• World Economic Forum, Target True Zero is expected to lean heavily

    From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Wed Aug 4 08:59:40 2021
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/world-economic-forum-launches-target-true-zero-to-reduce-aviation-emissions

    World Economic Forum Launches Target True Zero to Reduce Aviation Emissions Mark Phelps August 3, 20215

    Starry eyed dreamers can come up with all sorts of targets and plans for
    zero emissions for things but none of it will become reality absent
    blazing advances in technology or acceptance of politically incorrect technology like nuclear reactors.

    Yeah, I know reactors have real problems but all of them can be solved
    with current technology.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 7 10:51:03 2021
    On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:59:40 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/world-economic-forum-launches-target-true-zero-to-reduce-aviation-emissions

    World Economic Forum Launches Target True Zero to Reduce Aviation Emissions >> Mark Phelps August 3, 20215

    Starry eyed dreamers can come up with all sorts of targets and plans for
    zero emissions for things but none of it will become reality absent
    blazing advances in technology or acceptance of politically incorrect >technology like nuclear reactors.

    Yeah, I know reactors have real problems but all of them can be solved
    with current technology.

    Hello Jim,

    My issue with nuclear power generation, aside from the potential for it to render large areas of the planet uninhabitable virtually indefinitely, is
    that it is fundamentally irresponsible to produce hazardous waste without an acceptable means of its safe disposal. And then there's the enormous costs being paid by our government annually to each nuclear generating entity to cover on-site spent nuclear storage, and the equally exorbitant cost borne
    by the rate-payers at the reactor's end of life for decommissioning them.
    (The massive concrete containment and its contents must be sawed into blocks and trucked to the (non-existent at this time) storage site.)

    For use on ocean-going vessels, nuclear power makes better sense, because in the event of a meltdown, the fissionable materials will burn through the
    hull of the ship and sink into the ocean's cooling water, rather than contaminating the atmosphere. Some of the developing nuclear technologies
    may address some of these issue, but I'm not aware of anything specifically.

    There is an exciting new technological development that holds promise for achieving zero emissions for electric aviation. High temperature fuel-cell advancement by Hypoint appears to have significantly advanced the efficiency
    of typically ~60% efficient fuel-cells (Toyota Marai). Please have a look
    at this video https://youtu.be/0stTeHSVvFw to see HyPoint's claims.
    HyPoint's May, 2021 White Paper is here: https://docsend.com/view/t9aw2mk .

    December 2020, HyPoint was named a winner of NASA's iTech Initiative.


    https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/electric-hybrid/prototype-air-cooled-fuel-cell-for-aircraft-passes-validation-tests.html
    Testing has shown that the turbo air-cooled hydrogen fuel cell system
    will achieve up to 2,000 watts per kilogram of specific power, more than
    triple the power-to-weight ratio of traditional hydrogen fuel cells
    systems. It will also feature up to 1,500 watt-hours per kilogram of
    energy density, enabling longer-distance journeys.

    So if renewably-generated (tidal, solar, wind, geothermal) H2 electrolysis
    was cryocooler liquefied (LH2) and employed for electric aviation, it seems
    to me that zero emissions With LH2's energy density greater than gasoline
    and light weight is an obvious course to pursue. Here's an inexpensive High-purity hydrogen generator for laboratory Gaschromatograph produces 0-300ml/min: https://www.ebay.com/itm/183638440966

    Here are some videos that illustrate how easy and inexpensive it is to
    liquefy air and N2:
    https://youtu.be/7PWESWqhD8s Liquid Nitrogen Generator https://youtu.be/dCXkaQa53QQ liquid air
    https://youtu.be/upuxp3OowbY LIQUID NITROGEN out of AIR
    I realize that H2 liquefaction requires a lower temperature, around 21 K
    IIRC, the techniques demonstrated in those videos would have to be modified accordingly.

    Here are some cheap used cryocoolers to provide some idea of what's
    available:
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/255039878032
    AIRESEARCH F4 Phantom super conductor Nitrogen CRYOGENIC COMPRESSOR

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/191506050025
    NESLAB FTC-350A FlowThru Cooler CRYOCOOL COOLER

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/114297652946
    Advanced Research Systems DE-204NF Cryocooler Cold Head

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/362591825340
    APD MODEL125S CRYOGENIC PUMP

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/283635450637
    BRUKER Cryo Platform CryoCooling Unit 2M with Stabiline SVRS 88204CU


    If the extremely cold temperature of LH2 becomes a limiting factor in the field, H2 can be stored in solids:

    https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/hydrogen/new-powerpaste-for-hydrogen-storage-20210204
    Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials
    IFAM in Dresden have now come up with a hydrogen-based fuel that is
    ideal for small vehicles: Powerpaste, which is based on solid magnesium
    hydride.

    https://newatlas.com/energy/powerpaste-hydrogen-fuel-paste/
    Fraunhofer researchers have presented a magnesium-based "Powerpaste"
    that stores hydrogen energy at 10 times the density of a lithium
    battery, offering hydrogen fuel cell vehicles the ability to travel
    further than gasoline-powered ones, and refuel in minutes.

    https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/storage.html
    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), NREL develops comprehensive storage
    solutions, with a focus on hydrogen storage material properties, storage
    system configurations, interface requirements, and well-to-wheel
    analyses.

    Finally, here are videos demonstrating H2 fuel cell powered aircraft:
    https://youtu.be/U_FRA63uihw Hydrogen Fuel cell Powered Drone
    https://youtu.be/u9DaHIecIc4 Hydrogen Fuel Cells Go Flying

    Best regards,
    Larry


    ---------------------------------------------------------
    https://hypoint.com
    drop us a line

    we make zero emission air transport possible

    building next generation hydrogen fuel cell system
    that can deliver both high specific power > 2 000 W/kg and high energy
    density > 1 500 Wh/kg, exactly what aircraft designers are looking for.

    the solution is unique
    Turbo-Air Cooled HTPEM Hydrogen Fuel Cell System
    The core innovation is the new turbo air-cooling architecture. By utilizing compressed air for both cooling and oxygen supply, we dramatically reduce overall weight compared with traditional liquid cooling..

