Get a Horse
Tuesday, April 12th, 2011Linda Brady Traynham
We all know where that phrase comes from in my circles, but considering the deplorable state of American “education,” it was a jibe thrown at idiots having trouble with their new-fangled auty-mobiles or causing problems. I’m prepared for a reversal in public sentiment and a revival of that phrase becauses getting a horse is becoming more sensible by the day, even if a horse is a hole you throw hay and range cubes into. The cheerful way to regard what comes out of the other end is that it is great fertilizer that doesn’t smell. Well, it does, but it is a fresh, clean, earthy, “normal,” organic scent. Manure in general is a fascinating topic in terms of all the kinds which do not smell vile. Mankind’s, absolutely. Hogs’, definitely. Chickens’ in bulk, yes, indeed. Horses, cows, and goats scatter excellent fertilizer that simply does not smell bad, and I will go enquire of the only dastard I know who dares raise sheep in cattle country. Why do we hate sheep? Because they destroy grass by eating it down too close to the ground for it to live, as opposed to a condition known as “overgrazing,” which means that if you’ll get the horses and cattle out of that pasture it will recover. (These are things you may well need to know, someday soon, so pay attention.)
Hayburners are not gas burners. They do not—at present–require expensive licenses and insurance. They could carry your brief case if you rode one to work, and can pull wagons and power machinery. Their feed can be bought in large lots; you do not wait in line, go inside to pre-pay, or inconvenience yourself when they are hungry. You hang a feed bag over their heads. Horses do not need points, plugs, condensers, mufflers or tune-ups. Good ones LIKE to work. While it is very true they have no doors or convertible tops (wear a hat and carry a slicker), they’re pretty reliable.
Horses can reproduce themselves. I have never heard of a multi-horse pile-up on the freeway, although there were accidents when some hot-blooded Regency buck attempted to show off his pair of “16-mile-an-hour-tits,” either turning his rig over or endangering pedestrians. Horses are distinctive. I was amused by an otherwise very lavish production of “Pride and Prejudice” whose producers thought they could get away with just two good ones, a bay and a gray. No, dear people, I am not going to mistake the gray Darcy rides if someone else is astride him, any more than I will fail to recognize the expensive outfit his nasty sister wears in her first scene when she makes her appearance later at a party. Horses aren’t like modern granola cars which can be “distinguished” only by removable license plates.
Other than protecting one from the weather, carrying more, and going faster, horses are superior in every way to bits of Detroit and Japanese iron. Considering traffic jams, perhaps it wouldn’t matter that your buggy seldom went over seven mph. I can imagine, easily, “Enterprise Livery Stables,” offering fine horses and nags. We may yet see why it was a big deal to be part of “the carriage trade.”
Horses for private use are certainly one solution to gas crises and high prices. A simpler one for many of you is to reduce the number of unnecessary miles you drive, but consider the thinking time you would gain if you rode a horse…When we got our second one, dear Charles and I enjoyed joking that we were no longer “a lousy one-horse outfit,” we were “a lousy two-horse outfit.” The moral being that there are and have always been societies which calculate wealth in horses and goats. We’re up to eight now: 1 fine stallion, 1 well-trained gelding, 3 trained riding mares who are with foal, soon to be 4 from what the stallion says, and a pair of teenagers who giggle and show off for the hunk, who nuzzles their noses and says, “You’re real cuties, but you’re jail bait. Next year, perhaps. Don’t call me, I know where to find you.” There is a slight problem brewing, namelly that a year from now instead of eight horses we will have a full dozen. A horse eats dang’ near as much as three cows, and Americans don’t eat horses, although the French and Germans do. Horses are addictive! In town or in foul weather they would require shelter, and a standard garage would stall two only of them. (On the other hand, that is the only kind of “stalling” that horses do. Their batteries don’t run down, either.) Horses are the jewelry of the land and referred to frequently as “pasture art.” Men brag about the skill of their roping and cutting horses as other men boast of the performance of their machines.
Laughter. Does your car show off when you return?! The boys and girls KNOW they are beautiful and elite, and when I merely called Poco Bar Knight’s name yesterday his head came up, he posed proudly, and then he turned into streaming golden liquid fire, racing a furlong. He stopped, all but took a bow, and went back to grazing along side a pasture mate. He could see I wasn’t going to go down to the horse pasture, preferably with an apple or carrot, but he enjoyed strutting his stuff for me…while I called encouragement to him.
