Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.

In article <Xns96492B163688EWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:mjones-04F04C.00284001052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> > In article <Xns96472ACA7C4FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >> news:mjones-223160.01354929042005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >>
> >> > In article <Xns9646861EC47E2WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >> >> news:mjones-72AA33.12394628042005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article <Xns964641AC76568WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> >> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [snip]
> >> >> >
> ....
> >> >>
> >> >> When you must expend 100 Joules of energy to extract oil that will
> >> >> yield less than 100 Joules of energy, the politics doesn't matter,
> >> >> the economics doesn't matter. You are at the point where you are
> >> >> better off to use the 100 Joules directly and not convert it into
> >> >> crude petrolium.
> >> >
> >> > ***{The only fixed and irreducible energy costs are those imposed by
> >> > the necessity to lift the oil from its point of origin to its point
> >> > of use. A typical barrel of oil, back in the old days, had a capacity
> >> > of 55 gallons, and contained about 44 gallons of crude, with the
> >> > excess space being left to allow for expansion. A run-of-the-mill
> >> > barrel of Texas crude contains 19,460 Btu's/lb and weighs 7.286
> >> > lbs/gal. Therefore its total weight is (44)(7.286) = 320.6 lbs, and
> >> > its total energy content is (320.6)(19,460) = 6.25x10^6 Btu's.
> >>
> >> There is also the cost of cleaning up the environment. That has been
> >> ignored, up until now. Factor that in, also.
> >
> > ***{That's just politically required nonsense, not a fixed and
> > irreducible cost. In fact, it is insanity, and can be easily seen as
> > such by any person who grasps the fact that reserves are merely those
> > deposits that can be presently extracted at a profit. Once that simple
> > idea is understood, environmentalist requirements that mines and oil
> > wells taken out of service be filled in, demolished, planted over with
> > forest, etc., stand revealed as lunacy, pure and simple.
>
> That is only a small part of the 'cleaning up the environment.' And I am
> not advocating filling in mines just because they are not currently
> profitable. Only when the hole is of no use [other than storage of the
> tailing that have been accumulating during the mining and refining
> operations].

***{This very concept of "cleaning up the environment" implies that
force is to be used, because nobody, including the government, owns "the
environment." The reality is that parts of it are owned by some, and
other parts by others; hence by its very nature any generalzed effort to
"clean it up" is going to require violating the property rights of those
owners who do not agree with the part of the cleanup plan that applies
to their property. The reality is that it's none of society's business
what owners do with their property, so long as they respect the property
rights of others.

For example, it's not my neighbor's business whether there is junk in my
yard, unless there were deed restrictions prohibiting me from storing it
there, which I accepted when I purchased my property. And it's not my
neighbor's business whether there is a box of dynamite on my front
porch, unless it is close enough to pose a significant threat to his
property, including his person. If the neighbor believes that it is too
close and cannot persuade me to make changes that will put his mind at
ease, then a neutral arbiter should consider the facts of the case,
decide whether the threat is in fact real, and prescribe a remedy. To
ensure neutrality, such an arbiter should be selected by means of a
neutral winnowing process--e.g., by making a list of the persons willing
to decide the case, and the plaintiff and defendant taking turns
striking a third of the names off the list, rounded to the nearest whole
number, until only one name remains. Why not let a government court
decide? Because government courts are not neutral. They are elected or
appointed by a process that requires them to consider the opinions of
uninvolved third parties--to wit: legislatures and bureaucrats--rather
than base their decisions of the facts of the case at hand.

Bottom line: those who want to impose "cleanup" requirements on others
ought to be required to demonstrate, on a case-by-case basis, that the
conditions to which they object are violating, or pose a serious danger
of violating, their rights. If they refuse to do so, they are criminals.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> When ore is refine, waste is produce. When products made from the ore are
> distributed, waste is produced.
>
> Now 'waste' is a resource out of place. Much 'waste' could, if it were in
> the right location, be used as a raw material in the manufacture of some
> other product.

***{Yup, but that's for the owners to decide, and becomes the business
of others only when their property rights are violated, or when there is
a demonstrable likelihood that they will be violated in the future.
--MJ}***

> My 'cleaning up the environment' includes proper use or disposal of all
> waste.