    We are using a next-generation high temperature membrane (HTPEM) instead of
    a low temperature membrane (LTPEM), which increases the efficiency of a
    cooling system by at least
    300%
    download free 3D-model

    Our new catalyst and lightweight bipolar plate increase power output while reducing weight.

    use cases
    HyPoint turbo air-cooled fuel cells are ideal for a variety of aviation and
    air mobility uses including for logistic drones, air taxis, electric
    vertical takeoff and landing vehicles (eVTOLs), and fixed-wing airplanes.

    use cases
    Our modular system is easy to integrate across aviation from 50kW drones to 10MW aircrafts.

    measurable benefits for real applications
    Our proprietary patent-pending technology allows us to deliver a
    revolutionary lightweight climate- independent fuel cell with an extended lifespan
    3X
    specific
    power
    4X
    lifespan
    -60 +60 Cį
    climate
    independent
    H2 low
    grade

    our solution increases operational time and utilization rate and decreases total cost of ownership

    how it works
    use cases
    problem we solve
    team
    press
    white paper
    drop us a line

    ecologically safe
    By 2050, aviation will be responsible for 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions, up from just 10% today ó unless we do something. We can not solve the existential climate crisis without zero-emission air transportation.
    there is a problem
    The arrival of zero-emission aviation vehicles has been limited by the
    energy density limitation of Li-ion batteries and the specific power limitations of hydrogen fuel cells.

    We managed to build next generation fuel cells with both high specific power and high energy density ó exactly what aircraft designers are looking for.

    manufacturing capabilities
    Weíre no strangers to hydrogen fuel cell technology. We have all necessary equipment, R&D facilities and partners to build the best in the class fuel cells
    powerful team
    Our company currently comprises 15 employees, 8 of whom are PhDs
    advisory board
    Our company currently comprises 20 employees, 8 of whom are PhDs
    our partners

    press about us
    get in touch
    name
    e-mail
    message
    refresh
    send
    HyPoint Inc., 101 Jefferson Dr., Menlo Park, CA, USA, 94025
    +1 404 826 3656
    © 2021. All rights reserved
    Privacy Policy
    Terms & Conditions

    info@hypoint.com
    follow us

    3D models are used from the stock. Contact us by e-mail for more details.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Sat Aug 7 11:38:25 2021
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:59:40 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/world-economic-forum-launches-target-true-zero-to-reduce-aviation-emissions

    World Economic Forum Launches Target True Zero to Reduce Aviation Emissions >>> Mark Phelps August 3, 20215

    Starry eyed dreamers can come up with all sorts of targets and plans for >>zero emissions for things but none of it will become reality absent
    blazing advances in technology or acceptance of politically incorrect >>technology like nuclear reactors.

    Yeah, I know reactors have real problems but all of them can be solved
    with current technology.

    Hello Jim,

    My issue with nuclear power generation, aside from the potential for it to render large areas of the planet uninhabitable virtually indefinitely, is that it is fundamentally irresponsible to produce hazardous waste without an acceptable means of its safe disposal. And then there's the enormous costs being paid by our government annually to each nuclear generating entity to cover on-site spent nuclear storage, and the equally exorbitant cost borne
    by the rate-payers at the reactor's end of life for decommissioning them. (The massive concrete containment and its contents must be sawed into blocks and trucked to the (non-existent at this time) storage site.)

    True, mostly, about the risks, but like I said, all those problems can be solved with current technology.

    That is, we don't have to invent something new, just build something that
    to date hasn't been built.

    As for "uninhabitable virtually indefinitely", Chernobyl, in spite of
    little action to make it happen, is already showing signs of recovery
    after only 35 years, as opposed to the thousands of years of the
    doomsday crowd.

    The original exclusion area was about 3,000 km^2 and is shrinking
    already.

    As of 2016, 187 locals had returned and were living permanently in the zone.

    3,000 km^2 is about 0.0002% of the Earth's land area, so it would take
    100 Chernobyls to get to 0.02% and new reactors would not be the ratty
    old design of Chernobyl or run by lackadaisical Russians.

    Estimates for when the vast majority of the area will be considered
    habitable again range from about 300 years up.

    BTW, the government does not pay the generating entity anything.

    It is the entity that is charged an operating fee by the government for eventual shutdown and disposal of waste. It has been that way for a LONG
    time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 7 14:05:28 2021
    On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 11:38:25 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:59:40 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/world-economic-forum-launches-target-true-zero-to-reduce-aviation-emissions

    World Economic Forum Launches Target True Zero to Reduce Aviation Emissions
    Mark Phelps August 3, 20215

    Starry eyed dreamers can come up with all sorts of targets and plans for >>>zero emissions for things but none of it will become reality absent >>>blazing advances in technology or acceptance of politically incorrect >>>technology like nuclear reactors.

    Yeah, I know reactors have real problems but all of them can be solved >>>with current technology.


    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us#gs.7v7elx America's nuclear waste: No solution in sight

    Americaís nuclear waste is accumulating at over 75 sites in 35 states. In
    2016, Stanford scholars discussed why there was no clear way forward for its final disposal. Not much has improved.



    Hello Jim,

    My issue with nuclear power generation, aside from the potential for it to >> render large areas of the planet uninhabitable virtually indefinitely, is
    that it is fundamentally irresponsible to produce hazardous waste without an >> acceptable means of its safe disposal. And then there's the enormous costs >> being paid by our government annually to each nuclear generating entity to >> cover on-site spent nuclear storage, and the equally exorbitant cost borne >> by the rate-payers at the reactor's end of life for decommissioning them.
    (The massive concrete containment and its contents must be sawed into blocks >> and trucked to the (non-existent at this time) storage site.)

    True, mostly, about the risks, but like I said, all those problems can be >solved with current technology.

    That is, we don't have to invent something new, just build something that
    to date hasn't been built.