“Oh, Mrs. Traynham, you are such a romantic, and as vain as your horses. We haven’t got any place to put them, and they really are not suitable for our needs.” Will you feel the same way when gas hits eight dollars a gallon? Ten? Twelve? When the only significant freight moving does so by rail? Even AMTRAK may finally make a profit for the first time in thirty years. I expect to see a time when a horse–and our glossy doctor’s buggy–will be a very useful thing to have…and when a saddle-trained one will cost as much as a medium-priced car instead of today’s lows.
As Wayne Gretzky said, “My job isn’t to be where the puck is. My job is to be where the puck is going to be.” Right now my horses might be thought of uncharitably as a costly affectation, or–more kindly–as an expensive hobby which is utilitarian two or three times a month. In time, they may be the difference between transportation or walking, or life-savers. That’s why they hanged horse thieves, you know. When you stole a man’s horse it wasn’t like stealing his car. Leave him stranded and death was a strong possibility. Saddles are making fine lows, too, 10% of the price two or three years ago. A good rider does not HAVE to have a saddle, but one certainly makes mounting easier, staying on easier, and riding more comfortable. If you haven’t checked www.themeshreport.com lately, do. I have photos up of the stallion exiting through his renovations of the barn so he could chase three pretty ladies, one of whom smelled very good to him. By sheer chance my daughter was standing there with a camera in her hand when “Beau” broke out, knocking out the end of his stall and the side of the barn. You never appreciated the power of “one horse power” before, did you?!
Am I joking about getting a horse? At most, only a little. If you can afford one and have a place to keep it, I’d do it. I did it, obviously. Stabling charges are unbelievable, and by the time you made it to the place that boarded your horse he would probably be long gone. I will simply say that I feel much better having the option of something that can be ridden or carry 200 pounds or more. I haven’t played Jesse and Frank James fleeing the posse with my brother in well over fifty years, and shouting “Wolverines!” is a young man’s game, but I feel safer having alternate modes of transportation.
Regards,
Linda Brady Traynham
Related posts:
Desertrat says:
April 12th, 2011
12:27 pm
Common, back during WW II for me and a couple of other kids to ride on past Manchaca and on to Buda. We were the Daltons or the James gang, “casing the bank”. (That bank later became the “Old 1898 Store”, until it burned in the late 1970s. Then, back at the old home place in the 1970s, we always had some horses around. I had “Krispy Kritter” trained enough such that he wouldn’t buck when a .30-’06 went off. But, finally sold my saddle. Either I do all my own care-taking, or I’m out of the business, and the old body ain’t up to it nowadays.
Sheep? They eat the coarser part of grass. Most other livestock eats the softer part. (Dunno why, but that’s what the Ag boys say.) If you keep the pastures rotated, a mix of some sheep in with the cows makes for better grass.
Smaller tracts with water points make for better carrying capacity than one or two large pastures. A bunch of gates takes the fun out of horseback riding for pleasure, of course.
Val says:
April 12th, 2011
2:44 pm
In Robert Heinlein’s futuristic romp “Friday” all of the private vehicles are horse-drawn.
I’ve been trying to “get a horse” for 44 years. Still working on it…
PeterPansDad says:
April 14th, 2011
8:34 am
Horses. Hurt you at both ends and uncomfortable in the middle.
I’m inclined toward Rat’s thinking of sheep. It’s a management issue. However, not wishing to disagree with Linda (one of my favorite people), and since she has jokingly expressed her displeasure with sheep, I point the reader to John Taylor of Caroline. Check out essay 44 in Arator for John’s less than favorable opinion of sheep in the Americas.
Concerning sheep…”my conclusions are that they require and consume far more food, in proportion to their size, than any other stock, that they are more liable to disease and death, and that they cannot be a profitable object throughout the whole extent of the warm dry climate, and sandy soil of the United States but by banishing tillage from vast tracts of country. These opinions are by no means intended however to exclude them as a luxury for the table, capable of being made to repay a considerable portion of the expence it causes.” He goes on for several more pages.
http://books.google.com/books?id=YFVHAAAAYAAJ&dq=john%20taylor%20of%20caroline%20Arator&pg=PA179#v=onepage&q&f=false
James the Wanderer says:
April 14th, 2011
12:32 pm
Like watching horses. One bad experience, probably my fault looking backwards; not a serious injury, I think the horse just didn’t want one more Cub Scout riding him that day. Not a problem, two weeks later I was completely healed and no effects since.