***{That's fine, and you get to decide for your property, just as others
get to decide for theirs--assuming, of course, that you *really* "don't
want to force anyone." --MJ}***

> ....
> You are assuming that the cabon is in liquid pools rather than
> >> scattered as grains of carbon scattered in the rocks.
> >
> > ***{No, I'm giving you a hypothetical example, in an attempt to
> > illustrate the fallacy inherent in your idea that any oil deposit,
> > anywhere on earth, is at or near breakeven, when the irreducible energy
> > costs of extraction are compared to the energy contained in the oil. No
> > such deposit exists, anywhere on Earth. There has never been a barrel of
> > oil, anywhere on Earth, that did not contain at least a hundred times as
> > much energy as is required to lift it from its point of origin to its
> > point of use. And that includes oil scattered as grains of hydrocarbon
> > in oil shale or tar sands. The costs of separation of the hydrocarbon
> > from the matrix in which it is embedded is not a fixed cost, but a cost
> > subject to reduction by the ingenuity of engineers. Such problems are
> > solved by figuring out ways to bypass the matrix, and focus solely on
> > the goal itself: the oil. Hundreds of techniques have been developed
> > that serve that purpose, including fracturing the matrix by blasting to
> > allow the entrained oil to flow; the introduction of hot water or
> > superheated steam to float the oil out of the matrix; and so on. Yes, of
> > course, all such techniques have a cost, but the point is that there is
> > no discernible limit to the ability of creative engineers, to come up
> > with ways to solve problems by lowering costs. The situation is *not*
> > static. You cannot cavalierly assume, as you are wont to do, that any
> > oil deposit that is presently submarginal, will remain submarginal
> > forever. --MJ}***
>
> There are always diminishing returns. There will come a day when it costs
> more than it yields.

***{Unless you plan on lifting the oil to some other celestial body,
such as the Moon, the fixed and irreducible energy costs will always be
less than the fuel value of the oil. All the other costs are neither
fixed nor irreducible. That's not to say, of course, that oil will
always be a major fuel source. Nuclear fission, for example, would by
now have been vastly less expensive than oil, if the industry had not
been taxed and regulated to death from the beginning. But a cessation of
usage of fuel oil for that sort of reason will not mean a point was
reached where the fixed and irreducible energy cost of extraction
exceeded the amount of energy available in the oil. Quite the contrary:
the use of nuclear powered ore processors may at some point allow the
profitable extraction of oil from deposits that are presently too
diffuse to be profitable--including the very sorts of deposits you have
been talking about so incessantly, in fact. :-) --MJ}***

> All of those recovery methods have associated costs. Those who figure the
> costs need to factor in all of the costs of producing that superheated
> steam and getting it into the matrix, etc. The costs are NOT just the
> dollar costs at the wellhead.

***{I never said or implied that they were. My point is (a) that the
energy cost of lifting a barrel of oil from its point of origin to any
point of use on the Earth is vastly less than the energy contained in
the barrel of oil, and (b) other costs are technology dependent, and
thus will always be subject to reduction, as technology improves. Why
does that matter? Because it implies that those who are claiming that
"Peak Oil" is here or imminent, have no basis for that claim. There is
not a shred of a reason, other than political interference, for
believing that engineers will not continue to improve extraction
technology fast enough to increase total world oil reserves, for as long
as the world cares to use oil as an energy source. It is easily proven
that we have deposits equivalent to more than 100,000 years of usage at
current rates of consumption, and there is no reason--other than
political interference--to think that the rate at which those deposits
are converted to reserves will fall below consumption in the foreseeable
future. Remember: technological improvement is the means by which
deposits are converted into reserves. We know that deposits are ample
for more than 100,000 years of usage, and we know that the ingenuity of
engineers is unlimited. Hence the only question is whether the
politicians will let them get at the oil. --MJ}***

> ....
> >> >> Again, better to move our industries into space.
> >> >
> >> > ***{*All* of our industries?
> >>
> >> Start with the heavy industry.
> >>
> >> >That would require the use of massive
> >> > force, because it would make no economic sense at all, with the
> >> > consumers and raw materials mostly on Earth, to move the industries
> >> > into space. And, of course, to persuade Earth's population to leave
> >> > Earth and stop using raw materials from Earth would require even more
> >> > massive use of force.
> >>
> >> I am not advocating the use of force.
> >>
> >> > But why? What goal are we pursuing, that justifies killing so
> >> > many people? --MJ}***
> >>
> >> The future of the human race.
> >
> > ***{First you say you are not advocating the use of force, and then, two
> > sentences further down, you essentially concede that what you are
> > advocating requires the killing of lots of people!
>
> People are dying to produce the electricity that puts my words on your
> screen. People died to produce that screen. People died to put the roof
> over your head. People are dying.
>
> I am not advocating 'killing' people who refuse to move to space.
> I am saying that people will die in the effort and that is normal, natural
> and not bad.

