I hadn't heard of this brand of headlamp,
https://www.outboundlighting.com/products/detour
but their explanation of the benefits of proper optics with a cutoff
(like car headlights) is good and concise.
https://youtu.be/zWIsQe8zEPI
Unless it’s fairly tame riding that light would feel fairly poor on a gravel bike, even with a road bike a cut off beam shape isn’t wildly great if you’re relying on the light to see, off road be totally the wrong shape.
On 3/29/2024 2:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Unless it’s fairly tame riding that light would feel fairly poor on a
gravel bike, even with a road bike a cut off beam shape isn’t wildly great >> if you’re relying on the light to see, off road be totally the wrong shape.
It's the same issue on unlit MUPs which are quite common in my area
because they are usually along creeks and rivers and the water district usually doesn't allow lighting.
You _really_ want a beam that illuminates to the sides and a little
upward. Many of these paths have no fence or railing to prevent a
cyclist that can't see the sides from veering off the embankment.
For roads, there are often trees with low-hanging branches that will
whack you in the head (except where Frank lives because he claimed that delivery trucks driving close to the curb, or on the shoulder, will
knock down any low-hanging branches).
It must be miserable living in a place where the streets are only swept
twice a year and where you have to depend on UPS, FedEx, etc., to clear low-hanging branches.
I hadn't heard of this brand of headlamp,
https://www.outboundlighting.com/products/detour
but their explanation of the benefits of proper optics with a cutoff
(like car headlights) is good and concise.
https://youtu.be/zWIsQe8zEPI
Can’t say I’ve ever had problems with low branches on roads or even cycle infrastructure or parks and what not, bar following the crane river which does have one spot with a some branch’s that I have tapped with my helmet once, but to do so will have had to ride over tree roots and what not, ie it’s definitely a outlier that route I think it’s fun, but it requires some
technique and a bike able to handle it, ie not the place for a road bike!
As mentioned here previously. Lots of differences between
the Bay area and Poland OH: >https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/gov-newsom-announces-new-surveillance-cameras-in-19375921.php
On 3/29/2024 4:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Can’t say I’ve ever had problems with low branches on
roads or even cycle
infrastructure or parks and what not, bar following the
crane river which
does have one spot with a some branch’s that I have tapped
with my helmet
once, but to do so will have had to ride over tree roots
and what not, ie
it’s definitely a outlier that route I think it’s fun, but
it requires some
technique and a bike able to handle it, ie not the place
for a road bike!
In many towns in this area the city will plant "street
trees" between the sidewalk and the road. Technically,
residents are not to trim these trees though they are
required to water them. You're supposed to contact the city
if a street tree needs trimming and they'll send someone out
but it's pretty rare that a resident will do this. In late
spring and early summer there are often low-hanging branches
that a cyclist would hit if they don't see them and veer
around them.
On 3/29/2024 4:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Can’t say I’ve ever had problems with low branches on roads or even cycle
infrastructure or parks and what not, bar following the crane river which
does have one spot with a some branch’s that I have tapped with my helmet >> once, but to do so will have had to ride over tree roots and what not, ie
it’s definitely a outlier that route I think it’s fun, but it requires some
technique and a bike able to handle it, ie not the place for a road bike!
In many towns in this area the city will plant "street trees" between
the sidewalk and the road. Technically, residents are not to trim these
trees though they are required to water them. You're supposed to contact
the city if a street tree needs trimming and they'll send someone out
but it's pretty rare that a resident will do this. In late spring and
early summer there are often low-hanging branches that a cyclist would
hit if they don't see them and veer around them.
On 3/30/2024 2:17 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/29/2024 4:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Cant say Ive ever had problems with low branches on roads or even cycle >>> infrastructure or parks and what not, bar following the crane river which >>> does have one spot with a some branchs that I have tapped with my helmet >>> once, but to do so will have had to ride over tree roots and what not, ie >>> its definitely a outlier that route I think its fun, but it requiresIn many towns in this area the city will plant "street trees" between
some
technique and a bike able to handle it, ie not the place for a road bike! >>
the sidewalk and the road. Technically, residents are not to trim these
trees though they are required to water them. You're supposed to contact
the city if a street tree needs trimming and they'll send someone out
but it's pretty rare that a resident will do this. In late spring and
early summer there are often low-hanging branches that a cyclist would
hit if they don't see them and veer around them.
Branches must hang below six feet above pavement for a normal cyclist to
run into one. For a branch to be a serious risk, it can't just be a few >leaves and twigs; it must be a substantially thick branch.
If those are so prevalent in the roads of your wealthy city:
1) Post a few photos of them with detail on their locations.
2) Also, explain why a city so wealthy that it constantly sweeps gravel
out of bike lanes (as you've claimed) would allow such a hazard to remain.
3) And _do_ explain why those branches are somehow not damaging tall
motor vehicles, like the super-common Ford F-150 - not to mention Amazon >vans, Ford Transit vans, buses, dump trucks, post office trucks, etc.
Until you do that, I'll continue to assume this is a mythical hazard
you're using to justify your long-held preference for super bright road
bike lights with primitive optics.
On 3/29/2024 2:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Unless it’s fairly tame riding that light would feel fairly poor on a
gravel bike, even with a road bike a cut off beam shape isn’t wildly
great
if you’re relying on the light to see, off road be totally the wrong
shape.
It's the same issue on unlit MUPs which are quite common in my area
because they are usually along creeks and rivers and the water district usually doesn't allow lighting.
You _really_ want a beam that illuminates to the sides and a little
upward. Many of these paths have no fence or railing to prevent a
cyclist that can't see the sides from veering off the embankment.
For roads, there are often trees with low-hanging branches that will
whack you in the head (except where Frank lives because he claimed that delivery trucks driving close to the curb, or on the shoulder, will
knock down any low-hanging branches).
It must be miserable living in a place where the streets are only swept
twice a year and where you have to depend on UPS, FedEx, etc., to clear low-hanging branches.
The commute light I use is by today’s standards fairly modest but is plenty for that usage.
For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be
so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
every passing SUV.
On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be
so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
every passing SUV.
If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
"stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
not supposed to be there).
"Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
cyclists stay to the right.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be >>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
every passing SUV.
If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
"stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
not supposed to be there).
"Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
cyclists stay to the right.
streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
Roger Merriman
On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of >> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be >>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to >>>> every passing SUV.
If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
"stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
not supposed to be there).
"Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
cyclists stay to the right.
streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double
deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
Roger Merriman
I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but
most places the bus routes are on arterials while savvy
cyclists are a block over on a less busy parallel street
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of >>> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be >>>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to >>>>> every passing SUV.
If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
"stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're >>>> not supposed to be there).
"Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
cyclists stay to the right.
streets as well thats where the people are, And with London are double
deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out >>> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
Roger Merriman
I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but
most places the bus routes are on arterials while savvy
cyclists are a block over on a less busy parallel street
That sounds subpar ie public transport only works if convenient, certainly
in london arterials which tend to be big bypasses built in the 20/30s >probably with a parallel cycleway if not converted into a side road, but
will not be on a bus route or have any bus stops or train stations etc as >its not where people are.
For cars bypasses work ie longer distances but bigger road.
It also doesnt work for bike infrastructure ie folks will not ride a mile
or so to ride along and so on, hence the old cycleways are in general very >lightly used as not direct or convenient.
Roger Merriman
On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could
be so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage
to every passing SUV.
If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
"stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
not supposed to be there).
"Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
cyclists stay to the right.
On 3/31/2024 6:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even
For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch
could be
so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to >>>>> every passing SUV.
If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
"stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're >>>> not supposed to be there).
"Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
cyclists stay to the right.
some of
the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double >>> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further
out
but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
Roger Merriman
I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but most places
the bus routes are on arterials while savvy cyclists are a block over
on a less busy parallel street
True, but tall vehicles like Amazon delivery vans, Ford Transits and
similar vans, pickups towing trailers, garbage trucks etc. are on all
streets at least occasionally. If there were such low branches over the roadway those vehicles would get damaged and/or the owners would
complain to the city.
On roads, the problem is imaginary. On every bike trail I've seen, the problem has been imaginary, other than one incident when a storm tipped
over a tree.
And even then, I saw that hazard in plenty of time with my Busch &
Mueller headlight with a properly cut off beam. Those who imagine zero
light above the cutoff are also imagining things.
Unlike Tom Kunich, Mr. Scharf knows how to post links to photos. If the problem were real and common, he'd have given evidence by now.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of >>> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be >>>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to >>>>> every passing SUV.
If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
"stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're >>>> not supposed to be there).
"Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
cyclists stay to the right.
streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double >>> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out >>> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
Roger Merriman
I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but
most places the bus routes are on arterials while savvy
cyclists are a block over on a less busy parallel street
That sounds subpar ie public transport only works if convenient
in london arterials which tend to be big bypasses built in the 20/30’s probably with a parallel cycleway if not converted into a side road, but
will not be on a bus route or have any bus stops or train stations etc as it’s not where people are.
For cars bypasses work ie longer distances but bigger road.
It also doesn’t work for bike infrastructure ie folks will not ride a mile or so to ride along and so on, hence the old cycleways are in general very lightly used as not direct or convenient.
Roger Merriman
Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
On 4/1/2024 12:59 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of >>>> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be >>>>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to >>>>>> every passing SUV.
If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you >>>>> "stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're >>>>> not supposed to be there).
"Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
cyclists stay to the right.
streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double >>>> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out >>>> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
Roger Merriman
I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but
most places the bus routes are on arterials while savvy
cyclists are a block over on a less busy parallel street
That sounds subpar ie public transport only works if convenient
Why, Roger, are you suggesting good ole' USAian public transportation infrastructure is sub-par?
, certainly
in london arterials which tend to be big bypasses built in the 20/30’s
probably with a parallel cycleway if not converted into a side road, but
will not be on a bus route or have any bus stops or train stations etc as
it’s not where people are.
For cars bypasses work ie longer distances but bigger road.
It also doesn’t work for bike infrastructure ie folks will not ride a mile >> or so to ride along and so on, hence the old cycleways are in general very >> lightly used as not direct or convenient.
Roger Merriman
It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on multi-use/recreational trails.
On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
multi-use/recreational trails.
Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
differently and the branches know not to encroach.
Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
Anyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos
of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred.
On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
multi-use/recreational trails.
Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
differently and the branches know not to encroach.
Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
Anyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos
of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred.
On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to
encroach on multi-use/recreational trails.
Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The
trees grow differently and the branches know not to
encroach.
Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about
roads.
But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging
so low as to be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A
branch low enough to hit the head of a typical cyclist
would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have
infrastructure to deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my
area, complaints for trail maintenance depend on how bored
the local DPW is.
Anyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by
Scharfian photos of all those terribly dangerous branches.
Google Streetview preferred.
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
multi-use/recreational trails.
Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
differently and the branches know not to encroach.
Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck. >>
deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for >maintenance.
A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for >commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to >cope with mud wet roots and so on.
Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low >branches arent likely to be high priority.
Is also Sustrans national cycle network which though Sustrans have
managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they dont have
the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie >maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a >chalk road.
But certainly urban and suburban trails Ive not encountered low branches, >the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist, >etc.
Roger MerrimanAnyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos
of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred.
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 20:59:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
multi-use/recreational trails.
Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
differently and the branches know not to encroach.
Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to >>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the >>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck. >>>
deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for >> maintenance.
A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to >> cope with mud wet roots and so on.
Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
branches aren’t likely to be high priority.
Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though Sustrans have
managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they don’t have >> the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
chalk road.
But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not encountered low branches, >> the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist, >> etc.
Roger MerrimanAnyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos >>>> of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred. >>>>
The bike trails I ride are maintained by either county or state. I've
had not seen any maintenance or cleaning problem. I did have, on my
recent very windy ride on the Withlacoochee trail, a pretty good sized
dead branch fall in the trail about 50 feet ahead of me. Had it hit
me, I'd have been injured. Of course, I stopped and drug it off the
trail.
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 20:59:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
multi-use/recreational trails.
Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
differently and the branches know not to encroach.
Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to >>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the >>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck. >>>
deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for >> maintenance.
A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to >> cope with mud wet roots and so on.
Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
branches arent likely to be high priority.
Is also Sustrans national cycle network which though Sustrans have
managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they dont have
the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
chalk road.
But certainly urban and suburban trails Ive not encountered low branches, >> the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist, >> etc.
Roger MerrimanAnyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos >>>> of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred. >>>>
The bike trails I ride are maintained by either county or state. I've
had not seen any maintenance or cleaning problem. I did have, on my
recent very windy ride on the Withlacoochee trail, a pretty good sized
dead branch fall in the trail about 50 feet ahead of me. Had it hit
me, I'd have been injured. Of course, I stopped and drug it off the
trail.
The bike trails I ride are maintained by either county or state. I've
had not seen any maintenance or cleaning problem. I did have, on my
recent very windy ride on the Withlacoochee trail, a pretty good sized
dead branch fall in the trail about 50 feet ahead of me. Had it hit
me, I'd have been injured. Of course, I stopped and drug it off the
trail.
On 4/3/2024 4:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
<snip>
The bike trails I ride are maintained by either county or state. I've
had not seen any maintenance or cleaning problem. I did have, on my
recent very windy ride on the Withlacoochee trail, a pretty good sized
dead branch fall in the trail about 50 feet ahead of me. Had it hit
me, I'd have been injured. Of course, I stopped and drug it off the
trail.
I've been tempted to bring along a small tree pruner to cut the
low-hanging branches that I regularly encounter. But because the problem >trees are almost "city trees," cutting them yourself is not allowed. If
a homeowner trimmed a low-hanging branch on a city tree then nothing
would likely happen, but someone cycling along cutting branches would
likely invite some trouble.
On 4/3/2024 4:59 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to
encroach on
multi-use/recreational trails.
Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The
trees grow
differently and the branches know not to encroach.
Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about
roads.
But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch
hanging so low as to
be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low
enough to hit the
head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall
pedestrian to have to duck.
By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have
infrastructure to
deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints
for trail
maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and
responsibility for
maintenance.
A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one
I do pass and
have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not
intended for
commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you
need a bike with
some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the
bare minimum to
cope with mud wet roots and so on.
Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way
accessible but low
branches aren’t likely to be high priority.
As I understand it, British and American laws vary greatly
regarding public rights-of-way. I've read that if a historic
walking path crosses an English farmer's land, he cannot
prevent people using it. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) But in
America, the default seems to be "No Trespassing."
To illustrate: Our local state senator was in the news
recently. He lives in a rural area, on some acreage. Some
young guys said they were on adjacent property, planning to
hunt. Our senator said no, they were across the boundary and
on his property. They claimed he shot at them. He said it
was just a warnng shot.
Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though
Sustrans have
managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity
they don’t have
the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the
surfaces vary ie
maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced
old railway to a
chalk road.
But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not
encountered low branches,
the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal
leisure cyclist,
etc.
We can discuss an entire spectrum of places to ride bike,
from normal vehicle lanes (which I prefer) through bike
lanes, "protected" bike lanes, paved bike paths, walking
paths, rocky mountain bike challenges, etc.
But please recall, I was talking about whether bike lights
with a proper StVZO cutoff beam was adequate for normal road
use - and specifically, that one was very unlikely to smack
one's head on a substantial low hanging branch.
On 4/3/2024 4:59 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
multi-use/recreational trails.
Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
differently and the branches know not to encroach.
Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to >>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the >>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck. >>>
deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for >> maintenance.