IF I RAISED the horse, knew its habits and temperament well, probably could get along with one. As it is, you can convert almost anything to run on ethanol, easily made (brewed) and ecologically safer than gasoline.
Once the Crunch comes, may reconsider horses. Hard to know what to do, now. Too many possibilities at the moment.
Thanks for a great essay. I wrote one I don’t like – really want to write something POSITIVE and UPLIFTING right now, but subject matter is scarce. Maybe I’ll think of something soon. Like reading yours.
Cheers!
JtW
Desertrat says:
April 14th, 2011
3:46 pm
Sheep and domestic turkeys: On their best days, they’d have to double up on smarts just to reach stupid. But sheep do okay if they’re in a proper habitat and are managed. Check out the Basques in the northern Rockies.
Goats? Clever and cunning, at least the old Spanish goats are. I think those critters could make a living in country where a buzzard would starve.
Some horses have a knack for going through life as a vet bill awaiting an opportunity. Others, not so bad. All in all, though, a Jeep works better, most of the time. My uncle worked his cattle for years with an old Army Signal Corps Harley 45. “When you’re not working it, you don’t have to feed it.”
Ken JMR says:
April 20th, 2011
2:53 pm
Hello,
One thing about this site, I have’nt been able to figure out how to leave a comment or question unless it’s a comment at the bottom of an article. Oh well, Hey: JtW (re: I want to write an article) how about a movie review! Atlas Shrugged part 1 just came out. The professional movie critics are panning it. Fans are saying it’s good (maybe not great). I would like to read a review by one of the known contributors to TTR. What do you think?
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 20th, 2011
7:43 pm
Ken, I think it would be wonderful if Mike could give us a “reply” option below each article. It’s time-consuming to have to weave back up and down. I’ll ask him, and reply to the copy I have from you at my private e-mail (ranchLT4@gmail.com, but don’t get excited because I’m hundreds behInd!)
‘Round here we write our own articles, Pilgrim! In all seriousness, the ONLY author I didn’t find in my e-mail and egg…encourage…is Tex Norton. We all write good articles and I think the best comments in the business. Dang, gimme a minute–dinner is long past ready–and when I come back there’s bad news and good news. I can’t do a thing about the bad news (and neither can the rest of you, so we’ll just have to live with it) but the good news is potentially very exciting!
Hug for writing, Linda
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 20th, 2011
8:40 pm
‘Rat, me darlin’ you just like to be a trouble maker! I have a friend with a few sheep. The cougar thinks they’re delicious. My dairy goats are marvelous friends and we’ve got little ones learning how to be goats, and they’re so cute nobody can help smiling. Uncivilized goats, in large herds, are no fun at all.
James, my dear, I love you. You KNEW what was on my mind! I’m tired of everything being dismal and wanted to write about something cheerful for a change.
Everybody go over to http://www.themeshreport.com because we’re about to lose (to archives) an article with 37 responses you’ll like–Kurt, Lynne, and I are carrying on, along with others.
Just as good–in a different way–is a response I wrote about a recent shooting at the ranch. (Relax; the bad slitherer is dead, nobody hurt.) I amaze myself when I comment off-hand, really only intending to amuse, on what I would have done “IF” and then think about it–well, write about it–later, and see that my “instincts” were flawless for reasons that just pour out when I ask my mind why I would have done that!
I pointed out to darling Charles that I am clearly a favorite of a benevolent deity, and he looked at me and replied perfectly seriously, “Yes, you are.” No exclamation point. Statement of fact. Whoosh. Anyway, in context, I went on to point out that if, anywhere in a three hour period, we had spent just one extra minute instead of having me safely in the house when the need to dispose of a snake arose, said snake would have been right behind me. That’s good, thanks Lord, I appreciate it very much, indeed. 90 seconds earlier and the snake would have been right in front of me, and I wasn’t carrying anything more lethal than my purse and left-over pecan-crusted trout…and would have been rather in the way. (Thanks LOTS, Lord! I’m welcome.) Note to self: you may not carry a weapon when going out to dinner, but it is stupid not to stash one in the car so that you’ll have it while traversing the wilds from the parking area to the house.