***{Good. Then we can agree on that point. That was a possibility I
considered below. --MJ}***

> > Result: I literally
> > have no idea what position you are advocating. If you are merely saying
> > that people should be free to go into space if they can create or
> > purchase the means to do so, and that some of those who do that will be
> > killed, that's fine.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > But if you have in mind some government program
> > that forces people into space and kills those who do not want to go--as
> > would be necessary to turn the Earth into a park--then we part company
> > in a major way.
>
> As would I with anyone that advocates such a use of force.
>
> > As for the future of the human race, well, mankind will
> > without a doubt go extinct if we insist on remaining on Earth, whether
> > the ultimate cause is a killer asteroid, or a nearby supernova, or a
> > change in the luminosity of the sun, or something else.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > Hence as a
> > practical matter the only way any Earth-based life form will avoid
> > extinction will be if man moves into space and takes them with him. That
> > means man is not a threat to other species, as environmentalists
> > believe, but, instead, represents their only hope of avoiding
> > extinction. --MJ}***
>
> Their only hope and their worst enemy unless the hope is fulfilled.

***{Man uses force against animals, 'tis true. But that's OK: it is
perfectly moral to use force against creatures who have voluntarily
accepted its use, and hence its risks, by using it themselves. --MJ}***

> ....
> >> > alternatively, we would need for each orbital
> >> > factory to have its own, smaller mirror,
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >
> > ***{If this is all being done without forcing anyone, as you said, then
> > some of these folks--virtually all of them, in fact--are going to opt in
> > favor of using nukes for power, because it will be far simpler and less
> > labor intensive. Can you live with free choice on this matter? --MJ}***
>
> Nuclear energy is clearly the best choice for many things.
> Solar energy is clearly the best choice for most things.
> Using both in space is clearly the best choice.

***{I don't agree that solar energy is the best choice for most things,
even in high Earth orbit, but it's not an important point if you concede
that the choice should be made by the owners of the property, rather
than by "environmentalists" or by the government. --MJ}***

> >> > its own smaller power plant,
> >> > etc., together adding up to the same thing. And we would need to
> >> > somehow get raw materials up to the factories,
> >>
> >> That is easy. Capture the earth busters before they can hit the earth.
> >> Turn them into factories and habitats.
> >
> > ***{If nobody is being forced, then most people are going to continue
> > living on Earth, continue mining on Earth, and continue manufacturing on
> > Earth. Some of those who opt to live in space may earn their living by
> > mining near-Earth asteroids, of course, but most will pursue other
> > lifestyles. Again, can you live with free choice in such matters?
> > --MJ}***
>
> Free choice is the only kind I favor.
> Truely free choice. Really free, based on knowledge and logic.

***{Too many qualifiers. It's not your business to decide how others
decide, or whether they decided the "right" way. What matters is that
the owners of the property decide its use. Period. If they do less
research or employ less logic than you think they should, they assume
the risks voluntarily, and in a free society it is their call, so long
as they do not impinge on the property rights of others. --MJ}***

> Choices not forced by fear or hate or poverty.
> How many of your choices in life have been free choices?

***{Politically, freedom is the state of the man who can reasonably
expect that his property rights will not be violated. Politically, a
choice is free if the owner was uncoerced when he decided how to employ
the property. Period. It doesn't matter whether he was toilet trained
improperly and wet the bed as a child. It doesn't matter whether his
choice was influenced by bad advice from his mother. It doesn't matter
whether she beat him as a child, and, as a result, has undue influence
over him in the present. All that matters is that he made the decision
without being subject to force or the threat of force, at the time the
decision was made. If he felt like he was forced because of the way he
was treated as a child, it doesn't matter. Unless his mother was
standing in front of him with a cocked revolver pointed at his head, or
something similar, he made the choice, and he assumed the risks
associated with that choice. --MJ}***

> >> Take the factories to the raw materials (the asteroid belt).
> >
> > ***{If freedom of choice is respected, such decisions will be made on
> > economic grounds: raw materials from the asteroid belt will only be used
> > if they are competitive with other sources. To be shipped to Earth, for
> > example, they would have to be competitive with Earth based sources.
> > Unfortunately, given the amount of orbital angular momentum that would
> > have to be killed off, it is likely that those costs would be
> > prohibitive. But maybe not: lots of work is being done in celestial
> > mechanics right now, to discover low-cost, long-haul pathways in the
> > solar system, and many surprising discoveries are being made in that
> > area. Perhaps robot ore carriers will someday ferry huge tonnages from
> > the asteroid belt to Earth, taking 10, or 20, or 50 years to make the
> > trip, slipping slowly and imperceptibly, via gravity assists from
> > various solar system objects, to wend their way gradually toward the
> > Earth at essentially zero cost.
>
> Using solar sails. Using solar furnaces. Using the m.v of the materials
> boiled off duriing the refining process itself.