A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to >> cope with mud wet roots and so on.
Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
branches aren’t likely to be high priority.
As I understand it, British and American laws vary greatly regarding
public rights-of-way. I've read that if a historic walking path crosses
an English farmer's land, he cannot prevent people using it. (Correct me
if I'm wrong.) But in America, the default seems to be "No Trespassing."
To illustrate: Our local state senator was in the news recently. He
lives in a rural area, on some acreage. Some young guys said they were
on adjacent property, planning to hunt. Our senator said no, they were
across the boundary and on his property. They claimed he shot at them.
He said it was just a warning shot.
Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though Sustrans have
managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they don’t have >> the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
chalk road.
But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not encountered low branches, >> the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist, >> etc.
We can discuss an entire spectrum of places to ride bike, from normal
vehicle lanes (which I prefer) through bike lanes, "protected" bike
lanes, paved bike paths, walking paths, rocky mountain bike challenges,
etc.
But please recall, I was talking about whether bike lights with a proper StVZO cutoff beam was adequate for normal road use - and specifically,
that one was very unlikely to smack one's head on a substantial low
hanging branch.
On 4/3/2024 4:59 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
multi-use/recreational trails.
Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
differently and the branches know not to encroach.
Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to >>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the >>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck. >>>
deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for >> maintenance.
A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to >> cope with mud wet roots and so on.
Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
branches arent likely to be high priority.
As I understand it, British and American laws vary greatly regarding
public rights-of-way. I've read that if a historic walking path crosses
an English farmer's land, he cannot prevent people using it. (Correct me
if I'm wrong.) But in America, the default seems to be "No Trespassing."
To illustrate: Our local state senator was in the news recently. He
lives in a rural area, on some acreage. Some young guys said they were
on adjacent property, planning to hunt. Our senator said no, they were
across the boundary and on his property. They claimed he shot at them.
He said it was just a warning shot.
Is also Sustrans national cycle network which though Sustrans have
managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they dont have
the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
chalk road.
But certainly urban and suburban trails Ive not encountered low branches, >> the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist, >> etc.
We can discuss an entire spectrum of places to ride bike, from normal
vehicle lanes (which I prefer) through bike lanes, "protected" bike
lanes, paved bike paths, walking paths, rocky mountain bike challenges,
etc.
But please recall, I was talking about whether bike lights with a proper >StVZO cutoff beam was adequate for normal road use - and specifically,
that one was very unlikely to smack one's head on a substantial low
hanging branch.
On 4/4/2024 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a
fiction/TeeVee/film creation, unsupported in law.
If there is an immediate credible threat to human life,
one's own or others, deadly force sufficient to stop the
threat, as the general rule, is viewed as reasonable self
defense (some States limit the circumstance, some
severely. None are more expansive).
A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as
negligent discharge, escalation or even provocation.
Depending on how connected this guy is in our much
degraded judicial system, he may well be charged. I think
he ought to be.
He may be an idiot, but he's a successful idiot.
The account appeared recently in the paper, but it turns out
the incident was months ago. The young guys in question told
the story only recently.
And the shooter is well connected indeed. It would take real
nerve for local law enforcement to go after a state senator
regarding a months-old incident, even if his own statements
about it are damning.
On 4/4/2024 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2024 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a fiction/TeeVee/film
creation, unsupported in law.
If there is an immediate credible threat to human life, one's own or
others, deadly force sufficient to stop the threat, as the general
rule, is viewed as reasonable self defense (some States limit the
circumstance, some severely. None are more expansive).
A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as negligent
discharge, escalation or even provocation. Depending on how connected
this guy is in our much degraded judicial system, he may well be
charged. I think he ought to be.
He may be an idiot, but he's a successful idiot.
The account appeared recently in the paper, but it turns out the
incident was months ago. The young guys in question told the story
only recently.
And the shooter is well connected indeed. It would take real nerve for
local law enforcement to go after a state senator regarding a
months-old incident, even if his own statements about it are damning.
Everyone is quite aware of the Vincent Foster Rule.
On 4/4/2024 3:53 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
urban roads small usb powered lights would be fine, as you don’t need light
to see by, I only flick mine to high beam in the woods/parks but I’m a
outlier, though london does have a fair bit of Green areas that you’d
probably want a light that you’d see by. Though in most it’s fairly mild >> and doesn’t need anything that powerful.
Quite frankly anything StVZO is like my exposure light likely to be
overkill in terms of cost.
About the cost: For a long time I got by fine with various lights that
were very inexpensive. I experimented a bit with many headlights and
lighting arrangements, including rechargeables and home brews. I mostly
used dynamo halogen lamps by Union and Soubitez that focused the beam
quite well and were adequate for all my road riding, but not really outstanding. The only setup that I considered a significant improvement
was two halogen lamps powered by my dynamo, and switchable (A or B or A+B).
But when I got my first B&M Cyo, I considered the problem solved and
stopped experimenting. It's a little pricey (~$100?) but I've spent far
more on other bike equipment. I can afford it, and it's such an
improvement. For me, it gives a luxurious amount of illumination.
On 4/4/2024 4:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/4/2024 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2024 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a
fiction/TeeVee/film creation, unsupported in law.
If there is an immediate credible threat to human life,
one's own or others, deadly force sufficient to stop the
threat, as the general rule, is viewed as reasonable
self defense (some States limit the circumstance, some
severely. None are more expansive).
A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as
negligent discharge, escalation or even provocation.
Depending on how connected this guy is in our much
degraded judicial system, he may well be charged. I
think he ought to be.
He may be an idiot, but he's a successful idiot.
The account appeared recently in the paper, but it turns
out the incident was months ago. The young guys in
question told the story only recently.
And the shooter is well connected indeed. It would take
real nerve for local law enforcement to go after a state
senator regarding a months-old incident, even if his own
statements about it are damning.
Everyone is quite aware of the Vincent Foster Rule.
Please explain how a suicide is in any way related to an
idiot firing a shotgun in the general direction of someone
who wasn't a threat.
And yes, Fosters death was a suicide. Conspiracy theories to
the contrary are on par with stories of a democrat satanic
pedophile cult being run on the basement of a pizza shop
(which, interestingly enough, doesn't have a basement).
Perhaps you meant the Cheney rule......
On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2024 3:53 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:The lamps as far as I can see are relatively speaking inexpensive, at least >> compared roughly to batteries powered units, the expensive bit would seem
urban roads small usb powered lights would be fine, as you don’t need light
to see by, I only flick mine to high beam in the woods/parks but I’m a >>>> outlier, though london does have a fair bit of Green areas that you’d >>>> probably want a light that you’d see by. Though in most it’s fairly mild
and doesn’t need anything that powerful.
Quite frankly anything StVZO is like my exposure light likely to be
overkill in terms of cost.
About the cost: For a long time I got by fine with various lights that
were very inexpensive. I experimented a bit with many headlights and
lighting arrangements, including rechargeables and home brews. I mostly
used dynamo halogen lamps by Union and Soubitez that focused the beam
quite well and were adequate for all my road riding, but not really
outstanding. The only setup that I considered a significant improvement
was two halogen lamps powered by my dynamo, and switchable (A or B or A+B). >>>
But when I got my first B&M Cyo, I considered the problem solved and
stopped experimenting. It's a little pricey (~$100?) but I've spent far
more on other bike equipment. I can afford it, and it's such an
improvement. For me, it gives a luxurious amount of illumination.
to be a Dynamo hub and wheel even if your building and installation
yourself, which is probably a technical hurdle beyond most.
I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want lights with >> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with >> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is
lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast >> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
For the commute would a dynamo light be fine? Probably though even so I’d >> probably miss even thats lights ability to light up the woods on high that >> would mainly be beam shape than absolute power, as some dynamo lights
aren’t too far behind though most seem to be in the 200 ish lumen range. >>
I’ve had lights in that range in the past, and that’s fine but what I have
is a better fit certainly for my commute, ie a mix of well lit roads and
unlit woods.
Unless the cost of the dynamo system is built into the cost of the bike as >> new, it’s a relatively hard sell, note the rise of E bike lights, ie they >> plug into the main battery.
About the cost of the dynamo: Two of my bikes have hub dynamos. I built
the wheels myself. But at least four other family bikes have B&M
headlamps powered by bottle or roller dynamos. Most of those were given
to me, so they don't have to be expensive. New ones of good quality are available for ~$40.
On 4/4/2024 4:51 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/4/2024 4:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:We can agree Mr Cheney should not be handling firearms. Negligence IMHO
On 4/4/2024 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2024 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a
fiction/TeeVee/film creation, unsupported in law.
If there is an immediate credible threat to human life, one's own
or others, deadly force sufficient to stop the threat, as the
general rule, is viewed as reasonable self defense (some States
limit the circumstance, some severely. None are more expansive).
A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as negligent
discharge, escalation or even provocation. Depending on how
connected this guy is in our much degraded judicial system, he may
well be charged. I think he ought to be.
He may be an idiot, but he's a successful idiot.
The account appeared recently in the paper, but it turns out the
incident was months ago. The young guys in question told the story
only recently.
And the shooter is well connected indeed. It would take real nerve
for local law enforcement to go after a state senator regarding a
months-old incident, even if his own statements about it are damning.
Everyone is quite aware of the Vincent Foster Rule.
Please explain how a suicide is in any way related to an idiot firing
a shotgun in the general direction of someone who wasn't a threat.
And yes, Fosters death was a suicide. Conspiracy theories to the
contrary are on par with stories of a democrat satanic pedophile cult
being run on the basement of a pizza shop (which, interestingly
enough, doesn't have a basement).
Perhaps you meant the Cheney rule......
and he's lucky the victim recovered.
Mr Foster's death, like the death of Seth Rich, was amazingly convenient...
On 4/5/2024 5:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:The MTB Dynamo is the Exposure Revo hasn’t changed in at least a decade, >> unlike the battery powered models which I assume is related to power output >> as with battery powered models the lumens increases slightly incrementally >> each year.
I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want
lights with
more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is >>>> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at >>>> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast >>>> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
It’s about £250 for
https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/2024-Bike-Range/Dynamo
Wow. I've never paid close to that for a bike headlight. Or a car
headlight, motorcycle headlight, etc.
The lamps as far as I can see are relatively speaking inexpensive, at least compared roughly to batteries powered units, the expensive bit would seem
to be a Dynamo hub and wheel even if your building and installation
yourself, which is probably a technical hurdle beyond most.
I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want lights with more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
On 4/5/2024 5:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:The MTB Dynamo is the Exposure Revo hasn’t changed in at
I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I
want lights with
more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one
dynamo lights with
a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s
power output is
lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my
light kicks out at
least double that with potentially up to 3 times that,
as it uses how fast
how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
least a decade,
unlike the battery powered models which I assume is
related to power output
as with battery powered models the lumens increases
slightly incrementally
each year.
It’s about £250 for
https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/2024-Bike-Range/Dynamo
Wow. I've never paid close to that for a bike headlight. Or
a car headlight, motorcycle headlight, etc.
Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 5:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:The MTB Dynamo is the Exposure Revo hasn’t changed in at least a decade, >>> unlike the battery powered models which I assume is related to power output >>> as with battery powered models the lumens increases slightly incrementally >>> each year.
I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want
lights with
more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is >>>>> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at >>>>> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast
how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
It’s about £250 for
https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/2024-Bike-Range/Dynamo
Wow. I've never paid close to that for a bike headlight. Or a car
headlight, motorcycle headlight, etc.
One hour standlight is pretty cool, but still too rich for my blood.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
US is the lowest:
"Consumption Tax Trends" <https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
US is the lowest:
"Consumption Tax Trends"
<https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax rate
schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or anywhere else.
On 4/4/2024 4:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
The lamps as far as I can see are relatively speaking inexpensive, at least >> compared roughly to batteries powered units, the expensive bit would seem
to be a Dynamo hub and wheel even if your building and installation
yourself, which is probably a technical hurdle beyond most.
I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want lights with >> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with >> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is
lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast >> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
I have dynamo wheels on some bikes, a Dahon folder, my road bike, and
one other. These are adequate for DRLs, but of course for night riding,
even the higher-end dymano light I have is not sufficient on unlit roads
or MUPs, and being from Europe there is no flash mode.
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.
On 4/5/2024 2:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales
tax rates,
US is the lowest:
"Consumption Tax Trends"
<https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development".
And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income
tax rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or
anywhere else.
C'mon Andrew, you'd say that about _any_ tax policy,
regardless of how rational, efficient, fair, or logical it was.
On 4/5/2024 1:49 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/5/2024 2:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
US is the lowest:
"Consumption Tax Trends"
<https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax rate
schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any rationality, efficiency,
fairness or logic, here or anywhere else.
C'mon Andrew, you'd say that about _any_ tax policy, regardless of how
rational, efficient, fair, or logical it was.
Well, yes I would.
Any counterexamples anywhere on earth I may have missed?
On 4/5/2024 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/5/2024 5:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:The MTB Dynamo is the Exposure Revo hasnt changed in at
Im really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I
want lights with
more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one
dynamo lights with
a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit its
power output is
lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my
light kicks out at
least double that with potentially up to 3 times that,
as it uses how fast
how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
least a decade,
unlike the battery powered models which I assume is
related to power output
as with battery powered models the lumens increases
slightly incrementally
each year.
Its about 250 for
https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/2024-Bike-Range/Dynamo
Wow. I've never paid close to that for a bike headlight. Or
a car headlight, motorcycle headlight, etc.
Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
On 4/5/2024 4:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2024 1:49 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/5/2024 2:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
If you're shopping for the lowest international
VAT/sales tax rates,
US is the lowest:
"Consumption Tax Trends"
<https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development".
And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income
tax rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or
anywhere else.
C'mon Andrew, you'd say that about _any_ tax policy,
regardless of how rational, efficient, fair, or logical
it was.
Well, yes I would.
Any counterexamples anywhere on earth I may have missed?
That's hardly an objective argument
On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
US is the lowest:
"Consumption Tax Trends"
<https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax
rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or anywhere
else.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:00:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
US is the lowest:
"Consumption Tax Trends"
<https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax
rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or anywhere
else.
Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
should finance our government using the traditional methods of
sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries. This has worked
fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners). If you
want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all
of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:00:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
US is the lowest:
"Consumption Tax Trends"
<https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax
rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or anywhere
else.
Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
should finance our government using the traditional methods of
sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries. This has worked
fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners). If you
want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all
of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
But if a person really wanted such an item, shouldn't some Electrical Engineer be able to design and build one?
On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then
perhaps we
should finance our government using the traditional
methods of
sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries. This
has worked
fairly well since history has been recorded (by the
winners). If you
want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors
usually hire
politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their
actions, all
of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than the
incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after the XVI
Amendment. Predictably the situation has degraded such
that more than half of us pay zip and many of those have a
negative Federal tax burden, i.e., they are paid to be
here. So much for 'shared burden'. And also predictably
election results reflect the avarice and envy of the
takers against the makers, creating societal and cultural
divisions to our greater loss. There has to be a better
way. And there was.
As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage things.
Which leads me to again ask: Is there a nation that finances
its operation in ways you like?
I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures that
generate far less economic disparity. Taxes are higher, but
tax-generated benefits are also far higher, and citizens are
generally much more content. It's not that there are zero
problems, but that there seem to be far fewer problems than
we have.
Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say
"The U.S. did things better in 1795" or whenever. Conditions
were totally different then regarding society, technology,
morality, customs, personal freedom etc. Anyone who
campaigned for election saying "Let's just go back to all
the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose the vote of
almost all women and blacks, and most of while males as well.
Since you're complaining about the American
set of rules, is there a country whose rules you prefer? What do you
like about it and why?
--
- Frank Krygowski
On 4/6/2024 1:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood),
then perhaps we
should finance our government using the traditional
methods of
sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries.
This has worked
fairly well since history has been recorded (by the
winners). If you
want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors
usually hire
politicians, philosophers and economists to justify
their actions, all
of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than
the incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after
the XVI Amendment. Predictably the situation has
degraded such that more than half of us pay zip and many
of those have a negative Federal tax burden, i.e., they
are paid to be here. So much for 'shared burden'. And
also predictably election results reflect the avarice
and envy of the takers against the makers, creating
societal and cultural divisions to our greater loss.
There has to be a better way. And there was.
As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage
things. Which leads me to again ask: Is there a nation
that finances its operation in ways you like?
I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures
that generate far less economic disparity. Taxes are
higher, but tax-generated benefits are also far higher,
and citizens are generally much more content. It's not
that there are zero problems, but that there seem to be
far fewer problems than we have.
Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say
"The U.S. did things better in 1795" or whenever.
Conditions were totally different then regarding society,
technology, morality, customs, personal freedom etc.
Anyone who campaigned for election saying "Let's just go
back to all the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose
the vote of almost all women and blacks, and most of
while males as well.
Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat
on it later.
As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other
cultural failings you mention, no nation in history
enjoyed so large a wealth increase and so fast and so
broadly shared as the USA between 1865 and 1914.
Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have
shouted over the actual data:
https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america
But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and
so 'official numbers' utterly ignore public transfers
(rent, food, medical, walking around money, negative
income tax and so on) which are no longer negligible. They
are in fact a huge drain on our society. Economists have
noted this for years but in politics facts do not matter.
Nice try, but you really didn't address my points.
You said "the original constitution had a better ethos." I
tried to explain that the original constitution had severe
problems, and we're never going back to it, for good
reasons. Besides, let's remember that every change in the
constitution was, in effect, approved by the constitution.
It does specify a mechanism for changes, which is the
opposite of "Thou must never improve this document."
Also note, I didn't say "income disparity." I said "economic
disparity." There is a difference.
And your linked article is remarkably non-specific. It
alludes to data that it claims isn't counted, but it doesn't
seem to be a source of much of that data. I suppose they
want me to buy that book, but they could certainly have
provided a bit more detail to convince me.
Regarding the surge in U.S. economics between 1865 and 1914:
The U.S. was in a pretty unique position in the world. By
1865, the original inhabitants of the U.S. had been pretty
thoroughly wiped out. The few remaining were mostly confined
on reservations. Their land was given away or sold cheaply,
and the resources on that land were up for grabs.
And being at the dawn of the industrial age, the U.S. had
the technology to take advantage of a continent full of
untapped resources. So people like Carnegie could purchase,
control and use vast amounts of resources, and make money
using the new technology and the very inexpensive labor of
countless immigrants drawn in part by the promise of former
Indian land - even if that land was a small plot inside a city.
Those were huge advantages, ones that other countries lacked
at least in part. So I think the U.S. would have succeeded
very well even with a markedly different constitution or
political system.
Also, your article offers no comparisons with the other
nations I mentioned. Again, it's consistently shown that
many European nations have a far more contented population
than the U.S., plus lower crime rates, less violence, more
economic security, etc. Much of those are attributed to a
different attitude toward taxation, wealth and social care.
It's obvious that you don't prefer their tax, income, wealth
and benefit rules. But let me ask again: Since you're
complaining about the American set of rules, is there a
country whose rules you prefer? What do you like about it
and why?
On 4/6/2024 6:20 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:41:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Since you're complaining about the American
set of rules, is there a country whose rules you prefer? What do you
like about it and why?
--
- Frank Krygowski
My preference is for an imaginary country ...
Fairy tales are fun for some people.
On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
should finance our government using the traditional methods of
sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries. This has worked
fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners). If you >>>> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all >>>> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than the
incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after the XVI Amendment.
Predictably the situation has degraded such that more than half of us
pay zip and many of those have a negative Federal tax burden, i.e.,
they are paid to be here. So much for 'shared burden'. And also
predictably election results reflect the avarice and envy of the
takers against the makers, creating societal and cultural divisions
to our greater loss. There has to be a better way. And there was.
As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage things. Which
leads me to again ask: Is there a nation that finances its operation
in ways you like?
I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures that generate
far less economic disparity. Taxes are higher, but tax-generated
benefits are also far higher, and citizens are generally much more
content. It's not that there are zero problems, but that there seem to
be far fewer problems than we have.
Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say "The U.S.
did things better in 1795" or whenever. Conditions were totally
different then regarding society, technology, morality, customs,
personal freedom etc. Anyone who campaigned for election saying "Let's
just go back to all the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose the
vote of almost all women and blacks, and most of while males as well.
Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat on it later.
As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other cultural
failings you mention, no nation in history enjoyed so large a wealth
increase and so fast and so broadly shared as the USA between 1865 and
1914.
Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have shouted over the
actual data:
https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america
But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and so 'official numbers' utterly ignore public transfers (rent, food, medical, walking
around money, negative income tax and so on) which are no longer
negligible. They are in fact a huge drain on our society. Economists
have noted this for years but in politics facts do not matter.
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_ things as >"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the original >version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
On 4/6/2024 1:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood),
then perhaps we
should finance our government using the traditional
methods of
sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries.
This has worked
fairly well since history has been recorded (by the
winners). If you
want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors
usually hire
politicians, philosophers and economists to justify
their actions, all
of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than
the incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after
the XVI Amendment. Predictably the situation has
degraded such that more than half of us pay zip and many
of those have a negative Federal tax burden, i.e., they
are paid to be here. So much for 'shared burden'. And
also predictably election results reflect the avarice
and envy of the takers against the makers, creating
societal and cultural divisions to our greater loss.
There has to be a better way. And there was.
As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage
things. Which leads me to again ask: Is there a nation
that finances its operation in ways you like?
I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures
that generate far less economic disparity. Taxes are
higher, but tax-generated benefits are also far higher,
and citizens are generally much more content. It's not
that there are zero problems, but that there seem to be
far fewer problems than we have.
Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say
"The U.S. did things better in 1795" or whenever.
Conditions were totally different then regarding society,
technology, morality, customs, personal freedom etc.
Anyone who campaigned for election saying "Let's just go
back to all the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose
the vote of almost all women and blacks, and most of
while males as well.
Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat
on it later.
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming
_such_ things as "original Constitution had a better ethos"
come up empty when reminded that racism and misogyny were
quite literally written into the original version. Sure,
when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh, yeah,
except for that', then when asked about giving women the
right to vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
'except for that'.....
'except for that'...
IOW, they aren't really originalists at all.
It's overly simplistic and myoptic to wax for the 'good ole
days'. Things change. Get used to it.
As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other
cultural failings you mention, no nation in history
enjoyed so large a wealth increase and so fast and so
broadly shared as the USA between 1865 and 1914.
which also lead to labor riots and such "laudable" MAGA type
events like the the homestead riots and the triangle
shirtwaist fire....
'except for that'....
'except for that'.....
so much for originalism.
Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have
shouted over the actual data:
https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america
But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and
so 'official numbers' utterly ignore public transfers
(rent, food, medical, walking around money, negative
income tax and so on) which are no longer negligible. They
are in fact a huge drain on our society. Economists have
noted this for years but in politics facts do not matter.
Yup, abolish minimum wage, get rid of that pesky OSHA, fuck
the 40 hour work week, let's put children back to work in
mines...they're smaller and can fit into tighter crevices -
but hey, Carnegie built a few libraries, so I guess that
makes chaining children to looms for 2 cents a day makes it
all worth while.
'well, except for that...'
'except for that'.....
You can whine about fucking strawmen all you want, but
excesses by oligarchs are prevalent even to this day.
https://perfectunion.us/how-the-sacklers-got-and-stayed-rich/
Gee, maybe if they just built a few parks we could ignore
their greed murdered millions.
On 4/7/2024 10:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/6/2024 4:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... I think the U.S. would have succeeded very well even
with
a markedly different constitution or political system.
Also, your article offers no comparisons with the other
nations I mentioned. Again, it's consistently shown that
many European nations have a far more contented
population than the U.S., plus lower crime rates, less
violence, more economic security, etc. Much of those are
attributed to a different attitude toward taxation,
wealth and social care.
It's obvious that you don't prefer their tax, income,
wealth and benefit rules. But let me ask again: Since
you're complaining about the American set of rules, is
there a country whose rules you prefer? What do you like
about it and why?
Andrew Carnegie is an excellent example, a man (legal
immigrant I might add) who gave much more to this nation
than he took from it. Popular myth, such as the utterly
ahistorical presentism of the current educational
propaganda in our schools, reduces USA's greatest era to a
dark time of 'robber barons', a claim which spins a
blanket of lies from a few errant threads.
Anyone moderately well read in the period will know that
excesses were real but more exception than rule.
Another excellent example is John D Rockefeller, who not
only saved the whales (literally, albeit inadvertently)
but dropped the going rate for kerosene from over $1 to 17
cents in a few short years. You're big on costs and
benefits generally, so I know you'd appreciate the much
better lives of 75 million citizens against Mr
Rockefeller's earned wealth. If success is a sin, how do
you judge George Westinhouse, Thomas Edison or the
perpetually litigious Wrights, all of whom have decidedly
distasteful aspects thrown in with their gifts to our
country.
And criticizing the Homestead Act? Really? We have a
great comparison to The Russian Empire where slavery was
abolished just before our own and shared a huge expanse of
sparsely settled fertile land with a similar desire to
develop it. We succeeded swimmingly while Russia never has.
It should be obvious that I'm not claiming Russia has a
better political system than ours.
The fact remains: Once Americans got past the Appalachians,
they were looking at an immense continent's worth of
resources, with essentially nobody to stop them from taking
whatever they wanted. Practically speaking, it was owned by
nobody - or at least, nobody who could effectively object.
And as I said, within decades - i.e. once the Civil War was
settled - America had not only the manpower but the
technology to begin scooping up all those resources. (Much
to the detriment of Native Americans, of course.) I don't
think any other nation had that perfect set of advantages.
For example, Australia's deserts didn't work nearly so well.
We also had a big advantage in that unlike Europe, we
suffered far less devastation from wars. So to attribute
American success 1865 to 1914 to only the (amended!)
constitution is ignoring a lot. In fact, those benefits I
listed extended to at least 1945 and somewhat beyond. We
didn't win World War II because our soldiers were braver
than the enemy's. We won largely because we were able to
employ far more resources than theirs.
And our current status is not nearly as glorious as many
super-patriotic Americans pretend. There are many, many ways
in which the U.S. lags behind many other nations. Yes, I
know many immigrants choose to come here - but those tend to
be from places like Guatemala. I'll admit, we're much better
than Guatemala.
'owned by nobody'
[post Civil War] "America had not only the manpower butthe technology"
On 4/7/2024 1:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
As regulatory structural inefficiency becomes more burdensome, bribery
or outright illegal activity will become more attractive and more
pervasive.
Perhaps so. But I'd call that a universal phenomenon that other
countries seem to do pretty well, judging by results.
Also, "regulatory structural inefficiency" is hardly confined to
government initiatives. The insurance industry imposes enough of that to >cause U.S. medical care to be the most expensive in the world, and far
from the most effective.
So again, what country has a system of which you approve, or at least
like better than ours? Can we compare data?
If you can't name such a country, it seems like your libertarian dreams
are unrealistic.
On 4/7/2024 1:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
As regulatory structural inefficiency becomes more
burdensome, bribery or outright illegal activity will
become more attractive and more pervasive.
Perhaps so. But I'd call that a universal phenomenon that
other countries seem to do pretty well, judging by results.
Also, "regulatory structural inefficiency" is hardly
confined to government initiatives. The insurance industry
imposes enough of that to cause U.S. medical care to be the
most expensive in the world, and far from the most effective.
So again, what country has a system of which you approve, or
at least like better than ours? Can we compare data?
If you can't name such a country, it seems like your
libertarian dreams are unrealistic.
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_ things as >>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and limited reprisal.
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming
_such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty
when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written
into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great
propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in
the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in
fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on
them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be
denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is
only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the
negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed
them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that
if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken
away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share
of representation with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call
to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and
limited reprisal.
On 4/7/2024 11:25 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/6/2024 1:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we >>>>>> should finance our government using the traditional methods of
sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries. This has worked >>>>>> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners). If you >>>>>> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, >>>>>> all
of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than the
incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after the XVI
Amendment. Predictably the situation has degraded such that more
than half of us pay zip and many of those have a negative Federal
tax burden, i.e., they are paid to be here. So much for 'shared
burden'. And also predictably election results reflect the avarice
and envy of the takers against the makers, creating societal and
cultural divisions to our greater loss. There has to be a better
way. And there was.
As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage things. Which
leads me to again ask: Is there a nation that finances its operation
in ways you like?
I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures that generate
far less economic disparity. Taxes are higher, but tax-generated
benefits are also far higher, and citizens are generally much more
content. It's not that there are zero problems, but that there seem
to be far fewer problems than we have.
Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say "The U.S.
did things better in 1795" or whenever. Conditions were totally
different then regarding society, technology, morality, customs,
personal freedom etc. Anyone who campaigned for election saying
"Let's just go back to all the laws we had in 1795" would surely
lose the vote of almost all women and blacks, and most of while
males as well.
Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat on it later.
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_ things
as "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when
reminded that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into
the original version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
they say 'oh, yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
women the right to vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
'except for that'.....
'except for that'...
IOW, they aren't really originalists at all.
It's overly simplistic and myoptic to wax for the 'good ole days'.
Things change. Get used to it.
As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other cultural
failings you mention, no nation in history enjoyed so large a wealth
increase and so fast and so broadly shared as the USA between 1865
and 1914.
which also lead to labor riots and such "laudable" MAGA type events
like the the homestead riots and the triangle shirtwaist fire....
'except for that'....
'except for that'.....
so much for originalism.
Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have shouted over the
actual data:
https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america
But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and so 'official
numbers' utterly ignore public transfers (rent, food, medical,
walking around money, negative income tax and so on) which are no
longer negligible. They are in fact a huge drain on our society.
Economists have noted this for years but in politics facts do not
matter.
Yup, abolish minimum wage, get rid of that pesky OSHA, fuck the 40
hour work week, let's put children back to work in mines...they're
smaller and can fit into tighter crevices - but hey, Carnegie built a
few libraries, so I guess that makes chaining children to looms for 2
cents a day makes it all worth while.
'well, except for that...'
'except for that'.....
You can whine about fucking strawmen all you want, but excesses by
oligarchs are prevalent even to this day.
https://perfectunion.us/how-the-sacklers-got-and-stayed-rich/
Gee, maybe if they just built a few parks we could ignore their greed
murdered millions.