Okay, here’s the hypothetical situation and I want your best estimate of what you would have done. Immediate response, but it’s fine to think about it later, too. You have been out to dinner (excellent) and finished with a Mango Margarita and cigarettes on the terrace afterwards, raided Half-Priced Books to good effect, filled the gas tank and wondered what made the person who ran all the gas out and dared change the odometer, and gone home, fat, dumb, and happy, or just relaxed and happy. Out of nowhere two shots ring out! A double tap, close together, something serious. Right behind you, not someplace harmless over in a pasture.
If that is all you know, what do you do?
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 20th, 2011
9:28 pm
Well, I’ll tell you what EYE would have done, and why. I would have continued to walk forward at the same pace. Whatever is wrong is probably solved–but only probably–because the gunfire has ceased but this is no time to complicate the situation by shrieking, whirling around, asking questions, or distracting the person firing literally inches from my heels. If I were lucky! If I get hit by ricocheting concrete, no problem. If I feel bodily fluids splash me, that gives me a clue, but the best solution is still to get out of the impact area quietly and calmly.
Another way to put that is “It isn’t my war.” I’m a noncombattant who might become collateral damage or block the target, supposing it can still move–which I would doubt. I trust the only two people behind me to have good threat assessment, steady hands, and good sense and both are excellent shots. In retrospect I can only suppose that unless the snake were preparing to strike THEY would have held their fire until I was safe, because Asia had a powerful flashlight in his off hand. Shooting snakes is very important, but there would have been plenty of time to get him after I got two or three steps farther away, or even on the porch.
Around here, nobody is going to smile and scoff, “Linda, things like that don’t happen in real life!” Snakes, my dears, are also found in cities, and those of you who live in them aren’t likely to have a gun handy, and it will upset the neighbors if you shoot, anyway.
Since, in this scenario, no one has given me any instructions such as “RUN, Linda,” or “Stop and don’t move, Linda” there isn’t a single useful thing I can do except walk calmly away from trouble.
My best guess, although I haven’t asked, is that Charles would have held his fire until I were safe unless he thought the snake were about to strike. He would have said nothing because what would there be to say that was useful?! I would already be on the best course, and voices might have alarmed the snake or I might have stopped and turned to talk to him.
Chuckle…I didn’t even get up to go see what was going on. In the fullness of time someone will come tell me, and I might still have been very much in the way.
Which reminds me of being out at the sheepherder’s place one afternoon
when a ruckus indicated something was going on. He grabbed his rifle and raced out. I picked up my pistol, filled my pocket with shells, and climbed to the top of the hill he was disappearing over to where his goats were. There’s a nice, big tree there, and the field of fire is excellent. I stationed myself there (safe from any shots which might come my way since it would never have occurred to him to think of me as backup, one reason I would never have married him. This is pre-Charles, of course.) and start scanning the fence line. I’m thinking that if it’s one of the cougars, with lunch in his/her jaws, he’ll make a break for the nearest forest to my right. More hormones than sense has gone charging down the hill, very lucky it ISN’T a big cat, since he’s a lousy shot. (Laughter! Another reason I wouldn’t have married him, not that he ever asked, although his biggest fear was that he would.) Flap over, no predators in sight, so when he was well within earshot and calm, I told him where I was in a nice, normal voice, and didn’t come out from behind the segment of the tree I was behind by that time until he acknowledged me.
Is now a good time to tell you I would much rather face a mountain lion (cougars/bob cats are the local smaller version) than a snake?! Although I’d rather have a rifle in my hands. I’ve always been afraid of snakes. I can’t even stand worms. And did Mummy ever tell you that baby venomous snakes, which look like big worms, are more dangerous than bigger ones? Their venom is more concentrated.
Yes, in theory, there are “harmless” snakes, but they don’t get the benefit of the doubt so far as I’m concerned.
Hugs to all,
Linda
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 20th, 2011
9:31 pm
Oops…just thought of something important. Our dear James, unless I am much mistaken, will be receiving his Master’s sometime in the next two or three weeks. Congratulations, any good job offers,and what do you want for a graduation present?