    So, you disagree that it is fundamentally irresponsible to produce hazardous waste without an acceptable means of its safe disposal.


    As for "uninhabitable virtually indefinitely", Chernobyl, in spite of
    little action to make it happen, is already showing signs of recovery
    after only 35 years, as opposed to the thousands of years of the
    doomsday crowd.

    The original exclusion area was about 3,000 km^2 and is shrinking
    already.

    As of 2016, 187 locals had returned and were living permanently in the zone.

    3,000 km^2 is about 0.0002% of the Earth's land area, so it would take
    100 Chernobyls to get to 0.02% and new reactors would not be the ratty
    old design of Chernobyl or run by lackadaisical Russians.

    Estimates for when the vast majority of the area will be considered
    habitable again range from about 300 years up.

    BTW, the government does not pay the generating entity anything.

    It is the entity that is charged an operating fee by the government for >eventual shutdown and disposal of waste. It has been that way for a LONG >time.


    Jim,

    Have you seen these articles?

    https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-radioactive-nuclear-waste-storage-20190614-story.html
    Almost 40 years after Congress decided the United States, and not private companies, would be responsible for storing radioactive waste, the cost of
    that effort has grown to $7.5 billion, and itís about to get even pricier.

    https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/2019/12/07/nuclear-power-plants-require-significant-subsidies-to-keep-operating-experts-say/
    In January 2018 Illinoisí quad cities and Clinton nuclear reactors received government subsidies worth $200 million a year. Two millstone plants in Connecticut also received subsidies worth $330 million a year in December of the same year, while Salem and Hope Creek reactors in New Jersey received
    $300 million subsidies in April 2019.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants
    The study of the economics of nuclear power has found it has never been financially viable, that most plants have been built while heavily
    subsidised by governments, often motivated by military purposes, and that nuclear power is not a good approach to tackling climate change.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IF11201.pdf
    Political and legal opposition to
    the project has delayed the licensing, construction, and
    operation of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
    NWPA authorized DOE to enter into agreements with
    nuclear utilities and other reactor owners to collect fees to
    pay for DOEís disposal of the SNF. However, due to the
    delay in operation of a permanent repository, the federal
    government has paid roughly $7.4 billion from the
    Judgment Fund to nuclear utilities and other reactor owners
    pursuant to court settlements and final judgments through
    FY2018.

    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us#gs.7v7elx
    We pay about half-a-billion dollars a year to the utilities for their simply keeping the fuel because thereís no place for it to go. --Rodney C. Ewing

    What will happen if we donít find a solution?

    There will not be an immediate catastrophe; I donít expect anything to
    explode. There will be environmental contamination, but the biggest problem
    is financial. Weíre spending $6 billion a year trying to deal with the
    problem, and weíll continue to spend $4.5 to $5 billion a year without
    solving the problem.


    https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/nuclear-waste-fiasco-100450

    The $38 billion nuclear waste fiasco

    By DARIUS DIXON

    11/30/2013 12:29 PM EST
    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter

    Doing nothing often has a cost ó and when it comes to storing the nationís nuclear waste, the price is $38 billion and rising.

    Thatís just the lowball estimate for how much taxpayers will wind up
    spending because of the governmentís decades of dithering about how to
    handle the radioactive leftovers sitting at dozens of sites in 38 states.
    The final price will be higher unless the government starts collecting the waste by 2020, which almost nobody who tracks the issue expects.

    The first $15 billion is what the government spent on a controversial
    nuclear waste repository at Nevadaís Yucca Mountain until the Obama administration scrapped the project. The other $23 billion is the Energy Departmentís estimate of the damages the government will have to pay to
    nuclear power utilities, which for the past 30 years have paid a fee to DOE
    on the promise that the feds would begin collecting their waste in 1998.

    Industry argues that the damages are closer to $50 billion ó which raises
    the bottom line to $65 billion including the money spent on Yucca.

    ( Sign up for POLITICOís Morning Energy tip sheet)

    The cost of the refunds is little known to the public, but itís such a huge liability that DOE tracks the figure closely. The government is still
    fighting the utilitiesí claims in court, but utilities have been racking up
    a string of wins.

    The costs of inaction donít just include dollars. The lack of a final
    resting place for the waste means that each nuclear plant has to stockpile
    its own. Thousands of tons of waste are stranded at sites around the
    country, including at plants that have shut down.

    ďIím trying to think of some fancy words, but at the end of the day itís
    just a massive consumer rip-off,Ē said Greg White, a regulator on the
    Michigan Public Service Commission who also heads the nuclear waste panel
    for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. NARUC,
    which represents state-level regulators, won a legal victory this month when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered DOE to stop collecting the fee.
    [...]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Sat Aug 7 18:00:10 2021
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 11:38:25 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:59:40 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/world-economic-forum-launches-target-true-zero-to-reduce-aviation-emissions

    World Economic Forum Launches Target True Zero to Reduce Aviation Emissions
    Mark Phelps August 3, 20215

    Starry eyed dreamers can come up with all sorts of targets and plans for >>>>zero emissions for things but none of it will become reality absent >>>>blazing advances in technology or acceptance of politically incorrect >>>>technology like nuclear reactors.

    Yeah, I know reactors have real problems but all of them can be solved >>>>with current technology.


    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us#gs.7v7elx America's nuclear waste: No solution in sight

    America?s nuclear waste is accumulating at over 75 sites in 35 states. In 2016, Stanford scholars discussed why there was no clear way forward for its final disposal. Not much has improved.

    And yet again, that is NOT a technological problem, it is a POLITICAL
    problem. How to build such facilities is century old tecnology.



    Hello Jim,

    My issue with nuclear power generation, aside from the potential for it to >>> render large areas of the planet uninhabitable virtually indefinitely, is >>> that it is fundamentally irresponsible to produce hazardous waste without an
    acceptable means of its safe disposal. And then there's the enormous costs >>> being paid by our government annually to each nuclear generating entity to >>> cover on-site spent nuclear storage, and the equally exorbitant cost borne >>> by the rate-payers at the reactor's end of life for decommissioning them. >>> (The massive concrete containment and its contents must be sawed into blocks
    and trucked to the (non-existent at this time) storage site.)