Your feelings aside, the actual minimum wage is, and always will be, zero. The higher the regulatory burden, the larger the number of people
earning zero.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/california-s-20-minimum-wage-forces-mass-fast-food-layoffs/ss-BB1kTBU3
And it's worse even than the Dismal Science aspect. It's moral failure
as well. As I mentioned regarding complex and corrupt tax schemes, major Newsome contributor Panera Bread finagled a special exemption to the new
$20 minimum.
https://fortune.com/2024/03/01/california-minimum-wage-law-gavin-newsom-panera-bread-billionaire-exemption/
As regulatory structural inefficiency becomes more burdensome, bribery
or outright illegal activity will become more attractive and more
pervasive. Examples abound, such as the 20:1 ratio of illegal pot shops
to licensed outlets in NYC. The illegal ones aren't ever closed because
the licensed shops cannot afford kickbacks.
For many years, I've asked proponents of State meddling in employment contracts* why not $100 per hour? Why not $500?
*See much ignored US Constitution contracts clause. Another loss in our present post-constitutional dissolution.
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_ things as >>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded >>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the original >>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the right to >>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on
the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of
persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the >character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it
will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is
only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into >subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation
of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be
refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a willfully ignorant >dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call to mayhem but
rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and limited reprisal.
For many years, I've asked proponents of State meddling in employment
contracts* why not $100 per hour? Why not $500?
wow...talk about strawmen....
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_
things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when reminded >>>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the
original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the
right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal power of >>>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on
the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of
persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is
the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and
it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it
is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes
into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the
computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to
restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no
longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other
inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a willfully ignorant
dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call to mayhem
but rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times, years apart. It's always a good read and I must say generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly insurmountable
barrier to union. Union being considered of exceptional even existential import, something was desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before, voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution even precedes William
Wilberforce's eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that reliance only increased after the Founding) but preferred to count 'all persons' for Congressional seats. The Southern leaders had probably never heard of
an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot off the end at that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else on
earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several of the
Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that the practice would necessarily have to end, albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that time was of
black slavery, there were black freemen (including early patriot
fatality Crispus Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
agree with you that this was and is inherently race tainted to our
greater loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
between universal liberty and its selective denial, a fundamental
conflict then and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect but
the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the
chattel system well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of her citizens to
end it. Not the first instance on earth, but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time than the
mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
But if a person really wanted such an item, shouldn't some Electrical Engineer be able to design and build one?
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those
claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written
into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great
propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them
in the mixed character of persons and of property. This
is in fact their true character. It is the character
bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and
it will not be denied, that these are the proper
criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the
laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of
property, that a place is disputed them in the
computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the
laws were to restore the rights which have been taken
away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
share of representation with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a
call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for
mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered of
exceptional even existential import, something was
desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution
even precedes William Wilberforce's eventually successful
campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that
reliance only increased after the Founding) but preferred
to count 'all persons' for Congressional seats. The
Southern leaders had probably never heard of an irony
meter but if there was one it would shoot off the end at
that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else on
earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several
of the Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that
the practice would necessarily have to end, albeit as St.
Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that
time was of black slavery, there were black freemen
(including early patriot fatality Crispus Attucks) and
there were not-black slaves. Still, I agree with you that
this was and is inherently race tainted to our greater
loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
between universal liberty and its selective denial, a
fundamental conflict then and now, here and everywhere.
Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and
the practice of holding african slaves was generally banned
by every nation which had practiced it well before the US
did, while the US not only maintained slavery as an
institution, but passed at least two laws - fugitive slave
acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the institution.
Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either
emancipated or born free - were abducted and sold into
slavery in the south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in
Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely
thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in
Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup was
tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery was
legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, and
he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12 years. One of the
very few to regain freedom under such circumstances, he
later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its
law prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men
because he was black and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of
her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on earth,
but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time
than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those
claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written
into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great
propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them
in the mixed character of persons and of property. This
is in fact their true character. It is the character
bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and
it will not be denied, that these are the proper
criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the
laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of
property, that a place is disputed them in the
computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the
laws were to restore the rights which have been taken
away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
share of representation with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a
call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for
mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered of
exceptional even existential import, something was
desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution
even precedes William Wilberforce's eventually successful
campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that
reliance only increased after the Founding) but preferred
to count 'all persons' for Congressional seats. The
Southern leaders had probably never heard of an irony
meter but if there was one it would shoot off the end at
that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else on
earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several
of the Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that
the practice would necessarily have to end, albeit as St.
Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that
time was of black slavery, there were black freemen
(including early patriot fatality Crispus Attucks) and
there were not-black slaves. Still, I agree with you that
this was and is inherently race tainted to our greater
loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
between universal liberty and its selective denial, a
fundamental conflict then and now, here and everywhere.
Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and
the practice of holding african slaves was generally banned
by every nation which had practiced it well before the US
did, while the US not only maintained slavery as an
institution, but passed at least two laws - fugitive slave
acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the institution.
Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either
emancipated or born free - were abducted and sold into
slavery in the south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in
Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely
thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in
Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup was
tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery was
legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, and
he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12 years. One of the
very few to regain freedom under such circumstances, he
later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its
law prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men
because he was black and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of
her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on earth,
but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time
than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems,
many were killed, half the survivors were castrated.
History, ours and everyone's, is full of violence injustice
and general savagery. Who could dispute that?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be >charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.
Good idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
load at a time.
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those
claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written
into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great
propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them
in the mixed character of persons and of property. This
is in fact their true character. It is the character
bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and
it will not be denied, that these are the proper
criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the
laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of
property, that a place is disputed them in the
computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the
laws were to restore the rights which have been taken
away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
share of representation with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a
call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for
mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered of
exceptional even existential import, something was
desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution
even precedes William Wilberforce's eventually successful
campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that
reliance only increased after the Founding) but preferred
to count 'all persons' for Congressional seats. The
Southern leaders had probably never heard of an irony
meter but if there was one it would shoot off the end at
that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else on
earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several
of the Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that
the practice would necessarily have to end, albeit as St.
Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that
time was of black slavery, there were black freemen
(including early patriot fatality Crispus Attucks) and
there were not-black slaves. Still, I agree with you that
this was and is inherently race tainted to our greater
loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
between universal liberty and its selective denial, a
fundamental conflict then and now, here and everywhere.
Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and
the practice of holding african slaves was generally banned
by every nation which had practiced it well before the US
did, while the US not only maintained slavery as an
institution, but passed at least two laws - fugitive slave
acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the institution.
Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either
emancipated or born free - were abducted and sold into
slavery in the south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in
Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely
thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in
Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup was
tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery was
legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, and
he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12 years. One of the
very few to regain freedom under such circumstances, he
later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its
law prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men
because he was black and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of
her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on earth,
but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time
than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems,
many were killed, half the survivors were castrated.
History, ours and everyone's, is full of violence injustice
and general savagery. Who could dispute that?
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.
Good idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
load at a time.
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_
things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when
reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the
original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh, >>>>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the
right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing. What it >>>>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal
power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety
on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character
of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It
is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live;
and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion;
because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed
the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them
in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws
were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes
could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the
other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call to
mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and limited
reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times, years apart.
It's always a good read and I must say generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly insurmountable
barrier to union. Union being considered of exceptional even
existential import, something was desperately needed to bring
resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before, voting in
general elections. Note that our Constitution even precedes William
Wilberforce's eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that reliance
only increased after the Founding) but preferred to count 'all
persons' for Congressional seats. The Southern leaders had probably
never heard of an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot off
the end at that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern states did not
generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania formally outlawed it in 1780,
well before our Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere
else on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several of the
Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that the practice would
necessarily have to end, albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that time was
of black slavery, there were black freemen (including early patriot
fatality Crispus Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
agree with you that this was and is inherently race tainted to our
greater loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
between universal liberty and its selective denial, a fundamental
conflict then and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect but
the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the
chattel system well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and the
practice of holding african slaves was generally banned by every
nation which had practiced it well before the US did, while the US not
only maintained slavery as an institution, but passed at least two
laws - fugitive slave acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the
institution. Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either emancipated or
born free - were abducted and sold into slavery in the south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in Freedom at
Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in Essex County,
New York state.....In 1841, Northup was tricked into going to
Washington, DC, where slavery was legal. He was drugged, kidnapped,
and sold into slavery, and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12
years. One of the very few to regain freedom under such circumstances,
he later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its law
prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men because he
was black and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of her citizens
to end it. Not the first instance on earth, but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time than the
mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems, many were killed, half the survivors were castrated. History, ours and everyone's,
is full of violence injustice and general savagery. Who could dispute
that?
On 4/8/2024 4:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_ >>>>>>>> things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when
reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the >>>>>>>> original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say 'oh, >>>>>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the >>>>>>>> right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing. What it >>>>>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal
power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety
on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character >>>>> of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It >>>>> is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; >>>>> and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion;
because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed
the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them >>>>> in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws
were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes
could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the >>>>> other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call to
mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and limited
reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times, years apart.
It's always a good read and I must say generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly insurmountable
barrier to union. Union being considered of exceptional even
existential import, something was desperately needed to bring
resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before, voting in
general elections. Note that our Constitution even precedes William
Wilberforce's eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that reliance
only increased after the Founding) but preferred to count 'all
persons' for Congressional seats. The Southern leaders had probably
never heard of an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot off
the end at that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern states did not
generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania formally outlawed it in 1780,
well before our Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere
else on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several of the
Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that the practice would
necessarily have to end, albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that time was
of black slavery, there were black freemen (including early patriot
fatality Crispus Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
agree with you that this was and is inherently race tainted to our
greater loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
between universal liberty and its selective denial, a fundamental
conflict then and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect but
the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the
chattel system well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and the
practice of holding african slaves was generally banned by every
nation which had practiced it well before the US did, while the US not
only maintained slavery as an institution, but passed at least two
laws - fugitive slave acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the
institution. Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either emancipated or
born free - were abducted and sold into slavery in the south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in Freedom at
Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in Essex County,
New York state.....In 1841, Northup was tricked into going to
Washington, DC, where slavery was legal. He was drugged, kidnapped,
and sold into slavery, and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12
years. One of the very few to regain freedom under such circumstances,
he later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its law
prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men because he
was black and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of her citizens
to end it. Not the first instance on earth, but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time than the
mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems, many were
killed, half the survivors were castrated. History, ours and everyone's,
is full of violence injustice and general savagery. Who could dispute
that?
Was enslavement of american sailors by the Barbary muslims set up as
_legal_ international trade scheme where governments of nations involved >sanctioned and protect the trade? Were the laws where the slaves were
traded set up to protect the slave owners and sanction the sale of humans?
Conflating international piracy with a legally sanctioned and protected
slave trade is a desperate grasp at rationalizing the practice - an
extreme case of "whataboutism".
The point is that you claimed the US lead the way via
"the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the
chattel system well before anyone else on earth had considered it."
which is unequivocally wrong and completely indefensible. The Europeans
- who admittedly started the african slave trade - banned the trade and >ownership of slaves _well_ before the US even considered it as a
national policy, and the US went so far as to protect the domestic slave >trade and ownership _after_ international trade and slave ownership was >banned by passing _federal_ legislation doing just that including
language implicitly sanctioning slavery in our constitution.
The US held onto the barbaric practice long after other nations banned
it, and literally fought a civil war over the issue. And yes, protecting
the institution of slavery and allowing the practice during westward >expansion were the main drivers of the civil war, regardless of how the >magatard "historians" wish to rewrite history and call it "states rights >issues" (I can hear our floriduh dumbass parroting right wing drivel now).
On 4/8/2024 4:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those
claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally
written into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths
compromise they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with
great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it
views them in the mixed character of persons and of
property. This is in fact their true character. It is
the character bestowed on them by the laws under which
they live; and it will not be denied, that these are
the proper criterion; because it is only under the
pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into
subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in
the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if
the laws were to restore the rights which have been
taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an
equal share of representation with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a
call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for
mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered
of exceptional even existential import, something was
desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution
even precedes William Wilberforce's eventually
successful campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that
reliance only increased after the Founding) but
preferred to count 'all persons' for Congressional
seats. The Southern leaders had probably never heard of
an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot off
the end at that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else
on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number
of Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule,
several of the Framers including Jefferson privately
wrote that the practice would necessarily have to end,
albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at
that time was of black slavery, there were black freemen
(including early patriot fatality Crispus Attucks) and
there were not-black slaves. Still, I agree with you
that this was and is inherently race tainted to our
greater loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed
as a rift between universal liberty and its selective
denial, a fundamental conflict then and now, here and
everywhere. Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up
a system incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel
system well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade
and the practice of holding african slaves was generally
banned by every nation which had practiced it well before
the US did, while the US not only maintained slavery as
an institution, but passed at least two laws - fugitive
slave acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the
institution. Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts
were abused by domestic slave traders such that free
blacks - either emancipated or born free - were abducted
and sold into slavery in the south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in
Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely
thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in
Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup was
tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery was
legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery,
and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12 years. One
of the very few to regain freedom under such
circumstances, he later sued the slave traders involved
in Washington, DC. Its law prohibited Northup from
testifying against the white men because he was black and
so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of
her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on earth,
but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that
time than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the
Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary
moslems, many were killed, half the survivors were
castrated. History, ours and everyone's, is full of
violence injustice and general savagery. Who could
dispute that?
Was enslavement of american sailors by the Barbary muslims
set up as _legal_ international trade scheme where
governments of nations involved sanctioned and protect the
trade? Were the laws where the slaves were traded set up to
protect the slave owners and sanction the sale of humans?
Conflating international piracy with a legally sanctioned
and protected slave trade is a desperate grasp at
rationalizing the practice - an extreme case of "whataboutism".
The point is that you claimed the US lead the way via
"the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to
destroy the chattel system well before anyone else on earth
had considered it."
which is unequivocally wrong and completely indefensible.
The Europeans - who admittedly started the african slave
trade - banned the trade and ownership of slaves _well_
before the US even considered it as a national policy, and
the US went so far as to protect the domestic slave trade
and ownership _after_ international trade and slave
ownership was banned by passing _federal_ legislation doing
just that including language implicitly sanctioning slavery
in our constitution.
The US held onto the barbaric practice long after other
nations banned it, and literally fought a civil war over the
issue. And yes, protecting the institution of slavery and
allowing the practice during westward expansion were the
main drivers of the civil war, regardless of how the
magatard "historians" wish to rewrite history and call it
"states rights issues" (I can hear our floriduh dumbass
parroting right wing drivel now).
Am 09.04.2024 um 07:57 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.
Good idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
load at a time.
<https://nabendynamo.de/produkte/ladelux/>
will go to market this summer.
Am 09.04.2024 um 07:57 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.
Good idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
load at a time.
<https://nabendynamo.de/produkte/ladelux/>
will go to market this summer.
On 4/9/2024 1:57 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.
Good idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
load at a time.
I don't think I've ever heard of a PWM multiplexing scheme before. Is
there such a thing?
Maybe you can build mux a cable tester in there too.
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
take millennia for the market to produce them?
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
bicycles.
It's just as obvious that the technology exists for the fancy
headlight Mr. "sms" proposed. Sheldon Brown did something vaguely
similar decades ago. Search https://www.sheldonbrown.com/dynohubs.html
for the words "low drag".
But if a person really wanted such an item, shouldn't some Electrical
Engineer be able to design and build one?
That question remains! Mr. "sms" Scharf is an electrical engineer.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could >>>>> be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
take millennia for the market to produce them?
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
bicycles.
It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define reality.
It's just as obvious that the technology exists for the fancy
headlight Mr. "sms" proposed. Sheldon Brown did something vaguely
similar decades ago. Search https://www.sheldonbrown.com/dynohubs.html
for the words "low drag".