James the Wanderer says:
April 21st, 2011
1:27 pm
Hey KenJMR, that sounds like a good idea: I wish it were playing somewhere near me – I’ll look it up, see how far I have to drive to get there and back, and TRY to work it in….
Uhhh, Ms. Traynham, not yet; I have a qualifying exam to survive (50/50 or less odds, by my reckoning) before I need to finish up the research itself (please God, some results, soon!) and write up a novel called a dissertation before I _might_ earn a Doctorate, or be given the “consolation prize” of a Master’s; either way, it’s probably December or so before anything final settles….
…..assuming, of course, that minor disturbances or irritations like the Crunch or significant governmental collapse or oil shock financial failure or similar don’t interrupt the whole party, semi-permanently….
I really need to write something positive, you’d think I were some kind of right-wing gun nut bitter religious clinger gold-money survivalist white trash conservative doomsayer or something.
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 21st, 2011
2:00 pm
James, Dear, the least you can do is call me Auntie Linda. Now, tell us what you are trying to prove, please, in words of not more than five syllables. Imagine having a choice of which degree you end up with, depending upon what you put into it. Back in the dark ages, when we had to walk 15 miles through thigh high snow, we had to get both…
James the Wanderer says:
April 21st, 2011
4:30 pm
B-b-b-but Auntie Linda!
Fuel cells combine (typically) hydrogen and oxygen to make electricity. Everyone (nearly) does the experiment (sometimes as early as junior high) that puts two wires from a battery into a beaker of water and makes bubbles (of hydrogen and oxygen). It’s a bit tougher to do it in reverse, takes special materials to do it efficiently, and has additional complications of sealing, current collection and so forth – but it can, it has been done. Doing it better, cheaper and more efficiently is the focus of the science.
There are several flavors of fuel cell, including phosphoric acid, polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM), solid oxide and so forth; what mainly varies is what they are put together with, and what temperatures they operate under.
I am involved with the solid oxide fuel cells, which typically conduct oxygen ions through a solid material and back out the other side to recombine with hydrogen to make water, forcing electrons through an external circuit (electricity) in the process. To get useful amounts of electricity, you “stack” these together sort of like cells in a car battery – so many cells connected together to get a total of 12V.
Right now I am involved in collecting data regarding how certain materials (rare-earth doped ceria compounds) behave under the influence of temperature and “partial oxygen pressure”; air has a partial oxygen pressure of 0.21 atm, whereas pure oxygen is 1.0 atm. Pure hydrogen gives numbers down to 10^-50 atm, depending on temperature.
Still there? I need to generate a proposal for a “qualifying exam” that is NOT closely related to my research – avoiding the “one trick pony” assessment. It needs to illustrate a scientific question that is not now known, what I would do to pursue it and what would be required to DO the study. A government format called the “NSF grant proposal” is considered the ideal way to do this.
I WILL get it done – but my committee may or may not approve of it; which leads to the Plan B above. So far, we have narrowed down the area to “alternate catalyst / alternate membrance PEM fuel cells” , which has only a little to do with my current research and has the virtue of being relatively unstudied, in comparison with “conventional catalyst [platinum]” and “conventional membrane [Nafion, a DuPont polymer]” PEM fuel cells.
I feel better getting this off my chest, even if I put you all to sleep; but even if I do a good job of the presentation, it still may not come off as Ph.D. worthy, and there’s little way to know exactly what the right mix of theory, experimental evidence, literature search, scientific conjecture and innovation [not too much, we're scientists not inventors, but don't plagiarize!] might be. Well, no one promised this would be easy; and one way or another, it’ll all be over in December and I can get on with my life in a new direction.
We will now return you to your regularly scheduled non-rants…..
JtW
Kurt says:
April 21st, 2011
7:44 pm
James is not allowed to get a (P)iled (H)igher and (D)eeper as doing so seems to cut off oxygen to the brain somehow, and we need him.
Didn’t put me to sleep, I find it fascinating. But I’m afraid it didn’t spark any ideas to suggest that might help either. Perhaps fuel cell shape such as very long and skinny so as to make higher voltages for more efficient electric motors? I know that in battery powered tools, higher voltages seem to work better. Perhaps fuel cells that spiral out like sea shells so as to permit variable voltages for various speeds or various electronic devices such as radios or GPS? Anyway to vary the fuel cell so that AC can be produced for things like laptops or portable DVD players?