    True, mostly, about the risks, but like I said, all those problems can be >>solved with current technology.

    That is, we don't have to invent something new, just build something that >>to date hasn't been built.


    So, you disagree that it is fundamentally irresponsible to produce hazardous waste without an acceptable means of its safe disposal.

    Yes, but yet again, that is NOT a technological problem, it is a
    POLITICAL problem. How to build such facilities is century old tecnology.

    Actually building them is a POLITICAL issue.


    As for "uninhabitable virtually indefinitely", Chernobyl, in spite of >>little action to make it happen, is already showing signs of recovery
    after only 35 years, as opposed to the thousands of years of the
    doomsday crowd.

    The original exclusion area was about 3,000 km^2 and is shrinking
    already.

    As of 2016, 187 locals had returned and were living permanently in the zone. >>
    3,000 km^2 is about 0.0002% of the Earth's land area, so it would take
    100 Chernobyls to get to 0.02% and new reactors would not be the ratty
    old design of Chernobyl or run by lackadaisical Russians.

    Estimates for when the vast majority of the area will be considered >>habitable again range from about 300 years up.

    BTW, the government does not pay the generating entity anything.

    It is the entity that is charged an operating fee by the government for >>eventual shutdown and disposal of waste. It has been that way for a LONG >>time.


    Jim,

    Have you seen these articles?

    <snip>

    I don't care and most of it is irrelevant arm waving.

    First, I don't care much what other countries do as long as they are not bombing Pearl Harbour.

    Second, the majority of US nuclear waste is generated by the US
    government as a result of military operations, not private nuclear power plants.

    As of 2019 the US disposal fund was $43 billion and earns about $1.5
    billion a year in interest, and utilities pumped in about $750 million per
    year until the lawsuit over the utter lack of any action on the part of
    the DOE, which is the agency responsible for handling waste.

    Yet the DOE has done NOTHING to address the issue and a federal judge
    found in 2014 that the DOE cannot charge for a service it is not
    providing, and utilities stopped paying.

    That sounds like yet another POLITICAL issue.

    If this were a perfect world of rainbows and butterflys, then there
    might be an international effort to find a remote, uninhabited place
    where everyone could store the waste.

    But that again, is a POLITICAL issue.

    And since ALL the issues with nuclear power are political, discussions
    of them belong somewhere else.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Daniel@21:1/5 to Jim Pennino on Sun Aug 8 08:55:05 2021
    Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> writes:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/world-economic-forum-launches-target-true-zero-to-reduce-aviation-emissions

    World Economic Forum Launches Target True Zero to Reduce Aviation Emissions >> Mark Phelps August 3, 20215

    Starry eyed dreamers can come up with all sorts of targets and plans for
    zero emissions for things but none of it will become reality absent
    blazing advances in technology or acceptance of politically incorrect technology like nuclear reactors.

    Yeah, I know reactors have real problems but all of them can be solved
    with current technology.

    Politicians are dreamers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 9 16:05:33 2021
    On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 18:00:10 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    And since ALL the issues with nuclear power are political, discussions
    of them belong somewhere else.

    As I recall, it was you who was first to mention nuclear power generation in this forum.

    I was hoping you might acknowledge the viability of LH2 for electric
    aviation in light of the new high temperature fuel-cell technological breakthrough information I provided.

    On that subject, here is a technology that bypasses the necessity for electricity to power electrolysis of water into its constituent H2 and O2 gases.

    https://environment.harvard.edu/news/next-step-renewable-bionic-leaf-fuel-production
    "What you do is you use sunlight to rearrange the bonds of water and
    make hydrogen and oxygen. You can use the hydrogen as a fuel via fuel
    cells. That takes the hydrogen and takes oxygen from the air and then it
    generates electricity."

    VIDEO: https://youtu.be/2KRlRhNbxKg
    Watch as light splits water into H2 and O2 before your eyes.

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/bionic-leaf-turns-sunlight-into-liquid-fuel/

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/01/harvards-bionic-leaf-could-help-feed-the-world/
    "The bionic leaf is an outgrowth of Noceraís artificial leaf, which
    efficiently splits water into hydrogen and oxygen gas by pairing silicon
    ó the material that makes up solar panels ó with catalyst coatings. The
    hydrogen gas can be stored on site and used to drive fuel cells,
    providing a way to store and use power that originates from the sun."

    https://www.pnas.org/content/118/9/e2024855118.short
    RESEARCH ARTICLE
    Continuous electrochemical water splitting from natural water sources
    via forward osmosis
    Samuel S. Veroneau and View ORCID ProfileDaniel G. Nocera


    I'm thinking that this technology, together with the high-temperature
    fuel-cell technology I mentioned in a previous message may advance the
    movement toward long range electric aircraft.



    High Temperature Fuel-cell Technological breakthrough:
    There is an exciting new technological development that holds promise for achieving zero emissions for electric aviation. High temperature fuel-cell advancement by Hypoint appears to have significantly advanced the efficiency
    of typically ~60% efficient fuel-cells (Toyota Marai). Please have a look
    at this video https://youtu.be/0stTeHSVvFw to see HyPoint's claims.
    HyPoint's May, 2021 White Paper is here: https://docsend.com/view/t9aw2mk .

    December 2020, HyPoint was named a winner of NASA's iTech Initiative.

    https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/electric-hybrid/prototype-air-cooled-fuel-cell-for-aircraft-passes-validation-tests.html
    Testing has shown that the turbo air-cooled hydrogen fuel cell system
    will achieve up to 2,000 watts per kilogram of specific power, more than
    triple the power-to-weight ratio of traditional hydrogen fuel cells
    systems. It will also feature up to 1,500 watt-hours per kilogram of
    energy density, enabling longer-distance journeys.