But if a person really wanted such an item, shouldn't some Electrical
Engineer be able to design and build one?
That question remains! Mr. "sms" Scharf is an electrical engineer.
I have confidence in Mr. Scharf, and believe he could do it, just not at
a price he wishes to pay.
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:53:38 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those
claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written
into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great
propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them
in the mixed character of persons and of property. This
is in fact their true character. It is the character
bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and
it will not be denied, that these are the proper
criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the
laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of
property, that a place is disputed them in the
computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the
laws were to restore the rights which have been taken
away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
share of representation with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a
call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for
mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered of
exceptional even existential import, something was
desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution
even precedes William Wilberforce's eventually successful
campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that
reliance only increased after the Founding) but preferred
to count 'all persons' for Congressional seats. The
Southern leaders had probably never heard of an irony
meter but if there was one it would shoot off the end at
that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else on
earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several
of the Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that
the practice would necessarily have to end, albeit as St.
Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that
time was of black slavery, there were black freemen
(including early patriot fatality Crispus Attucks) and
there were not-black slaves. Still, I agree with you that
this was and is inherently race tainted to our greater
loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
between universal liberty and its selective denial, a
fundamental conflict then and now, here and everywhere.
Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and
the practice of holding african slaves was generally banned
by every nation which had practiced it well before the US
did, while the US not only maintained slavery as an
institution, but passed at least two laws - fugitive slave
acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the institution.
Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either
emancipated or born free - were abducted and sold into
slavery in the south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in
Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely
thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in
Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup was
tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery was
legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, and
he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12 years. One of the
very few to regain freedom under such circumstances, he
later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its
law prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men
because he was black and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of
her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on earth,
but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time
than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems,
many were killed, half the survivors were castrated.
History, ours and everyone's, is full of violence injustice
and general savagery. Who could dispute that?
It seems that higher a species sits on the evolutionary pyramid, the
more inclined he is to have individualistic selfish motivation instead
of just the simple need to survive. I note that in some species, lions
and bears, for instance, a male will kill a mother's babies so she'll
come in heat.
Thank goodness we humans aren't inclined to do that, but it's clear to
me that our climb to the top of the food chain was fueled by self
interest, not the utterly ridiculous Spock nonsense about the needs of
the many...
Mankind established social groups and clans because it was/is in his
self interest to do so.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 11:35:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 09.04.2024 um 07:57 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be >>>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from theGood idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would >>>> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only. >>>
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
load at a time.
<https://nabendynamo.de/produkte/ladelux/>
will go to market this summer.
In English:
<https://nabendynamo.de/en/products/ladelux/>
Thanks. Notice that the text says:
"The charging electronics with a small buffer battery are completely integrated in the headlight housing and manage to draw up to 12 watts
of power from the hub dynamo. The smartphone can still be charged even
with the lights on - simply connect it to the handlebar switch with
the magnetic cable and start driving!"
The SON dynamo is now expected to produce 12 watts instead of their
typical 3 watts which suggests that they are trying to simultaneously
use the dynamo to charge the battery, run the light, and charge the
phone. My guess is the "small buffer battery" is only a stand light.
This might be the associated hub dynamo:
<https://nabendynamo.de/en/>
and front light: <https://nabendynamo.de/en/products/headlights/edelux-dc-170/>
Hmmm... draws 6 watts. I would guess(tm) that the remaining 6 watts
is to simultaneously charge the battery and cell phone. Just a guess.
I'm not sure what SON is thinking, but expecting riders to generate 6
times the power in order to run a high power light and phone charger
might not be a workable solution, especially when the DC 150/170 light
alone costs 199/209 Euros.
If any specifications appear in the media, I'm interested.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:53:38 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those
claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written
into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great
propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them
in the mixed character of persons and of property. This
is in fact their true character. It is the character
bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and
it will not be denied, that these are the proper
criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the
laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of
property, that a place is disputed them in the
computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the
laws were to restore the rights which have been taken
away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
share of representation with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a
call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for
mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered of
exceptional even existential import, something was
desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution
even precedes William Wilberforce's eventually successful
campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that
reliance only increased after the Founding) but preferred
to count 'all persons' for Congressional seats. The
Southern leaders had probably never heard of an irony
meter but if there was one it would shoot off the end at
that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else on
earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several
of the Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that
the practice would necessarily have to end, albeit as St.
Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that
time was of black slavery, there were black freemen
(including early patriot fatality Crispus Attucks) and
there were not-black slaves. Still, I agree with you that
this was and is inherently race tainted to our greater
loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
between universal liberty and its selective denial, a
fundamental conflict then and now, here and everywhere.
Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and
the practice of holding african slaves was generally banned
by every nation which had practiced it well before the US
did, while the US not only maintained slavery as an
institution, but passed at least two laws - fugitive slave
acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the institution.
Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either
emancipated or born free - were abducted and sold into
slavery in the south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in
Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely
thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in
Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup was
tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery was
legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, and
he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12 years. One of the
very few to regain freedom under such circumstances, he
later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its
law prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men
because he was black and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of
her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on earth,
but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time
than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems,
many were killed, half the survivors were castrated.
History, ours and everyone's, is full of violence injustice
and general savagery. Who could dispute that?
It seems that higher a species sits on the evolutionary pyramid, the
more inclined he is to have individualistic selfish motivation instead
of just the simple need to survive. I note that in some species, lions
and bears, for instance, a male will kill a mother's babies so she'll
come in heat.
Thank goodness we humans aren't inclined to do that, but it's clear to
me that our climb to the top of the food chain was fueled by self
interest, not the utterly ridiculous Spock nonsense about the needs of
the many...
It's pretty clear that humans *are* inclined to do that. Stepchildren are
a famously underprivileged category for a reason.
Mankind established social groups and clans because it was/is in his
self interest to do so.
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 09.04.2024 um 07:57 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:Seems to be claiming 12 watts from the dynamo somehow? Which unless it’s using the buffer battery that’s going to increase the rolling resistance significantly ie 4 fold and at that point likely to be quite noticeable.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be >>>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from theGood idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would >>>> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only. >>>
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
load at a time.
<https://nabendynamo.de/produkte/ladelux/>
will go to market this summer.
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it >>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that >>>>>> could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the >>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
bicycles.
It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
reality.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
First, as I said, technology or its lack is obviously also relevant.
(Many people will say they "need" their smart phone, their computer,
even their ancient land line. Nobody said those things in 1850.)
But did people "need" bicycles in, say, 1750, when they were impossible?
I'd say no. Those people had other needs that were great enough that
they made the need for personal human powered mobility (beyond walking) fairly negligible.
Am 09.04.2024 um 18:59 schrieb Roger Merriman:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 09.04.2024 um 07:57 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:Seems to be claiming 12 watts from the dynamo somehow? Which unless it’s >> using the buffer battery that’s going to increase the rolling resistance >> significantly ie 4 fold and at that point likely to be quite noticeable.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be >>>>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from theGood idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would >>>>> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only. >>>>
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
load at a time.
<https://nabendynamo.de/produkte/ladelux/>
will go to market this summer.
Cheap hub dynamoes have a rolling resistance in the order of 15W to
generate 3W. A good hub dynamo can probably get those 12W out of a mechanical resistance in the order of 20W.
Rolf
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 09.04.2024 um 18:59 schrieb Roger Merriman:It’s claiming to draw 12 watts from the dynamo which they generally top out at 3 watts, as most of the hubs on the sites claim as an output.
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 09.04.2024 um 07:57 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:Seems to be claiming 12 watts from the dynamo somehow? Which unless it’s >>> using the buffer battery that’s going to increase the rolling resistance >>> significantly ie 4 fold and at that point likely to be quite noticeable.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be >>>>>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the >>>>>> dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would >>>>>> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only. >>>>>Good idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is >>>>> possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse >>>>> width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one >>>>> load at a time.
<https://nabendynamo.de/produkte/ladelux/>
will go to market this summer.
Cheap hub dynamoes have a rolling resistance in the order of 15W to
generate 3W. A good hub dynamo can probably get those 12W out of a
mechanical resistance in the order of 20W.
Am 10.04.2024 um 14:36 schrieb Roger Merriman:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 09.04.2024 um 18:59 schrieb Roger Merriman:It’s claiming to draw 12 watts from the dynamo which they generally top out
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:Cheap hub dynamoes have a rolling resistance in the order of 15W to
Am 09.04.2024 um 07:57 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:Seems to be claiming 12 watts from the dynamo somehow? Which unless it’s >>>> using the buffer battery that’s going to increase the rolling resistance >>>> significantly ie 4 fold and at that point likely to be quite noticeable. >>>
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be >>>>>>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the >>>>>>> dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would >>>>>>> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only. >>>>>>Good idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is >>>>>> possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse >>>>>> width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one >>>>>> load at a time.
<https://nabendynamo.de/produkte/ladelux/>
will go to market this summer.
generate 3W. A good hub dynamo can probably get those 12W out of a
mechanical resistance in the order of 20W.
at 3 watts, as most of the hubs on the sites claim as an output.
A normal dynamo is rated "3 watts at 6 Volts sinus AC". If you run the dynamo at 12 Volts, you'll be able to pull more energy out of the same
dynamo at high speed, even with "standard" light bulbs (e.g. a dynamo
can run two halogen lamps in series, both emitting as much light as a
normal halogen lamp once your speed exceeds 10 mph).
When using LED instead of light bulbs, the situation becomes a lot more complicated. The exact details of generator electronics are too
complicated for me to understand.
Rolf
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 08:36:46 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/9/2024 1:57 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be >>>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from theGood idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would >>>> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only. >>>
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
load at a time.
I don't think I've ever heard of a PWM multiplexing scheme before. Is
there such a thing?
Neither have I. There might actually be such a thing but I'm not
going to sift through the patent bone yard looking for one right now.
I have the bad habit of contriving solutions that seem likely, but
might not exist (yet).
In this case, let's pretend you have a power source that delivers
something resembling a constant 3 watt power level. The power source
needs to operate a 3 watt front light and simultaneously charge a
battery that also presents a 3 watt load. Connecting the light and
the battery in parallel is going to be a 6 watt load, which the
mythical power source (dynamo) can't handle.
If the load was only a front light, the usual way to reduce the lights
output is with a PWM (pulse width modulation) light dimmer, where the
output power is proportional to the duty cycle of the PWM waveform.
100% duty cycle is full brightness (3 watts), 50% duty cycle is half brightness (1.5 watts) and 33% duty cycle would be 1/3 brightness (1.0 watts).
The nice part of PWM is that there is no load BETWEEN pulses. For
example, if the front light was running at 33% (1 watt) duty cycle,
there would be the remaining 67% (2 watts) available to power
something else, without exceeding the 3 watt limit of the power source (dynamo). Therefore, the "extra" 67% could be used to charge the
battery. Just invert the PWM output that powers the front light to
produce the PWM output the powers the battery charger. I could
probably throw something together using commodity switching power
supply IC's.
If I wanted to be creative, I could adjust the pulse width using a
control knob. At one end, all the power goes to the front lamp. At
the other end, all the power goes to charging the battery (as might be
the case during daylight hours). However, in both cases, the load on
the dynamo doesn't exceed its rated 3 watts, which is the purpose of
this exercise.
Patent pending (maybe).
Maybe you can build mux a cable tester in there too.
You seem to be hallucinating. Were you watching the eclipse without
proper eye protection?
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:53:38 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those
claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written
into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise
they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving
women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist
thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the
politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the
slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great
propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them
in the mixed character of persons and of property. This
is in fact their true character. It is the character
bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and
it will not be denied, that these are the proper
criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the
laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of
property, that a place is disputed them in the
computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the
laws were to restore the rights which have been taken
away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
share of representation with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a
call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for
mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered of
exceptional even existential import, something was
desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our Constitution
even precedes William Wilberforce's eventually successful
campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that
reliance only increased after the Founding) but preferred
to count 'all persons' for Congressional seats. The
Southern leaders had probably never heard of an irony
meter but if there was one it would shoot off the end at
that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else on
earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the number of
Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several
of the Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that
the practice would necessarily have to end, albeit as St.
Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that
time was of black slavery, there were black freemen
(including early patriot fatality Crispus Attucks) and
there were not-black slaves. Still, I agree with you that
this was and is inherently race tainted to our greater
loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
between universal liberty and its selective denial, a
fundamental conflict then and now, here and everywhere.
Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
well before anyone else on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and
the practice of holding african slaves was generally banned
by every nation which had practiced it well before the US
did, while the US not only maintained slavery as an
institution, but passed at least two laws - fugitive slave
acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the institution.
Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either
emancipated or born free - were abducted and sold into
slavery in the south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in
Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely
thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in
Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup was
tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery was
legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, and
he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12 years. One of the
very few to regain freedom under such circumstances, he
later sued the slave traders involved in Washington, DC. Its
law prohibited Northup from testifying against the white men
because he was black and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of
her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on earth,
but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time
than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems,
many were killed, half the survivors were castrated.
History, ours and everyone's, is full of violence injustice
and general savagery. Who could dispute that?
It seems that higher a species sits on the evolutionary pyramid, the
more inclined he is to have individualistic selfish motivation instead
of just the simple need to survive. I note that in some species, lions
and bears, for instance, a male will kill a mother's babies so she'll
come in heat.
Thank goodness we humans aren't inclined to do that, but it's clear to
me that our climb to the top of the food chain was fueled by self
interest, not the utterly ridiculous Spock nonsense about the needs of
the many...
It's pretty clear that humans *are* inclined to do that. Stepchildren are
a famously underprivileged category for a reason.
Mankind established social groups and clans because it was/is in his
self interest to do so.
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could >>>>>> be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the >>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
take millennia for the market to produce them?
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
bicycles.
I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
reality.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not
a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of
the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
First, as I said, technology or its lack is obviously also
relevant. (Many people will say they "need" their smart phone, their computer, even their ancient land line. Nobody said those things in
1850.)
But did people "need" bicycles in, say, 1750, when they were
impossible? I'd say no. Those people had other needs that were great
enough that they made the need for personal human powered mobility
(beyond walking) fairly negligible.
And society back then was obviously set up so a person could live
without a bicycle. Come to think of it, society today is also set up
that way.
On 4/9/2024 7:32 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/8/2024 4:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:I noted only, as did Jefferson, that a strong statement of universal
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:?...As far as I know, international African slave trade and the
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those claiming _such_ >>>>>>>>> things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up empty when >>>>>>>>> reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally written into the >>>>>>>>> original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths compromise they say >>>>>>>>> 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about giving women the >>>>>>>>> right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a racist thing.
What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce the politcal
power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all the slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety >>>>>> on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed
character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true
character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under
which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the
proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the
laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that
a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is
admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have
been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
share of representation with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not a call to
mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call for mercy and limited
reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times, years apart.
