said to manifest an implicit bias, which conflicts with the person’s explicit beliefs. But the ISA theory offers a simpler explanation. People think that the stereotypes are true but also that it is not acceptable to admit this and therefore say they are false. Moreover, they say this to themselves too, in inner speech, and mistakenly interpret themselves as believing it. They are hypocrites but not conscious hypocrites. Maybe we all are

Source

which perfectly syncs with my idea :

This has far reaching consequences for the premise of ‘free will’. Who has the free will, which consciousness we hold accountable. Or do we just hold the one accountable which can make itself heard even though in reality that consciousness actually hasn’t a clue why his body did what it did and has to concoct an explanation itself.

It also places emotions. Emotions are not ‘our’ emotions but the expression of the state of the other consciousness which for lack of further interaction the neocortex also has to determine via interpretative analysis.

The sugar lie

The sugar lie

Baklava Nutrients

Before we analyze the amount of calories in baklava, we will first see what it is made of. Baklava is made of Phyllo dough, nuts and sweetening agents, and all these ingredients have carbohydrates, sugars and proteins. Baklava doesn’t contain so much fat, but it has large amounts of sugar. Carbohydrates and sugars are dominant in the baklava recipe.

so baklava which is eaten a lot in countries such as Turkey, Greece etc  since centuries one would expect due to hype about sugar obesity, diabetes is much more prevalent there since centuries

 

Worldwide study

hmmm…. no exceptional increase… weird. Must be something wrong with the sugar is bad theory.

Why You’re Fat and why it’s not bad

Why You’re Fat and why it’s not bad

As a genus, humans, from Homo sapiens (that’s us) to our extinct ancestors Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus, are wanderers. Over the vast majority of our history, which spans hundreds of thousands of years, we have roved from place to place, inhabiting a wide range of habitats. We moved with the seasons, we moved to find food, we moved — perhaps — just to move. Our adaptability was our key adaptation, an evolutionary leg-up on the competition. The ability to store fat was vital to this lifestyle. Body fat cushions internal organs, but it also serves as a repository of energy that can be readily broken down and used to power muscles. Humans might fatten up at one environment, then move on to another. When food was scarce, we could count on our fat to sustain us, at least temporarily.

Chimpanzees, on the other hand, are localized to specific environments where food is often plentiful, primarily the forests of West and Central Africa. Fatty stores of energy aren’t required, but strength to climb food-bearing trees is. Natural selection favored brawn, causing chimps to shed fat as unnecessary weight.

Interestingly, this may have hindered chimpanzees’ brain development. Human brains are about three times larger than chimp brains, and this may be because we exchanged muscle for fat. Muscles and brains are metabolically expensive, requiring gobs of energy to function. With less muscle and more fat, humans had more energy to dedicate to brains.

Source
In other words, fat is good but as with all good things overdoing it isn’t , which leads us to the question what is overdoing it. As i see it, fashion dicatates nowadays a bodyfat percentage way below what’s healthy for us. Having a ‘sixpack’ might satisfy current esthetics but isn’t a sign of good health. People with a higher bodyfat percentage have less risk of diseases, recover more easily from disease/medical interventions and are overall more robust.
Less Fat, less healthy

Fat is not bad

Obesity research fatally flawed

No, there is no free ride

No, there is no free ride

All over the globe vested interests and useful idiots are trying to sell us the pipedream of everlasting free energy without consequences. It doesn’t take much to understand that what they are selling is a new version of the perpetual mobile.

Even IF we could harvest solar energy to the capacity needed to cover current standard systems it would have a devastating effect on climate. All the heat from the sun that would normally strike the surface and maintain the balance as is would be taken away by solar panels. Using windfarms the same. The wind makes things happen on earth, capturing it large scale will obviously cause a disruption.

It’s not possible to take out vast amounts of energy from sun, wind, sea, rivers without consequences. How silly can you be to believe it would be? That energy you take out of the ecosystem did something, it contributed to current billions of years of coming to some kind of equilibrium best suited for most lifeforms.

The only real solution is matter/energy conversion. Be it fusion/fission or some kind new miracle way to convert one to the other.

As a careful and extensive analysis demonstrates, even without considering the monumental electricity demand required to convert America’s vehicles to electric-battery versions, providing today’s baseload and peak demand electricity would require 29.3 billion one-square-meter solar panels. Assuming adequate yearlong daily sunlight, that’s 29,333 square kilometers of active solar panel surface area: 7.2 million acres

More