    Best regards,
    Larry

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Mon Aug 9 16:32:47 2021
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 18:00:10 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    And since ALL the issues with nuclear power are political, discussions
    of them belong somewhere else.

    As I recall, it was you who was first to mention nuclear power generation in this forum.

    Yeah, in a couple of words as an example of existing but politically incorrect tecnology.

    Then YOU took the ball and ran with it.


    I was hoping you might acknowledge the viability of LH2 for electric
    aviation in light of the new high temperature fuel-cell technological breakthrough information I provided.

    Possibility, with a lot more research yes, viability any time soon, no.

    Any day now we will have unlimited fusion energy, a cure for the common
    cold, and peace in the Middle East.

    And it has been that way for over a half century.

    On that subject, here is a technology that bypasses the necessity for electricity to power electrolysis of water into its constituent H2 and O2 gases.

    I read about this, yet another, pie in the sky scheme long ago.

    That's never going to happen other than in some niche applications for a
    LOT of reasons.

    Even if you could get it to work on a large scale, you still have the issues
    of compressing, storing, and transporting the hydrogen, none of which are
    cheap in terms of energy.

    Climate change will destroy civilization, so we better destroy
    civilization to keep that from happening...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 15 12:29:27 2021
    On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:32:47 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 18:00:10 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:


    [snip]

    I was hoping you might acknowledge the viability of LH2 for electric
    aviation in light of the new high temperature fuel-cell technological
    breakthrough information I provided.

    Possibility, with a lot more research yes, viability any time soon, no.


    Agreed. Some of the recent "breakthrough"technologies I have suggested
    require further development. Apparently that development is underway,
    however.


    Any day now we will have unlimited fusion energy, a cure for the common
    cold, and peace in the Middle East.

    And it has been that way for over a half century.


    I would wager you were equally skeptical about the likelihood of electric automobiles being accepted worldwide by governments and the public before
    Elon Musk proved that they can be stylish, reasonably non-polluting, and
    very fast.

    You skepticism is why I value your input on this topic. You are
    knowledgeable and difficult to convince; that drives me to research the
    points you make, and learn something in the process.


    On that subject, here is a technology that bypasses the necessity for
    electricity to power electrolysis of water into its constituent H2 and O2
    gases.

    I read about this, yet another, pie in the sky scheme long ago.

    That's never going to happen other than in some niche applications for a
    LOT of reasons.


    I believe the report indicates that the direct photo-electrolysis of water
    into its constituent gases is currently working in the laboratory.
    Regardless of how efficient it is or is not, a passive solar electrolysis
    cell fueled solely by sunshine could deliver H2 and O2 whenever and wherever the sun hits it. That's about as clean H2 production as I can imagine.

    Locally sited direct solar hydrolysis coupled with the very high efficiency
    of electric motor technology, and more efficient high temperature fuel-cell technology would eliminate the power required to generate H2, and deliver it
    at the "filling station," all without emitting any CO2 or any other
    pollutants.


    Even if you could get it to work on a large scale, you still have the issues >of compressing, storing, and transporting the hydrogen, none of which are >cheap in terms of energy.


    Compressing H2 is not required if a cryocooler is employed to liquefy it;
    LH2 is stored at ambient atmospheric pressure. In the videos at the links I included in previous posts, you will see cryocoolers liquefying atmospheric nitrogen with only ~150 Watts of energy required.

    Alternatively, H2 can be stored in the spaces between solid-matter molecules
    al la Power Paste, or some other similar product.

    As mentioned above, on-site hydrogen generation obviates the necessity for transporting it, and eliminates the emissions associated with the
    traditional method of trucking fuel to filling stations.


    Climate change will destroy civilization, so we better destroy
    civilization to keep that from happening...


    I too believe that we have passed the point of turning the destructive environmental trend around as evidenced by the loss of forests:


    https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/deforestation-and-forest-degradation
    "Over half of the tropical forests worldwide have been destroyed since
    the 1960s, and every second, more than one hectare of tropical forests
    is destroyed or drastically degraded. This intense and devastating
    pressure on forests is not limited to the tropics Ė an estimated 3.7
    million hectares of Europeís forests are damaged by livestock, insects,
    diseases, forest fires, and other human-linked activities."

    Of course, the last phrase in your sentence is meant tongue-in-cheek, but it sounds like QAnon fake news and makes me want to take my toddler aged
    children to Mexico and shoot them through the heart with my spear gun to
    "save the world from monsters." :-( https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/california-man-admitted-killing-his-kids-with-a-spear-gun-in-mexico-said-he-was-enlightened-by-qanon-and-believed-young-victims-had-serpent-dna-criminal-complaint/ar-AANfmh9

    -----------------------


    Have you been wondering what has happened to our democracy?

    YOU MUST VIEW THIS VIDEO: https://youtu.be/mAplGu1RxPg

    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat from Road Island, delivers his first of three speeches on court capture by the corporate elite: https://youtu.be/mAplGu1RxPg . He clearly and articulately explains the
    long term strategy of the of right-wing plutocrats' capture of our noble
    nation for their own avaricious goals. His three damning speeches are a
    clear explanation of how we got to this deplorable place in history.


    What can we do about it?

    The Move to Amend Coalition https://www.movetoamend.org Is actively working
    to end corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, not corporate interests. Please get the word out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Sun Aug 15 13:04:30 2021
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:32:47 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 18:00:10 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:


    [snip]

    I was hoping you might acknowledge the viability of LH2 for electric
    aviation in light of the new high temperature fuel-cell technological
    breakthrough information I provided.

    Possibility, with a lot more research yes, viability any time soon, no.


    Agreed. Some of the recent "breakthrough"technologies I have suggested require further development. Apparently that development is underway, however.


    And likely will be for a LONG time.


    Any day now we will have unlimited fusion energy, a cure for the common >>cold, and peace in the Middle East.

    And it has been that way for over a half century.


    I would wager you were equally skeptical about the likelihood of electric automobiles being accepted worldwide by governments and the public before Elon Musk proved that they can be stylish, reasonably non-polluting, and
    very fast.