It's always a good read and I must say generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being considered of
exceptional even existential import, something was desperately
needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before, voting in
general elections. Note that our Constitution even precedes William
Wilberforce's eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage (that reliance
only increased after the Founding) but preferred to count 'all
persons' for Congressional seats. The Southern leaders had
probably never heard of an irony meter but if there was one it
would shoot off the end at that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern states did
not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania formally outlawed it in
1780, well before our Constitution, before Wilberforce, before
anywhere else on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the
number of Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule, several of the
Framers including Jefferson privately wrote that the practice would
necessarily have to end, albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet". >>>>>
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at that time was
of black slavery, there were black freemen (including early patriot
fatality Crispus Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
agree with you that this was and is inherently race tainted to our
greater loss, then and now. It is also critically viewed as a rift
between universal liberty and its selective denial, a fundamental
conflict then and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect
but the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to destroy
the chattel system well before anyone else on earth had considered it. >>>>
practice of holding african slaves was generally banned by every
nation which had practiced it well before the US did, while the US
not only maintained slavery as an institution, but passed at least
two laws - fugitive slave acts - as late as 1850 that reinforced the
institution. Further to that, the Fugitive Slave acts were abused by
domestic slave traders such that free blacks - either emancipated or
born free - were abducted and sold into slavery in the south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases in Freedom at
Risk (1994) and estimated there were likely thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife in Essex
County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup was tricked into going
to Washington, DC, where slavery was legal. He was drugged,
kidnapped, and sold into slavery, and he was held as a slave in
Louisiana for 12 years. One of the very few to regain freedom under
such circumstances, he later sued the slave traders involved in
Washington, DC. Its law prohibited Northup from testifying against
the white men because he was black and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million of her
citizens to end it. Not the first instance on earth, but early to
the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that time than the
mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary moslems, many
were killed, half the survivors were castrated. History, ours and
everyone's, is full of violence injustice and general savagery. Who
could dispute that?
Was enslavement of american sailors by the Barbary muslims set up as
_legal_ international trade scheme where governments of nations
involved sanctioned and protect the trade? Were the laws where the
slaves were traded set up to protect the slave owners and sanction the
sale of humans?
Conflating international piracy with a legally sanctioned and
protected slave trade is a desperate grasp at rationalizing the
practice - an extreme case of "whataboutism".
The point is that you claimed the US lead the way via
"the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the
chattel system well before anyone else on earth had considered it."
which is unequivocally wrong and completely indefensible. The
Europeans - who admittedly started the african slave trade - banned
the trade and ownership of slaves _well_ before the US even considered
it as a national policy, and the US went so far as to protect the
domestic slave trade and ownership _after_ international trade and
slave ownership was banned by passing _federal_ legislation doing just
that including language implicitly sanctioning slavery in our
constitution.
The US held onto the barbaric practice long after other nations banned
it, and literally fought a civil war over the issue. And yes,
protecting the institution of slavery and allowing the practice during
westward expansion were the main drivers of the civil war, regardless
of how the magatard "historians" wish to rewrite history and call it
"states rights issues" (I can hear our floriduh dumbass parroting
right wing drivel now).
natural rights in the Constitution would inherently lead to the
dissolution of bondage. As it eventually did.
On 4/9/2024 10:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/9/2024 7:32 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/8/2024 4:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:I noted only, as did Jefferson, that a strong statement of
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those
claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally
written into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths
compromise they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about
giving women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a
racist thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce
the politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all
the slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with
great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it
views them in the mixed character of persons and of
property. This is in fact their true character. It is
the character bestowed on them by the laws under
which they live; and it will not be denied, that
these are the proper criterion; because it is only
under the pretext that the laws have transformed the
negroes into subjects of property, that a place is
disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it
is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
rights which have been taken away, the negroes could
no longer be refused an equal share of representation
with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not
a call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call
for mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being
considered of exceptional even existential import,
something was desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our
Constitution even precedes William Wilberforce's
eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage
(that reliance only increased after the Founding) but
preferred to count 'all persons' for Congressional
seats. The Southern leaders had probably never heard
of an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot
off the end at that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else
on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the
number of Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule,
several of the Framers including Jefferson privately
wrote that the practice would necessarily have to end,
albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at
that time was of black slavery, there were black
freemen (including early patriot fatality Crispus
Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
agree with you that this was and is inherently race
tainted to our greater loss, then and now. It is also
critically viewed as a rift between universal liberty
and its selective denial, a fundamental conflict then
and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect but
the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned
to destroy the chattel system well before anyone else
on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade
and the practice of holding african slaves was
generally banned by every nation which had practiced it
well before the US did, while the US not only
maintained slavery as an institution, but passed at
least two laws - fugitive slave acts - as late as 1850
that reinforced the institution. Further to that, the
Fugitive Slave acts were abused by domestic slave
traders such that free blacks - either emancipated or
born free - were abducted and sold into slavery in the
south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases
in Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were
likely thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife
in Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup
was tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery
was legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into
slavery, and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12
years. One of the very few to regain freedom under such
circumstances, he later sued the slave traders involved
in Washington, DC. Its law prohibited Northup from
testifying against the white men because he was black
and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million
of her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on
earth, but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that
time than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the
Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary
moslems, many were killed, half the survivors were
castrated. History, ours and everyone's, is full of
violence injustice and general savagery. Who could
dispute that?
Was enslavement of american sailors by the Barbary
muslims set up as _legal_ international trade scheme
where governments of nations involved sanctioned and
protect the trade? Were the laws where the slaves were
traded set up to protect the slave owners and sanction
the sale of humans?
Conflating international piracy with a legally sanctioned
and protected slave trade is a desperate grasp at
rationalizing the practice - an extreme case of
"whataboutism".
The point is that you claimed the US lead the way via
"the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to
destroy the chattel system well before anyone else on
earth had considered it."
which is unequivocally wrong and completely indefensible.
The Europeans - who admittedly started the african slave
trade - banned the trade and ownership of slaves _well_
before the US even considered it as a national policy,
and the US went so far as to protect the domestic slave
trade and ownership _after_ international trade and slave
ownership was banned by passing _federal_ legislation
doing just that including language implicitly sanctioning
slavery in our constitution.
The US held onto the barbaric practice long after other
nations banned it, and literally fought a civil war over
the issue. And yes, protecting the institution of slavery
and allowing the practice during westward expansion were
the main drivers of the civil war, regardless of how the
magatard "historians" wish to rewrite history and call it
"states rights issues" (I can hear our floriduh dumbass
parroting right wing drivel now).
universal natural rights in the Constitution would
inherently lead to the dissolution of bondage. As it
eventually did.
I've yet to see any evidence that personal abolitionist
sentiments were reflected in any of the founding documents.
You're going to have to try much harder than that to
convince me that "all men are created equal" had even an
ancillary intent of abolishing slavery.
On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it >>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real >>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the >>>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science >>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
bicycles.
I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are >>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs >>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define >>>> reality.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not
a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of
the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
as
the invisible hand can tell.
I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and
would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
paid to install one.
But did people "need" bicycles in, say, 1750, when they wereBut if they had become available, with the roads on which to use
impossible? I'd say no. Those people had other needs that were great
enough that they made the need for personal human powered mobility
(beyond walking) fairly negligible.
them,
people would have "needed" them quickly.
Your "if" points to an extremely hypothetical point. "If" there's a
parallel universe where we can observe that situation, please show me.
Really, even in this universe, most people don't "need" a bicycle at all.
Am 10.04.2024 um 03:16 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it >>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light
that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real >>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the >>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
bicycles.
It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are >>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
reality.
not a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a
corollary, of the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
First, as I said, technology or its lack is obviously also
relevant. (Many people will say they "need" their smart phone, their
computer, even their ancient land line. Nobody said those things in
1850.)
But did people "need" bicycles in, say, 1750, when they were
impossible? I'd say no. Those people had other needs that were great
enough that they made the need for personal human powered mobility
(beyond walking) fairly negligible.
the "need" for human-powered personal mobility arose in 1816, the
infamous "Year without summer". <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer>
Famine greatly reduced the availability of animal-powered
mobility. Supposedly, this led to Mr Drais experimenting about a
"walking bike", the predecessor of the bicycle, which came to market
in 1818.
On 4/9/2024 1:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 08:36:46 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/9/2024 1:57 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be >>>>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from theGood idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would >>>>> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only. >>>>
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
load at a time.
I don't think I've ever heard of a PWM multiplexing scheme before. Is
there such a thing?
Neither have I. There might actually be such a thing but I'm not
going to sift through the patent bone yard looking for one right now.
I have the bad habit of contriving solutions that seem likely, but
might not exist (yet).
In this case, let's pretend you have a power source that delivers
something resembling a constant 3 watt power level. The power source
needs to operate a 3 watt front light and simultaneously charge a
battery that also presents a 3 watt load. Connecting the light and
the battery in parallel is going to be a 6 watt load, which the
mythical power source (dynamo) can't handle.
If the load was only a front light, the usual way to reduce the lights
output is with a PWM (pulse width modulation) light dimmer, where the
output power is proportional to the duty cycle of the PWM waveform.
100% duty cycle is full brightness (3 watts), 50% duty cycle is half
brightness (1.5 watts) and 33% duty cycle would be 1/3 brightness (1.0
watts).
The nice part of PWM is that there is no load BETWEEN pulses. For
example, if the front light was running at 33% (1 watt) duty cycle,
there would be the remaining 67% (2 watts) available to power
something else, without exceeding the 3 watt limit of the power source
(dynamo). Therefore, the "extra" 67% could be used to charge the
battery. Just invert the PWM output that powers the front light to
produce the PWM output the powers the battery charger. I could
probably throw something together using commodity switching power
supply IC's.
If I wanted to be creative, I could adjust the pulse width using a
control knob. At one end, all the power goes to the front lamp. At
the other end, all the power goes to charging the battery (as might be
the case during daylight hours). However, in both cases, the load on
the dynamo doesn't exceed its rated 3 watts, which is the purpose of
this exercise.
Patent pending (maybe).
Maybe you can build mux a cable tester in there too.
You seem to be hallucinating. Were you watching the eclipse without
proper eye protection?
I read somewhere once where a cable testing with PWM was a thing, never
saw any real world applications for it though.
On 4/10/2024 7:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Cheap hub dynamoes have a rolling resistance in the order of 15W to
generate 3W. A good hub dynamo can probably get those 12W out of a
mechanical resistance in the order of 20W.
Wow. I wasn't aware that any hub dynamos were that inefficient. Can you
say which brands those are?
Im told its 6 watts at 12 volts which makes sense ie double, but they are >claiming 12 watts which Im sure is possible but improbable without >increasing the drag. Ie power in.
But as Jeff has said hopefully well get some documentation at some point.
On 4/10/2024 12:57 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied. >>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs? >>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and >>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are >>>>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs >>>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define >>>>>> reality.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it >>>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered
light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real >>>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the >>>>>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science >>>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
bicycles.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not >>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of >>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
as
the invisible hand can tell.
I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and
would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
paid to install one.
to
heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.
OK. We actually did buy a house with indoor plumbing. So according to
you, we did _need_ a furnace. We did not _need_ a fireplace.
On the other hand, back when people didn't need central heat, they
needed fireplaces *in order to* have a place to cook their food.
Yep. That was back then. This is now. Heck, if we're going to delve
deeply into history, you could argue as (in)effectively that people
_need_ a place in the middle of their living room to build an open
fire on the floor! That's what predated fireplaces, after all.
And I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or even
_desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed.
Really, even in this universe, most people don't "need" a bicycle at all. >> Some people need a bicycle *in order to* get to and from work.Maybe
not in your neighborhood, but the world is bigger than that.
Yes, _some_ people. If you re-read, you'll see I was talking about
_most_ people. Remember, bike commute mode share is well under 1%. I
was part of that tiny clan, but even I didn't _need_ to be. It was
something I desired.
On 4/10/2024 2:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:36:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/10/2024 7:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Cheap hub dynamoes have a rolling resistance in the order of 15W to
generate 3W. A good hub dynamo can probably get those 12W out of a
mechanical resistance in the order of 20W.
Wow. I wasn't aware that any hub dynamos were that inefficient. Can you
say which brands those are?
Ummm...
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cable+test%22+%22PWM%22>
Oops. That's related to cable PWM instead of hub dynamos.
You can see some typical
efficiencies and RPM/efficiency curves at:
<https://pedalcell.com/blogs/blog/maximizing-bicycle-charging-efficiency>
"A rider that tries to charge their phone with a common bicycle dynamo
system can lose over 60% of their power."
Which is still better than the "15W to generate 3W." That's why I asked.
BTW, most of the dynamos in that Efficiency bar graph are bottles or
rollers, not hub dynamos. The hubs are at the top, between 45% and 60% >efficient. Again, that's why I asked.
I read somewhere once where a cable testing with PWM was a thing, never
saw any real world applications for it though.
On 4/10/2024 6:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
More on hub dynamo efficiency:
<https://www.cyclingabout.com/best-dynamo-hub-bicycle-touring-bikepacking/> >> Charging Test Averages (Four Different Chargers):
1. SON28 Hub - 57% efficient
2. 3D32 Hub - 44% efficient
3. UR700 Hub - 39% efficient
4. PD-8 Hub - 34% efficient
Lighting Test Averages (Four Different Dynamo Lights):
SON28 Hub - 44% efficient
3D32 Hub - 37% efficient
PD-8 Hub - 31% efficient
UR700 Hub - 30% efficient
BTW, I had no idea the SP hub was so inefficient! IIRC,
that's what Jay Beattie tried and didn't like. I offered to buy it from
him, and now I'm glad he refused to sell it.
PedalCell looks something like a small bottle dynamo in that it has a
rubber roller that rides on the wheel rim.
<https://pedalcell.com>
<https://pedalcell.com/en-nl/blogs/blog/maximizing-bicycle-charging-efficiency>
The above article claims 70% efficiency.
Looks like PedalCell copied my idea of driving via an O-ring running on
the rim!
Also, is it useful for driving a headlight? I don't see where they
mention that. They're concentrating on charging batteries.
Also also: I've wondered briefly about the efficiency of a charging
cycle. If you charge a modern Li-ion (or other) battery by pumping in a >certain number of Joules, how many Joules do you get back out?
I'm sure it varies with both charging details and output details. But
it's interesting to me that my cell phone (~4 year old Moto g(7) Power)
gets quite warm when charging. That's obviously charging energy lost.
Any energy lost in a charge cycle argues for simply driving a headlamp >directly from a dynamo.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it >>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real >>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the >>>>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science >>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
bicycles.
I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are >>>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs >>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define >>>>> reality.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not
a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of
the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
as
the invisible hand can tell.
I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and
would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
paid to install one.
That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need to
heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.
On 4/10/2024 4:33 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need,
or even
_desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms")
has proposed.
And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose,
there isn't any
difference between "need" and "desire".
OK. So back to the topic at hand - a system with a hub
dynamo driving a headlight and charging a smart phone and
charging a battery - what's your verdict?