***{Or anything else that works. --MJ}***

> > But if that proves impracticable, and
> > freedom of choice is respected, then asteroid belt raw materials will be
> > utilized only if there is a significant human population near the
> > asteroid belt. And if few people choose to live there, can you accept
> > that? Or would you want to coerce them into doing so? --MJ}***
>
> I would not coerce them.
>
> I would not want them coerced by fear or hate or poverty into remaining on
> earth either.

***{Meaning what? That you would accept their choices only if you agreed
with the thinking by which the choices were made?

You could say, for example, that a guy was "coerced by fear" into
remaining on Earth, because he saw Arnold Schwartzenegger sliding down a
hill on Mars with his eyeballs bulging out in *Total Recall.* But would
you say that?

You could say a guy was "coerced by hate" into remaining on Earth,
because he despises the intellectuality of engineers, scientists, and
the like, and knows he will have to associate with lots of them if he
moves into space. But would you say that?

As for being "coerced by poverty," I can't even hazard a guess at what
you mean by that, since free enterprise in space would need grunt labor
so badly that they would doubtlessly pay the fares into space of those
they hired, and train them on the job. (How else could you train someone
to work in zero gravity, other than on the job? You sure won't be able
to learn such skills at a university on Earth.)

--Mitchell Jones}***

> They. You. Me. We all are being coerced by circumstances, right now.

***{Only if "circumstances" = "governments." --MJ}***

> >> > and get the finished goods to
> >> > retail outlets and thence to end users who, presumably, would not be
> >> > on Earth. But why would we do all of this?
> >>
> >> To ensure the future of the human race.
> >
> > ***{Freedom of choice will ensure the future of the human race. We need
> > people spread out as much as possible, into multiple locations, because
> > no particular location is safe. The population living in the asteroid
> > belt might, for example, be wiped out by a supernova; and yet, because
> > of protection afforded by Earth's thick atmosphere, people living on
> > Earth might survive. Or Earth might be wiped out by a comet or an
> > asteroid, while people survived in the asteroid belt. Or people on Mars
> > might survive, while everyone else was wiped out, etc. Thus not merely
> > will Earth not be turned into a park, if people's freedom of choice is
> > respected, but failure to do so will be a *good* thing. Again, can you
> > live with such an outcome, or does your desire to turn Earth into a park
> > mean you would be willing to use force to get your way? --MJ}***
>
> I want to see that which curently forces us to fear, hate and kill each
> other removed. I want to see poverty defeated

***{Then remove the socialist governments which do not permit property
rights, and the fascist governments which reserve the right to violate
property rights "in the public interest," and your job is done. --MJ}***

> without the use of force on
> any side.

***{Oops, sorry: you just left reality behind. While there are ways that
the world might gradually become free, the authorities would continue to
use force to oppress us while that gradual process was underway.

Alternatively, if you would be satisfied with decent people being able
to get away from their oppressors, then come up with a technology that
will enable individual humans to transport themselves into space, or to
live underground, or to live beneath the sea, and then post your plans
on the internet. By doing so, you would restore the frontier, and make
it possible once again for independent minded people to live "out of
sight and out of mind of those unwilling to live and let live."

Otherwise, get used to being fucked by the authorities. :-(

--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

> > Bottom line: the only moral use of force is against persons who have
> > voluntarily accepted the use of force, and hence its risks, by
> > initiating its use against others.
>
> The use of force includes the manipulation of others through the use of
> hate, ignorance, fear, and poverty.

***{Any attempt to unilaterally settle a dispute over property is a
criminal act. The proper course is always to bring the disupte before a
neutral arbiter, and let him decide. Thus if someone whips up a lynch
mob using inflammatory rhetoric, he commits a criminal act. But it is
not the fact that his presentation appealed to hate, ignorance, fear, or
poverty, which made it criminal. His presentation was a criminal act
because he was attempting, in a credible way, to unilaterally settle a
disupte over property. Persuasion of and by itself, even if it relies on
demagogic manipulations, is not a criminal act. --MJ}***
.