    As well as very expensive, prone to catching fire, taking a
    comparatively long time to refuel, needing a battery replacement
    that is a significant fraction of the original vehicle cost after 6
    years or so, and requiring government subsidies to make them anywhere
    near affordable by most people.

    You skepticism is why I value your input on this topic. You are knowledgeable and difficult to convince; that drives me to research the points you make, and learn something in the process.


    On that subject, here is a technology that bypasses the necessity for
    electricity to power electrolysis of water into its constituent H2 and O2 >>> gases.

    I read about this, yet another, pie in the sky scheme long ago.

    That's never going to happen other than in some niche applications for a >>LOT of reasons.


    I believe the report indicates that the direct photo-electrolysis of water into its constituent gases is currently working in the laboratory.

    There are LOTS of things "currently working in the laboratory", but that
    does not mean they will ever be actually useful.


    Regardless of how efficient it is or is not, a passive solar electrolysis cell fueled solely by sunshine could deliver H2 and O2 whenever and wherever the sun hits it. That's about as clean H2 production as I can imagine.

    It would by the height of folly to disregard efficiency.

    Remember just a few years back when alcohol would be the fuel of the
    future until inconvenient facts like ALL agriculture would have to be
    devoted to alcohol production to achieve it and the price of corn sky
    rocketed in places like Mexico?

    Locally sited direct solar hydrolysis coupled with the very high efficiency of electric motor technology, and more efficient high temperature fuel-cell technology would eliminate the power required to generate H2, and deliver it at the "filling station," all without emitting any CO2 or any other pollutants.

    So you are going to fuel your fuel cell based car with low pressure
    hydrogen?

    Yeah, that's going to work just great on oh so many levels.


    Even if you could get it to work on a large scale, you still have the issues >>of compressing, storing, and transporting the hydrogen, none of which are >>cheap in terms of energy.


    Compressing H2 is not required if a cryocooler is employed to liquefy it;
    LH2 is stored at ambient atmospheric pressure. In the videos at the links I included in previous posts, you will see cryocoolers liquefying atmospheric nitrogen with only ~150 Watts of energy required.

    Yep, all you need now is a VERY well insulated cryo tank and whoever
    does the fueling needs a full face shield, safety glasses, insulated or
    leather gloves, long-sleeved shirt, and pants without cuffs along with
    a bunch of safety training and in some places a certificate of some sort.

    BTW, did you bother to get the volume of nitrogen produced with 150 W?

    Alternatively, H2 can be stored in the spaces between solid-matter molecules al la Power Paste, or some other similar product.

    Or maybe pixie dust...


    As mentioned above, on-site hydrogen generation obviates the necessity for transporting it, and eliminates the emissions associated with the
    traditional method of trucking fuel to filling stations.

    And just where, on your typical filling station, would you put all this
    high tech equipment and who monitors it to prevent another Hindenburg
    event?

    It is also highly unlikely that whoever does the actual fueling will be
    someone working for gas station attendant wages.


    Climate change will destroy civilization, so we better destroy
    civilization to keep that from happening...


    I too believe that we have passed the point of turning the destructive environmental trend around as evidenced by the loss of forests:

    I guess that just flew right over your head.

    It was satire directed at the panic stricken Chicken Little's of the
    world.


    <snip>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geoff Rove@21:1/5 to Jim Pennino on Fri Aug 20 14:15:50 2021
    On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
    Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net> wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:32:47 -0700, Jim Pennino <ji...@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net> wrote:
    On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 18:00:10 -0700, Jim Pennino <ji...@gonzo.specsol.net> >>> wrote:


    [snip]

    I was hoping you might acknowledge the viability of LH2 for electric
    aviation in light of the new high temperature fuel-cell technological
    breakthrough information I provided.

    Possibility, with a lot more research yes, viability any time soon, no.


    Agreed. Some of the recent "breakthrough"technologies I have suggested require further development. Apparently that development is underway, however.

    And likely will be for a LONG time.

    Any day now we will have unlimited fusion energy, a cure for the common >>cold, and peace in the Middle East.

    And it has been that way for over a half century.


    I would wager you were equally skeptical about the likelihood of electric automobiles being accepted worldwide by governments and the public before Elon Musk proved that they can be stylish, reasonably non-polluting, and very fast.
    As well as very expensive, prone to catching fire, taking a
    comparatively long time to refuel, needing a battery replacement
    that is a significant fraction of the original vehicle cost after 6
    years or so, and requiring government subsidies to make them anywhere
    near affordable by most people.
    You skepticism is why I value your input on this topic. You are knowledgeable and difficult to convince; that drives me to research the points you make, and learn something in the process.


    On that subject, here is a technology that bypasses the necessity for
    electricity to power electrolysis of water into its constituent H2 and O2 >>> gases.

    I read about this, yet another, pie in the sky scheme long ago.

    That's never going to happen other than in some niche applications for a >>LOT of reasons.


    I believe the report indicates that the direct photo-electrolysis of water into its constituent gases is currently working in the laboratory.
    There are LOTS of things "currently working in the laboratory", but that
    does not mean they will ever be actually useful.
    Regardless of how efficient it is or is not, a passive solar electrolysis cell fueled solely by sunshine could deliver H2 and O2 whenever and wherever
    the sun hits it. That's about as clean H2 production as I can imagine.
    It would by the height of folly to disregard efficiency.

    Remember just a few years back when alcohol would be the fuel of the
    future until inconvenient facts like ALL agriculture would have to be
    devoted to alcohol production to achieve it and the price of corn sky rocketed in places like Mexico?
    Locally sited direct solar hydrolysis coupled with the very high efficiency of electric motor technology, and more efficient high temperature fuel-cell technology would eliminate the power required to generate H2, and deliver it
    at the "filling station," all without emitting any CO2 or any other pollutants.
    So you are going to fuel your fuel cell based car with low pressure
    hydrogen?

    Yeah, that's going to work just great on oh so many levels.

    Even if you could get it to work on a large scale, you still have the issues
    of compressing, storing, and transporting the hydrogen, none of which are >>cheap in terms of energy.