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:35:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/10/2024 9:27 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/9/2024 10:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:I did not say 'intent', merely noting that the statement and
On 4/9/2024 7:32 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/8/2024 4:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:I noted only, as did Jefferson, that a strong statement of
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those
claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally
written into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths
compromise they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about
giving women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a
racist thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce
the politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all
the slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with
great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it
views them in the mixed character of persons and of
property. This is in fact their true character. It is
the character bestowed on them by the laws under
which they live; and it will not be denied, that
these are the proper criterion; because it is only
under the pretext that the laws have transformed the
negroes into subjects of property, that a place is
disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it
is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
rights which have been taken away, the negroes could
no longer be refused an equal share of representation
with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not
a call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call
for mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being
considered of exceptional even existential import,
something was desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our
Constitution even precedes William Wilberforce's
eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage
(that reliance only increased after the Founding) but
preferred to count 'all persons' for Congressional
seats. The Southern leaders had probably never heard
of an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot
off the end at that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else
on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the
number of Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule,
several of the Framers including Jefferson privately
wrote that the practice would necessarily have to end,
albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at
that time was of black slavery, there were black
freemen (including early patriot fatality Crispus
Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
agree with you that this was and is inherently race
tainted to our greater loss, then and now. It is also
critically viewed as a rift between universal liberty
and its selective denial, a fundamental conflict then
and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect but
the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned
to destroy the chattel system well before anyone else
on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade
and the practice of holding african slaves was
generally banned by every nation which had practiced it
well before the US did, while the US not only
maintained slavery as an institution, but passed at
least two laws - fugitive slave acts - as late as 1850
that reinforced the institution. Further to that, the
Fugitive Slave acts were abused by domestic slave
traders such that free blacks - either emancipated or
born free - were abducted and sold into slavery in the
south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases
in Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were
likely thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife
in Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup
was tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery
was legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into
slavery, and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12
years. One of the very few to regain freedom under such
circumstances, he later sued the slave traders involved
in Washington, DC. Its law prohibited Northup from
testifying against the white men because he was black
and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million
of her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on
earth, but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that
time than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the
Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary
moslems, many were killed, half the survivors were
castrated. History, ours and everyone's, is full of
violence injustice and general savagery. Who could
dispute that?
Was enslavement of american sailors by the Barbary
muslims set up as _legal_ international trade scheme
where governments of nations involved sanctioned and
protect the trade? Were the laws where the slaves were
traded set up to protect the slave owners and sanction
the sale of humans?
Conflating international piracy with a legally sanctioned
and protected slave trade is a desperate grasp at
rationalizing the practice - an extreme case of
"whataboutism".
The point is that you claimed the US lead the way via
"the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to
destroy the chattel system well before anyone else on
earth had considered it."
which is unequivocally wrong and completely indefensible.
The Europeans - who admittedly started the african slave
trade - banned the trade and ownership of slaves _well_
before the US even considered it as a national policy,
and the US went so far as to protect the domestic slave
trade and ownership _after_ international trade and slave
ownership was banned by passing _federal_ legislation
doing just that including language implicitly sanctioning
slavery in our constitution.
The US held onto the barbaric practice long after other
nations banned it, and literally fought a civil war over
the issue. And yes, protecting the institution of slavery
and allowing the practice during westward expansion were
the main drivers of the civil war, regardless of how the
magatard "historians" wish to rewrite history and call it
"states rights issues" (I can hear our floriduh dumbass
parroting right wing drivel now).
universal natural rights in the Constitution would
inherently lead to the dissolution of bondage. As it
eventually did.
I've yet to see any evidence that personal abolitionist
sentiments were reflected in any of the founding documents.
You're going to have to try much harder than that to
convince me that "all men are created equal" had even an
ancillary intent of abolishing slavery.
reality itself were logically in opposition, a situation
which was necessarily resolved.
Before one gets all wound d up about slavery in the south do a bit of research. Prior to the Civil war the cotton trade was far and away the largest part of U.S. trade ' King Cotton". And cotton processing and
growing prior to the development of mechanized farming was largely
dependent on people.
Not that this justifies anything buy does explain, a bit, the South's dependence on slave labor.
On 4/10/2024 11:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly
aligned to destroy the chattel system
You claim that "the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to >destroy the chattel system" wasn't intentional?
Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly
aligned to destroy the chattel system
On 4/10/2024 11:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
You claim that "the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly
aligned to destroy the chattel system" wasn't intentional?
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:13:44 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/9/2024 1:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 08:36:46 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/9/2024 1:57 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be >>>>>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the >>>>>> dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would >>>>>> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only. >>>>>Good idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is >>>>> possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse >>>>> width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one >>>>> load at a time.
I don't think I've ever heard of a PWM multiplexing scheme before. Is
there such a thing?
Neither have I. There might actually be such a thing but I'm not
going to sift through the patent bone yard looking for one right now.
I have the bad habit of contriving solutions that seem likely, but
might not exist (yet).
In this case, let's pretend you have a power source that delivers
something resembling a constant 3 watt power level. The power source
needs to operate a 3 watt front light and simultaneously charge a
battery that also presents a 3 watt load. Connecting the light and
the battery in parallel is going to be a 6 watt load, which the
mythical power source (dynamo) can't handle.
If the load was only a front light, the usual way to reduce the lights
output is with a PWM (pulse width modulation) light dimmer, where the
output power is proportional to the duty cycle of the PWM waveform.
100% duty cycle is full brightness (3 watts), 50% duty cycle is half
brightness (1.5 watts) and 33% duty cycle would be 1/3 brightness (1.0
watts).
The nice part of PWM is that there is no load BETWEEN pulses. For
example, if the front light was running at 33% (1 watt) duty cycle,
there would be the remaining 67% (2 watts) available to power
something else, without exceeding the 3 watt limit of the power source
(dynamo). Therefore, the "extra" 67% could be used to charge the
battery. Just invert the PWM output that powers the front light to
produce the PWM output the powers the battery charger. I could
probably throw something together using commodity switching power
supply IC's.
If I wanted to be creative, I could adjust the pulse width using a
control knob. At one end, all the power goes to the front lamp. At
the other end, all the power goes to charging the battery (as might be
the case during daylight hours). However, in both cases, the load on
the dynamo doesn't exceed its rated 3 watts, which is the purpose of
this exercise.
Patent pending (maybe).
Ok. So what did I do wrong now?
I'm fairly certain my scheme will
work. I'm not so sure it will sell or be useful. Perhaps it is too complexicated for the average cyclist to operate. Is there a fatal
flaw that I didn't notice?
Maybe you can build mux a cable tester in there too.
You seem to be hallucinating. Were you watching the eclipse without
proper eye protection?
I read somewhere once where a cable testing with PWM was a thing, never
saw any real world applications for it though.
Is there some reason why you would want to raise a dead issue
previously presented by someone might have died by now from Usenet
withdrawal symptoms?
By now, you should have noticed that raising the
dead is non-productive and tends to produce unexpected disasters.
Consult your favorite horror story or movie for how it usually works.
I don't recall reading anything that might suggest the existence of a
cable tester that uses PWM in some unspecified manner, but I'll admit
that it's possible. > Perhaps in an alternate universe or dimension.
I did find mention of the use of PWM for testing motor power cables: <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cable+test%22+%22PWM%22>
However, in all those, the PWM is part of the motor speed control
circuitry or VFD (variable frequency drive) and not part of the test equipment.
If Google search (and other searches) can't find it, it doesn't exist.
Give your eyes a rest from watching the eclipse and the PWM cable
tester should magically vanish.
On 4/11/2024 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/10/2024 11:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
You claim that "the Framers set up a system
incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system"
wasn't intentional?
Jefferson in particular (I suspect we know this mostly
because of his voluminous writings and correspondence;
others maybe, but undocumented) knew the conflict was
inherent. Note that he penned Virginia's Constitution before
the Federal piece and his initial draft of our Constitution
included a significant section mandating abolition:
https://www.history.com/news/declaration-of-independence-deleted-anti-slavery-clause-jefferson
which failed passage in the Congress of the time.
We're discussion both the logical contradiction and also the
very human process of herding cats of multiple interests and
opinions into composition of a document with majority
support. Ideal? No. But that's what happened.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 12:57 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far >>>>> as
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied. >>>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs? >>>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and >>>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are >>>>>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs >>>>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define >>>>>>> reality.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it >>>>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered
light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real >>>>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science >>>>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of >>>>>>>> bicycles.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not >>>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of >>>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
the invisible hand can tell.
I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and
would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
paid to install one.
to
heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.
OK. We actually did buy a house with indoor plumbing. So according to
you, we did _need_ a furnace. We did not _need_ a fireplace.
On the other hand, back when people didn't need central heat, they
needed fireplaces *in order to* have a place to cook their food.
Yep. That was back then. This is now. Heck, if we're going to delve
deeply into history, you could argue as (in)effectively that people
_need_ a place in the middle of their living room to build an open
fire on the floor! That's what predated fireplaces, after all.
More importantly, they needed a hole in the roof to let out the smoke.
And I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or even
_desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed.
And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't any difference between "need" and "desire".
Really, even in this universe, most people don't "need" a bicycle at all. >>> Some people need a bicycle *in order to* get to and from work.Maybe
not in your neighborhood, but the world is bigger than that.
Yes, _some_ people. If you re-read, you'll see I was talking about
_most_ people. Remember, bike commute mode share is well under 1%. I
was part of that tiny clan, but even I didn't _need_ to be. It was
something I desired.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:46:04 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
(chomp)
Im told its 6 watts at 12 volts which makes sense ie double, but they are
claiming 12 watts which Im sure is possible but improbable without
increasing the drag. Ie power in.
Powering the light from a battery, which is re-charged by a dynamo,
can be viewed as a perpetual motion machine. Each stage has it's
losses. From the rider to the light, the overall efficiency is
something like:
dynamo_efficiency * battery_charge_efficiency * battery_discharge_efficiency * DC_to_DC_converter_efficiency * LED_light_efficiency
If I assume that everything listed is 90% efficient, the overall
efficiency is:
0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 59% efficiency
Including additional losses, such as wind resistance, drag, rolling resistance, battery aging will just make the efficiency worse. Note
that I'm ignoring the caloric conversion efficiency of the rider diet
to pedaling power. Such a charging system is similar to installing a gasoline generator in a Tesla EV to recharge the Tesla battery while
driving.
But as Jeff has said hopefully well get some documentation at some point.
Once the company attorneys become involved and inform the marketing department that the company can be sued for making performance claims
that can't be demonstrated, I would expect to see fewer but better specifications.
On 4/10/2024 4:33 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or evenAnd I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't
_desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed.
any
difference between "need" and "desire".
OK. So back to the topic at hand - a system with a hub dynamo driving
a headlight and charging a smart phone and charging a battery - what's
your verdict?
Am 10.04.2024 um 18:57 schrieb Radey Shouman:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied. >>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs? >>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and >>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are >>>>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs >>>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define >>>>>> reality.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it >>>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered
light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real >>>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the >>>>>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science >>>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
bicycles.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not >>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of >>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
as
the invisible hand can tell.
I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and
would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
paid to install one.
to
heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.
The 200 year-old house my parents bought when I was a child had indoor plumbing but no central heat. There was a gas fire in most rooms,
which had to be enough (for safety reasons, those were never running
during the night). Good enough to prevent frozen plumbing.
Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 12:57 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far >>>>>> as
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied. >>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs? >>>>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and >>>>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it >>>>>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered
light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real >>>>>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science >>>>>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of >>>>>>>>> bicycles.
more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs >>>>>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
reality.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not >>>>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of >>>>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
the invisible hand can tell.
I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and >>>>> would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
paid to install one.
to
heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.
OK. We actually did buy a house with indoor plumbing. So according to
you, we did _need_ a furnace. We did not _need_ a fireplace.
On the other hand, back when people didn't need central heat, they
needed fireplaces *in order to* have a place to cook their food.
Yep. That was back then. This is now. Heck, if we're going to delve
deeply into history, you could argue as (in)effectively that people
_need_ a place in the middle of their living room to build an open
fire on the floor! That's what predated fireplaces, after all.
More importantly, they needed a hole in the roof to let out the smoke.
Oddly enough not needed at least with building such as round huts or halls and similar, even some later buildings are lacking chimney’s Hampton Court great hall is one such example.
Roger MerrimanAnd I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or even
_desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed.
And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't any
difference between "need" and "desire".
Really, even in this universe, most people don't "need" a bicycle at all. >>>> Some people need a bicycle *in order to* get to and from work.Maybe
not in your neighborhood, but the world is bigger than that.
Yes, _some_ people. If you re-read, you'll see I was talking about
_most_ people. Remember, bike commute mode share is well under 1%. I
was part of that tiny clan, but even I didn't _need_ to be. It was
something I desired.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:29:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/10/2024 9:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:35:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/10/2024 9:27 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/9/2024 10:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:I did not say 'intent', merely noting that the statement and
On 4/9/2024 7:32 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/8/2024 4:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:I noted only, as did Jefferson, that a strong statement of
On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
bullshit. Constitutional originalists - those
claiming _such_ things as
"original Constitution had a better ethos" come up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> empty when reminded
that racism and misogyny were quite literally
written into the original
version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths
compromise they say 'oh,
yeah, except for that', then when asked about
giving women the right to
vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a
racist thing. What it
was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce
the politcal power of
the slave holding states, who wanted to count all
the slaves.
Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
from The Federalist papers, #54
"The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with
great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it
views them in the mixed character of persons and of
property. This is in fact their true character. It is
the character bestowed on them by the laws under
which they live; and it will not be denied, that
these are the proper criterion; because it is only
under the pretext that the laws have transformed the
negroes into subjects of property, that a place is
disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it
is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
rights which have been taken away, the negroes could
no longer be refused an equal share of representation
with the other inhabitants."
yeah....that's not about race at all.
You should know better than to follow the lead of a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not
a call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call
for mercy and limited reprisal.
Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
generally underappreciated.
Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
insurmountable barrier to union. Union being
considered of exceptional even existential import,
something was desperately needed to bring resolution.
Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
voting in general elections. Note that our
Constitution even precedes William Wilberforce's
eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage
(that reliance only increased after the Founding) but
preferred to count 'all persons' for Congressional
seats. The Southern leaders had probably never heard
of an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot
off the end at that proposition.
For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else
on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the
number of Southern representatives in the Congress.
Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule,
several of the Framers including Jefferson privately
wrote that the practice would necessarily have to end,
albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at
that time was of black slavery, there were black
freemen (including early patriot fatality Crispus
Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
agree with you that this was and is inherently race
tainted to our greater loss, then and now. It is also
critically viewed as a rift between universal liberty
and its selective denial, a fundamental conflict then
and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect but
the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned
to destroy the chattel system well before anyone else
on earth had considered it.
?...As far as I know, international African slave trade
and the practice of holding african slaves was
generally banned by every nation which had practiced it
well before the US did, while the US not only
maintained slavery as an institution, but passed at
least two laws - fugitive slave acts - as late as 1850
that reinforced the institution. Further to that, the
Fugitive Slave acts were abused by domestic slave
traders such that free blacks - either emancipated or
born free - were abducted and sold into slavery in the
south.
"The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases
in Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were
likely thousands of others"
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
Then there's Solomon Northrup:
"born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife
in Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup
was tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery
was legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into
slavery, and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12
years. One of the very few to regain freedom under such
circumstances, he later sued the slave traders involved
in Washington, DC. Its law prohibited Northup from
testifying against the white men because he was black
and so he lost the case."
Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
experience.
Then
2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million
of her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on
earth, but early to the change.
*Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that
time than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the
Caliphate.
And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary
moslems, many were killed, half the survivors were
castrated. History, ours and everyone's, is full of
violence injustice and general savagery. Who could
dispute that?
Was enslavement of american sailors by the Barbary
muslims set up as _legal_ international trade scheme
where governments of nations involved sanctioned and
protect the trade? Were the laws where the slaves were
traded set up to protect the slave owners and sanction
the sale of humans?
Conflating international piracy with a legally sanctioned
and protected slave trade is a desperate grasp at
rationalizing the practice - an extreme case of
"whataboutism".
The point is that you claimed the US lead the way via
"the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to
destroy the chattel system well before anyone else on
earth had considered it."
which is unequivocally wrong and completely indefensible.