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 21st, 2011
9:04 pm
James, I adore you. How about doing something with the frozen methane pockets off the S. Carolina coast?
Desertrat says:
April 22nd, 2011
6:39 am
Some current fuel cell doings: http://www.hfcletter.com/
Seems to me that the problem with using gaseous hydrogen in fuel cells, beyond rather limited circumstance, is the difficulty for storage and transport–aside from the net-negative energy aspect. I rather doubt that there will be a network of mom’n'pop “gas” stations with H2 for Joe Sixpack’s runabout.
I dunno. I can get all philosophical about this modern world. It was built on cheap energy, including farming. We’re on the downside of Hubbert’s Pimple, which could mean going back to muscle-powered farming in another twenty or thirty years–which cuts available farm acreage in half, for round numbers. Critters need grain and graze.
Electricity is “merely” a money thing. Transportation is a whole ‘nother deal. “Alternative” transportation systems need a helluva lot of rather rare chemical elements, and those are not in unlimited supply. And when you look at the past and the way shade-tree mechanics could keep poor folks mobile as third or fourth owners of old cars, you figure that those days are gone.
Lots of social changes coming, looks like…
James the Wanderer says:
April 22nd, 2011
8:01 am
Hey Kurt!
“Perhaps fuel cell shape such as very long and skinny so as to make higher voltages for more efficient electric motors? I know that in battery powered tools, higher voltages seem to work better. Perhaps fuel cells that spiral out like sea shells so as to permit variable voltages for various speeds or various electronic devices such as radios or GPS? Anyway to vary the fuel cell so that AC can be produced for things like laptops or portable DVD players?”
You can vary shape for batteries to fit an available space inside a device; but solid oxide fuel cells tend to run better >400 deg. C, so not many consumer devices will use [solid oxide] fuel cells. That said, there are tubular designs, such as Westinghouse / Siemens, in commercial use.
Other [PEM] fuel cells can run near room temperature, but Nafion needs water to work properly (it dries out if not carefully monitored, and can crack / fail if it gets too dry). One of the current areas in PEM research is trying to get membranes that work (don’t melt, dry out or otherwise fail) above 100 deg. C, the boiling point of water; if you don’t have liquid water to deal with, the cathode works better, draining off the water is not a problem, and so forth. Nafion has been modified with other fillers to sort of work above 100 deg. C, but it doesn’t work very well there. Also, above 100 C, heat removal becomes easier; driving force for heat removal is the temperature difference between source and sink, or the device and environment; thermal source should be much hotter than thermal sink for fast heat transfer, so a room temperature fuel cell needs a refrigerated sink, to operate efficiently; it won’t melt, but you won’t get as much power out of it as you could. But then again refrigeration is expensive….
Fuel cells are inherently DC devices; you need an inverter to make it AC.
Egads, I sound like a technogeek! Wonder why…..
Thanks for not falling asleep, Kurt! You have a wonderful tolerance for technobabble, can I hire you?
Cheers!
JtW
James the Wanderer says:
April 22nd, 2011
8:13 am
Dear Auntie Linda,
Didn’t know we had any that close to shore – so recovery might not be too challenging, except that you have to sort of dig / scoop / underwater mine the stuff, confine it before it melts and/or goes poof, move it somewhere to deal with it, melt / purify / compress and send it down the pipelines to consumers.
Methane hydrates are a sort of slushy-snow consistency, right? The cold seabeds keep them a semisolid? Now I see why the oil patch hates them – they’re too thick to reasonably pump, push or shove down a pipe, they aren’t clean (pure fuel) so you have to treat them, and there’s a glut of natural gas in the US right now so not much economic driver to work with.
What do you WANT me to do with them, Auntie Linda? It’s going to take a bigger price tag on natural gas to make it economically attractive, and the First Church of Gaia is going to raise hell for “insulting the seabed” or something if I try. Can we send ecotourists down to take pictures of it? They certainly take pictures of lots of unpretty animals, how tough can it be to shift them over to methane hydrates?
P. T. Barnum is my friend on this one, but I just don’t have that kind of personality!
Maybe you could start “rattlesnake tours” on your ranch as a second source of income … and if they get too bothersome, open up a petting zoo…..
Cheers!