    Compressing H2 is not required if a cryocooler is employed to liquefy it; LH2 is stored at ambient atmospheric pressure. In the videos at the links I included in previous posts, you will see cryocoolers liquefying atmospheric nitrogen with only ~150 Watts of energy required.
    Yep, all you need now is a VERY well insulated cryo tank and whoever
    does the fueling needs a full face shield, safety glasses, insulated or leather gloves, long-sleeved shirt, and pants without cuffs along with
    a bunch of safety training and in some places a certificate of some sort.

    BTW, did you bother to get the volume of nitrogen produced with 150 W?
    Alternatively, H2 can be stored in the spaces between solid-matter molecules
    al la Power Paste, or some other similar product.
    Or maybe pixie dust...

    As mentioned above, on-site hydrogen generation obviates the necessity for transporting it, and eliminates the emissions associated with the traditional method of trucking fuel to filling stations.
    And just where, on your typical filling station, would you put all this
    high tech equipment and who monitors it to prevent another Hindenburg
    event?

    It is also highly unlikely that whoever does the actual fueling will be someone working for gas station attendant wages.

    Climate change will destroy civilization, so we better destroy >>civilization to keep that from happening...


    I too believe that we have passed the point of turning the destructive environmental trend around as evidenced by the loss of forests:
    I guess that just flew right over your head.

    It was satire directed at the panic stricken Chicken Little's of the
    world.


    <snip>

    What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Geoff Rove on Fri Aug 20 14:19:09 2021
    Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

    What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 20 15:13:58 2021
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

    What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?


    What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?


    ďIrrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.Ē
    ĖLDighera

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 20 15:54:02 2021
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:28:13 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

    What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?


    What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?

    Religion and science are orthogonal.


    What if there were a neurophysiological structural difference between individuals with a tendency toward emotionally dominant behavior and those
    with the curiosity and courage to believe in the empirical facts they
    observe?



    ------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://youtu.be/kI-un8rHP14
    Gail Saltz: So I think whatís really fascinating is that there have been a number of recent studies looking at brain structural differences between liberals and conservatives. And whatís been found in several studies is that liberals tend to have a larger anterior cingulate gyrus. That is an area
    that is responsible for taking in new information and that impact of the new information on decision making or choices. Conservatives tended on the whole
    to have a larger right amygdala. Amygdala being a deeper brain structure
    that processes more emotional information - specifically fear based information. So itís really responsible for the flight or fright response.
    And this isnít everybody. Itís not black and white and of course then, you know, what about all of the people in the middle? But basically the study showed that if you just based it on brain structural size different you
    could predict who would be a conservative and who would be a liberal with frequency of 71.6 percent.

    71.6 percent is a pretty high ability to predict who is a conservative and
    who is a liberal just from brain structure. When you look at what your
    parents were in terms of predicting what you might be in terms of
    conservative versus liberal, that enabled you to predict in studies at a
    rate of 69.5 percent. So very close. Not quite as good and why is that interesting? Itís because the brain is plastic. So the question as to
    whether you have a brain structure to start with that informs whether you
    will be a liberal or conservative or whether the formation of certain
    thoughts from your parents for example shapes your brain structure. Because
    the brain is plastic and ever changing, particularly in youth. So does
    thinking certain thoughts or predominantly letís say utilizing your right amygdala versus your anterior cingulate gyrus inform the growth of those
    areas and therefore help you predict later who is liberal and who is conservative.

    So in terms of interpreting the meaning of different sized structures for a liberal versus a conservative I think you have to look at what that area is predominantly responsible for. So for instance for conservatives if youíre right amygdala is enlarged and thatís the fear processing area you would
    expect maybe choices or decisions or character and personality to be more informed by a response to a fearful situation. So for example conservatives
    in fact in personality studies do tend to rate higher in areas of stability, loyalty, not liking change, being more religiously involved in terms of decision making, having that rate higher for them in making certain choices. And if you look at liberals from a personality character standpoint youíre going to find stronger ratings in terms of liking change wanting to actually base decision making on new information, on science information. And so
    those differences are not surprising in light of these brain structural differences.

    Being a liberal or being a conservative really is not black and white. Itís really a bell shaped curve where, you know, someone who considers themselves conservative may be far less conservative so to speak than someone else who still calls themselves a conservative. And that bell shaped curve continues
    all the way through where in the middle there may be a large group that
    calls themselves independents.

    What we donít know is whether that has to do with differences in brain structure and so would we see in independents, no oneís does that study to
    say oh, independents donít show any differences in brain structure or any differences in say risk taking reaction. So we donít know for sure what that means but I think itís fair to say that even when we looked at differences
    in brain structure with a reliability of 71.6 percent that still leaves, you know, a very larger number that donít fit into that category. So, you know, where do they fall out? Are they more likely to be independents in their
    mind? We donít know the answer to that but certainly, you know, these are
    not hard and fast rules. This is not diagnostic science and people who are independent obviously have certain characteristics Iíll say of both sides
    are somewhere just like they sound in the middle.

    I think by understanding whatís going on structurally in the brain and functionally in the brain we can better understand what informs peopleís
    very strong opinions that ultimately inform our political system, right. Because itís one person, one vote. And in trying to change peopleís minds I think everybody has to look at whatís behind the ability to change a mind.
    Is it really changeable?

    When we look at voting and changing minds and say political advertising you have to recognize that all of that new information always comes in through
    the prism of your brain. Which means that what I say to you versus you may
    be heard differently even though Iíve said the same thing. So it comes in through the prism of does what you said make me nervous and afraid and therefore Iím going to resort to my old standby I donít want to change my decision? Or am I going to hear the same information and say oh, thatís
    novel. I have a receptivity to novel information. Therefore thatís
    interesting to me and Iím going to think about whether I might change my
    mind based on that new information.

    I think thatís what the science is basically saying to us that there are
    going to be some people who are going to hear the information and retreat to their original thinking. And other people are going to hear new information
    and say that really does change my mind.