The Europeans - who admittedly started the african slave
trade - banned the trade and ownership of slaves _well_
before the US even considered it as a national policy,
and the US went so far as to protect the domestic slave
trade and ownership _after_ international trade and slave
ownership was banned by passing _federal_ legislation
doing just that including language implicitly sanctioning
slavery in our constitution.
The US held onto the barbaric practice long after other
nations banned it, and literally fought a civil war over
the issue. And yes, protecting the institution of slavery
and allowing the practice during westward expansion were
the main drivers of the civil war, regardless of how the
magatard "historians" wish to rewrite history and call it
"states rights issues" (I can hear our floriduh dumbass
parroting right wing drivel now).
universal natural rights in the Constitution would
inherently lead to the dissolution of bondage. As it
eventually did.
I've yet to see any evidence that personal abolitionist
sentiments were reflected in any of the founding documents.
You're going to have to try much harder than that to
convince me that "all men are created equal" had even an
ancillary intent of abolishing slavery.
reality itself were logically in opposition, a situation
which was necessarily resolved.
Before one gets all wound d up about slavery in the south do a bit of
research. Prior to the Civil war the cotton trade was far and away the
largest part of U.S. trade ' King Cotton". And cotton processing and
growing prior to the development of mechanized farming was largely
dependent on people.
Not that this justifies anything buy does explain, a bit, the South's
dependence on slave labor.
+1 with a bunch of detail. As with the horrendous conditions
of sugar operations in the Caribbean, a mild natural
resistance to malaria made buying Africans a better business
proposition than Irish slave labor. And the rest is history.
Added to that the comment about northern states abolishing slavery as
early as 1700...Usually leaves out the fact that was established as a
legal institution in each of the Thirteen Colonies, starting from 1619 onwards with the arrival of "twenty and odd" enslaved Africans in
Virginia. Although indigenous peoples were also sold into slavery, the
vast majority of the enslaved population consisted of Africans brought
to the Americas via the Atlantic slave trade. Due to a lower
prevalence of tropical diseases and better treatment, the enslaved
population in the colonies had a higher life expectancy than in the
West Indies and South America, leading to a rapid increase in
population in the decades prior to the American Revolution.
By the way, I'm being told about groups who work at jobs in the U.S.
that are unpalatable to USians and low skilled and at lower salaries
then usually paid to USians.
On 4/10/2024 11:56 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:44:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Also also: I've wondered briefly about the efficiency of a charging
cycle. If you charge a modern Li-ion (or other) battery by pumping in a
certain number of Joules, how many Joules do you get back out?
it's interesting to me that my cell phone (~4 year old Moto g(7) Power)
gets quite warm when charging. That's obviously charging energy lost.
Maybe. If your cell phone gets hot, all it means is that the thermal
design did not include a proper heat spreader. Heat (calories),
spread over a wide area, is much colder than the same amount of heat
concentrated on a smaller spot. I have a Moto G Power 2020.
(Actually, I have two of them).
<https://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_moto_g_power-10076.php>
I rarely fast charge the phone. I'm not certain, but I don't recall
it ever getting "quite warm" during charging.
I just measured using an IR thermometer. After fast charging (55% to
about 80%) I get 93 degrees Fahrenheit. I think that was about half an
hour charging time. I should have noted the start time, but didn't.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 4:33 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or evenAnd I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't
_desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed.
any
difference between "need" and "desire".
OK. So back to the topic at hand - a system with a hub dynamo driving
a headlight and charging a smart phone and charging a battery - what's
your verdict?
Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm
pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a >larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low, >batteries are heavy and lossy.
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
Am 10.04.2024 um 18:57 schrieb Radey Shouman:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far >>>>> as
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied. >>>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs? >>>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and >>>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are >>>>>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs >>>>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define >>>>>>> reality.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it >>>>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered >>>>>>>>>>> light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real >>>>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science >>>>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of >>>>>>>> bicycles.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not >>>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of >>>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
the invisible hand can tell.
I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and
would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
paid to install one.
to
heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.
The 200 year-old house my parents bought when I was a child had indoor
plumbing but no central heat. There was a gas fire in most rooms,
which had to be enough (for safety reasons, those were never running
during the night). Good enough to prevent frozen plumbing.
I'm surprised, where was it? I guess the water was turned off and
drained if all were to be away from the house overnight.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 4:33 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or evenany
_desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed. >>>> And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't
difference between "need" and "desire".
OK. So back to the topic at hand - a system with a hub dynamo driving
a headlight and charging a smart phone and charging a battery - what's
your verdict?
Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm >>pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a >>larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low, >>batteries are heavy and lossy.
I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does
not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I
don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging >efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.
If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used >without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
this battery bank: ><https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet
claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4 >recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone >charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.
The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.
Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A. ><https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.
If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the
power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
the same time.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:56:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/10/2024 11:56 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:44:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Also also: I've wondered briefly about the efficiency of a charging
cycle. If you charge a modern Li-ion (or other) battery by pumping in a >>>> certain number of Joules, how many Joules do you get back out?
it's interesting to me that my cell phone (~4 year old Moto g(7) Power) >>>> gets quite warm when charging. That's obviously charging energy lost.
Maybe. If your cell phone gets hot, all it means is that the thermal
design did not include a proper heat spreader. Heat (calories),
spread over a wide area, is much colder than the same amount of heat
concentrated on a smaller spot. I have a Moto G Power 2020.
(Actually, I have two of them).
<https://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_moto_g_power-10076.php>
I rarely fast charge the phone. I'm not certain, but I don't recall
it ever getting "quite warm" during charging.
I just measured using an IR thermometer. After fast charging (55% to
about 80%) I get 93 degrees Fahrenheit. I think that was about half an
hour charging time. I should have noted the start time, but didn't.
That's far too hot. Google search shows some overheating complains
about the Moto G7 Power. Many indicate that it gets hot during
charging:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=moto+g7+power+overheating>
Motorola's answer is useless: <https://en-us.support.motorola.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/119739/~/device-gets-hot>
iFixit's suggestions are better, but not much: <https://www.ifixit.com/Wiki/Motorola_Moto_G7_Troubleshooting#Section_The_Phone_Is_Overheating>
"Phone Overheats While Charging: Sometimes the phone will overheat
while it is charging, this is likely due to using a charging cable
that did not originally come with the phone. This can be solved by
using the original cable again or purchasing a new cable."
That's wrong. A long and high resistance USB cable will often cause
problems when fast charging. However, it's the cable that gets hot,
not the phone.
Does your phone show any sign of a bulging battery? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY1X8NfJJe8>
If you're not sure, put a straight edge ruler on the glass screen and
see if it is bulging in the middle.
Suggestion: Buy a USB-C 100 watt charging cable that is not too long. Something like this: <https://www.anker.com/products/a8552?variant=41920191070358>
Yes, $20 is expensive for just a charging cable. You can safe a few
dollars with a 30, 50 or 60 watt cable. I use a 60 watt cable for
testing charging systems. If this higher power cable works, but the customers original cable does not work, then the problem is obvious.
If both cables cause phone or cable heating, then the problem is
elsewhere. Also, try a different charger and see if that fixes the
problem. Extra points for buying a USB tester to display
phone/charger negotiated protocol and charging current/power. <https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=usb+c+tester>
Good luck.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 4:33 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or evenany
_desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed. >>>> And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't
difference between "need" and "desire".
OK. So back to the topic at hand - a system with a hub dynamo driving
a headlight and charging a smart phone and charging a battery - what's
your verdict?
Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm >>pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a >>larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low, >>batteries are heavy and lossy.
I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does
not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I
don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.
If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
this battery bank: <https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet
claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4 recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.
The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.
Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A. <https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.
If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the
power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
the same time.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:12:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 4:33 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or evenany
_desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed. >>>>> And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't
difference between "need" and "desire".
OK. So back to the topic at hand - a system with a hub dynamo driving
a headlight and charging a smart phone and charging a battery - what's >>>> your verdict?
Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm >>>pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a >>>larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low, >>>batteries are heavy and lossy.
I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does
not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I >>don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging >>efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.
If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used >>without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
this battery bank: >><https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet >>claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4 >>recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone >>charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.
The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.
Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A. >><https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.
If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the
power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
the same time.
I use my phone to play music, but if I was going on a multi-day ride,
I'd simply shut it off when I was riding; maybe turn it on for a few
minutes to check on ...whatever... every couple of hours. As for
using GPS, I think I could remember a couple of hours of directions.
I love my electronics, but I can live without them.
Am 11.04.2024 um 22:42 schrieb Radey Shouman:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
Am 10.04.2024 um 18:57 schrieb Radey Shouman:I'm surprised, where was it? I guess the water was turned off and
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far >>>>>> as
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied. >>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs? >>>>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and >>>>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it >>>>>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered >>>>>>>>>>>> light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from >>>>>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real >>>>>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science >>>>>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of >>>>>>>>> bicycles.
more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs >>>>>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
reality.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not >>>>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of >>>>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
the invisible hand can tell.
I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and >>>>> would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
paid to install one.
to
heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.
The 200 year-old house my parents bought when I was a child had indoor
plumbing but no central heat. There was a gas fire in most rooms,
which had to be enough (for safety reasons, those were never running
during the night). Good enough to prevent frozen plumbing.
drained if all were to be away from the house overnight.
Southern Germany. Once we were away for a week around Christmas with
nights in the low 10s. When coming back, the plumbing across the
courtyard was frozen and damaged but not the water pipes in the house;
3-4ft solid stone walls take a *long* time to cool down (after that,
my dad did drain the outdoor pipes in fall).
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:12:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 4:33 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or even >>>>>>> _desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed. >>>>>> And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't >>>>>> anydifference between "need" and "desire".
OK. So back to the topic at hand - a system with a hub dynamo driving >>>>> a headlight and charging a smart phone and charging a battery - what's >>>>> your verdict?
Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm >>>>pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a >>>>larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low, >>>>batteries are heavy and lossy.
I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does >>>not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I >>>don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging >>>efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.
If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used >>>without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
this battery bank: >>><https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet >>>claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4 >>>recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone >>>charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.
The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.
Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A. >>><https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.
If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the >>>power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
the same time.
I use my phone to play music, but if I was going on a multi-day ride,
I'd simply shut it off when I was riding; maybe turn it on for a few
minutes to check on ...whatever... every couple of hours. As for
using GPS, I think I could remember a couple of hours of directions.
I get lost easily. Although I normally carry paper maps in unfamiliar >territory it can be challenging to figure out where I am. The New
England practice of saving money by not signing major roads does not
help. I find GPS really nice for locating myself on the map, although
not so great for actually planning a route.
I love my electronics, but I can live without them.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:12:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 4:33 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or even >>>>>>> _desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed. >>>>>> And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't >>>>>> anydifference between "need" and "desire".
OK. So back to the topic at hand - a system with a hub dynamo driving >>>>> a headlight and charging a smart phone and charging a battery - what's >>>>> your verdict?
Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm >>>> pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a >>>> larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low, >>>> batteries are heavy and lossy.
I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does
not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I
don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging
efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.
If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used
without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
this battery bank:
<https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet
claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4
recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone
charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.
The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.
Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A.
<https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.
If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the
power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
the same time.
I use my phone to play music, but if I was going on a multi-day ride,
I'd simply shut it off when I was riding; maybe turn it on for a few
minutes to check on ...whatever... every couple of hours. As for
using GPS, I think I could remember a couple of hours of directions.
I get lost easily. Although I normally carry paper maps in unfamiliar territory it can be challenging to figure out where I am. The New
England practice of saving money by not signing major roads does not
help. I find GPS really nice for locating myself on the map, although
not so great for actually planning a route.
I love my electronics, but I can live without them.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:43:49 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
Am 11.04.2024 um 22:42 schrieb Radey Shouman:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
Am 10.04.2024 um 18:57 schrieb Radey Shouman:I'm surprised, where was it? I guess the water was turned off and
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need >>>>>> to
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far >>>>>>>> as
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied. >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs? >>>>>>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and >>>>>>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered >>>>>>>>>>>>>> light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
take millennia for the market to produce them?
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of >>>>>>>>>>> bicycles.
more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
reality.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not >>>>>>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of >>>>>>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
the invisible hand can tell.
I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and >>>>>>> would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or >>>>>>> rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have >>>>>>> paid to install one.
heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed >>>>>> central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.
The 200 year-old house my parents bought when I was a child had indoor >>>>> plumbing but no central heat. There was a gas fire in most rooms,
which had to be enough (for safety reasons, those were never running >>>>> during the night). Good enough to prevent frozen plumbing.
drained if all were to be away from the house overnight.
Southern Germany. Once we were away for a week around Christmas with
nights in the low 10s. When coming back, the plumbing across the
courtyard was frozen and damaged but not the water pipes in the house;
3-4ft solid stone walls take a *long* time to cool down (after that,
my dad did drain the outdoor pipes in fall).
As you probably know, typical US houses are of light wooden frame
construction, without a great deal of thermal mass. Even with stone
walls I would not have wanted to take a chance on the plumbing.
On one occasion during cold weather in my house (in Massachusetts) the
water in the boiler dropped too low and the heat went off, I was
fortunate not to come home to ruptured plumbing. After that I turned
the water off and drained the plumbing. Nowadays we have cats in the
house, so someone has to look in to it fairly often and I leave the
water on.
At any rate, non-central heat is still heat. Houses in the US before
indoor plumbing often had no heat of any kind in most rooms, which
really would not work over a long winter with plumbing in the walls.
My grandfather's house (1700-something) had only one room heated on a
daily basis -the kitchen - heated by the wood burning cook stove. The
"Front Room" had a fireplace which normally not used.
Plumbing was 6 ft underground from the well to the kitchen.
Originally there had been no bathroom - probably an "Out House" but
someone had added an inside room off the kitchen.
Apparently acceptable to their residents as I've seen houses built
,more then 170 years later using then same tactics except the fuel
changed to kerosene,
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
Am 11.04.2024 um 22:42 schrieb Radey Shouman:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
Am 10.04.2024 um 18:57 schrieb Radey Shouman:I'm surprised, where was it? I guess the water was turned off and
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need >>>>> to
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far >>>>>>> as
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied. >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs? >>>>>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and >>>>>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered >>>>>>>>>>>>> light that could
be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real >>>>>>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
take millennia for the market to produce them?
Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of >>>>>>>>>> bicycles.
more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
reality.
I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not >>>>>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of >>>>>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
the invisible hand can tell.
I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and >>>>>> would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or >>>>>> rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have >>>>>> paid to install one.
heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed >>>>> central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.
The 200 year-old house my parents bought when I was a child had indoor >>>> plumbing but no central heat. There was a gas fire in most rooms,
which had to be enough (for safety reasons, those were never running
during the night). Good enough to prevent frozen plumbing.
drained if all were to be away from the house overnight.
Southern Germany. Once we were away for a week around Christmas with
nights in the low 10s. When coming back, the plumbing across the
courtyard was frozen and damaged but not the water pipes in the house;
3-4ft solid stone walls take a *long* time to cool down (after that,
my dad did drain the outdoor pipes in fall).
As you probably know, typical US houses are of light wooden frame construction, without a great deal of thermal mass. Even with stone
walls I would not have wanted to take a chance on the plumbing.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 73:33:11 |
| Calls: | 6,694 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,228 |
| Messages: | 5,346,920 |
| Posted today: | 1 |