    If weíre trying to have a society that will work in its own best interest
    letís say then we do want to be able to communicate with one another. And so
    if youíre a liberal and say you want to talk to a conservative about gay marriage you want to have in your mind how it might still speak to loyalty, stability and religious belief in some way. You want to have those ideas
    inform your communication as opposed to simply saying but, you know, this percentage of the population is homosexual and therefore, you know, we
    should consider whether everybody should have those same rights. And, you
    know, science shows itís not a choice. Itís simply a fact youíre gay or not gay. And therefore shouldnít those people have the same rights? Thatís not
    the best way to appeal perhaps to a conservative on this issue.

    You want to appeal to them in terms of how for example marital rules or
    history might be maintained and not really altered for those who are in
    letís say a ďtraditional marriage.Ē How it wonít interrupt the fabric for example of their lives, of the rules that they adhere to. Those kinds of
    things would be more appealing to them whether or not that might be the most appealing argument to you as a liberal.

    The truth is a conservative is more likely to be able to appeal to a liberal using novel new information that is science based and showing certain facts
    and allowing for it not necessarily to be purely religiously based. That not
    be the rule system so to speak. By being empathically understanding. And by that I donít mean sympathetically understanding. I mean truly being able to stand in the other personís shoes and have some insight into where their
    brain is directing them and appealing to that argument. So if you are a conservative you will want to appeal with new information because liberals
    are more novelty seeking potentially. And often science based is a good way
    to present new information.

    Part of whatís difficult in terms of what Iím seeing now is that actually people are tending to double down on their own style and what appeals to
    their own group of thinkers. And that is increasingly preventing the kind of communication that would be important to our future so that we canít so to speak cross the aisle because it would require trying on for size the
    thought pattern of the other group. And thatís hard to do. Let me say that
    is difficult to do. So if your amygdala is screaming at you, you know, run
    for the hills or double down and fight itís hard to say well, let me take a step back and not have a fear based reaction but instead present the science
    or present the new information.

    A good example would be that of gun ownership. If I speak about gun
    ownership to a liberal group they automatically have thoughts probably
    about, particularly if theyíre in an urban area, crime and danger because statistically that is what they have been privy to. The information has been given to them about how many homicides are committed, who is, you know,
    dying by gun violence, et cetera.

    If I speak about gun ownership to a conservative group they are more likely
    in their loyal stable way to think about a sportsmanship, hunting with
    family particularly again if theyíre in a rural area. Because that is what
    they grew up with, that is what has been stable for them, that is the memory that they have about guns. And so you can see how thatís coming from two completely different directions perhaps the same word, gun. And that it is
    hard to stand in the shoes for example of the other group so that you can
    come to make decisions about it.

    So, for example, the CDC has been prevented from doing any research so that
    we could have new science about gun violence as a public health issue by actually the conservative political group has said, you know, you canít do research on this area. We wonít call it a public health issue and therefore youíre prevented from getting dollars and prevented from having research
    into gun violence per se. And that comes probably from a fear position that
    if there is any new information that sways opinion we will lose our loyal standing to something that we firmly believe in and harks back to very pleasurable comforting memories from earlier life. So itís very complicated
    in a certain kind of way. You know the liberal group is wanting there to be this research not necessarily to take guns away but to say weíd like to see
    the science to validate whether or not certain things about guns are good
    for us or not good for us.

    The most recent study looking at what is going on in the brain in terms of politics predicted with the greatest value being able to identify a conservative versus a liberal 82.6 percent. And this was a look at brain activity which is different. You put someone in a functional MRI which his different than just taking a picture. It picks up activity in a certain area
    of the brain. And found that when you have them do a risky behavior and look
    at their activity in their brain conservatives were more likely to light up
    in the fright and flight response area, the amygdala, and liberals were more likely to light up in areas that have to do with social awareness.

    Again you could see how therefore this difference would inform what comes to the mind of either a liberal or a conservative while either involved in a
    risky behavior or even something thatís happening external to them but feels like it might impact them in a risky way. And that was actually even more predictive than looking at structure of the brain or what your parents were
    in terms of liberal versus conservative.



    What the difference in brain structure between liberals and conservatives?
    And where do our political convictions come from: rational deliberation, or biological determinism? -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Fri Aug 20 15:28:13 2021
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

    What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?


    What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?

    Religion and science are orthogonal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Fri Aug 20 17:04:45 2021
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:28:13 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>> wrote:

    Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

    What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?


    What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?

    Religion and science are orthogonal.


    What if there were a neurophysiological structural difference between individuals with a tendency toward emotionally dominant behavior and those with the curiosity and courage to believe in the empirical facts they observe?


    What about it and what does it have to do with piloting?

    <snip>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Larry Dighera on Fri Aug 20 18:39:31 2021
    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:04:45 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:28:13 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>> wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>>>> wrote:

    Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

    What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?


    What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?

    Religion and science are orthogonal.


    What if there were a neurophysiological structural difference between
    individuals with a tendency toward emotionally dominant behavior and those >>> with the curiosity and courage to believe in the empirical facts they
    observe?


    What about it and what does it have to do with piloting?

    <snip>



    Oh. I thought the topic had wandered so from piloting till it was absurd.

    I expected a more cogent response from you, Jim.

    As soon as I hit the words "liberal" and "conservative" I totally shut
    down.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 20 18:22:15 2021
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:04:45 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:28:13 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
    wrote:

    Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:09 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> >>>> wrote:

    Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    What if all the waste has already been sent to Nevada covertly??

    What if frogs had ballistic parachutes?


    What if there were a church of scientific enlightenment?

    Religion and science are orthogonal.


    What if there were a neurophysiological structural difference between
    individuals with a tendency toward emotionally dominant behavior and those >> with the curiosity and courage to believe in the empirical facts they
    observe?


    What about it and what does it have to do with piloting?

    <snip>



    Oh. I thought the topic had wandered so from piloting till it was absurd.

    I expected a more cogent response from you, Jim.

    .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)