JtW
James the Wanderer says:
April 22nd, 2011
8:23 am
‘Rat, you’ve got the idea. Hydrogen is flammable / explosive, a poor store of energy at anything less than liquid (and not great even there), requires expensive materials to store without refrigeration and expensive refrigeration to store normally, leaks perniciously and so forth. Onsite generation with sunlight power by splitting water is feasible, but then you have capital costs for solar panels, tankage and compression; this is a tough one, which explains why it’s still coming instead of already here.
Gasoline is really a wonderful fuel; stable, slow to evaporate and packs the punch of dynamite in a form you can pump cheaply. That said, electric cars will be better, once we get the bugs worked out. Solar powered electric cars (solar panel umbrellas, that fold while moving?) would be great. Windstorms might cause problems while parked and unfolded…
This would be so much easier if you could just plug into the ground and get power, without a geothermal plant!
More / better materials: more / better engineering: more / better science: more / better….
Changes indeed, social / political / financial / scientific-technical / ….. see you on the other side, hopefully better and ready to rebuild better, once its over (for a while).
Cheers!
JtW
Kurt says:
April 22nd, 2011
1:30 pm
Hire me?? I WISH! Heh, my plan when I was younger was to knock out as much math and other required credits as I could in Anchorage, then transfer to Fairbanks to go for a degree in physics. This ain’t boring to me at all. I’m familiar with the concept of heat engines and the fact that efficiency can get better with higher temps relative to the surrounding environment. I love this stuff. I’m just wondering why science is headed down the road of using fuel cells in cars with so many problems. There are so many other cheaper, easier ways that can be explored yet, such as that one plant that grows in areas that is not as suitable for food production, but produces loads of bio diesel. I forget the name though, my memory ain’t seeming to be what it used to be. I didn’t figure anything I threw out there would be of help, and it was all more geared towards engineering problems than science, but it was all that came to mind ATM. I though on a long shot that maybe it might spur some thought or something is all.
Desertrat says:
April 22nd, 2011
1:48 pm
I often wonder if we’ll ever slow down long enough to consider national priorities for societal survival. E.g., our military is the largest single user of transportation fuel. Were we to end our GloboRoboCop adventurism, that would be a rather high level of “conservation”.
Consider the effect of tax policy in a meaningful manner for purchase of high mpg cars, in lieu of the gas hogs. Another leadership role would be in the realm of consumeritis: More savings should be encouraged (again, tax policy) and less purchase of frou-frou would mean less hauling via train and semi. In the same vein, encourage more stacations and less cross-country use of the large RVs. Nothing mandatory; just leadership.
Encourage more work at home via computer, rather than commuting to an office use a computer.
It’s not a matter of what I like or dislike: It has to do with eking out what we have until some of the bugs are worked out of “the future” alternatives.
An example of foolishness, seems to me, is this yap-yap about high-speed trains. You could rebuild many more miles for local-use trains as we once had, for a given amount of money.
But whether or not I’m in any sort of righteous ballpark, I think it’s necessary for a bunch of rethinking about where our society is headed. I don’t see how any of the “miracles of technology” are going to have life tomorrow be the same as life today.
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 23rd, 2011
4:22 pm
Dear Lord, THANK you for my “extended family,” all of whom I love dearly. James, Love, I was just trying to throw out something that might spark an idea (and show that I’m brighter than a sparrow) and I’ve finally copied the pertinent text to send over to dear Charles. All of us here are a lot more intelligent than bananas, and all you need is ONE splendid “what if?”
I’ve got to go hassle our dear Michael about an article he’s had on, ah, “Kinetic Energy,” for several days and not posted. I hope all of you will get a kick out of it and it really DOES make quite a bit of sense and may even be useful in certain possible futures. Y’all know how I am about old technologies! Many are still good, and an excellent way to come up with a new idea is to re-examine old solutions. My darling son was so suspicious of authority that he tried drinking out of the wrong side of a glass to verify that the traditional answer works best.
Anyway, my suggestion is that Col. Qadaffi drag his country into the Middle Ages by reviving the trebuchet! A “tray’ boo SHAY” is, uh, a large, off balance see-saw which can be constructed with little engineering knowledge (and some experimentation, although there are probably perfectly good plans on Google, although I didn’t look), readily-available supplies, and ignorant manpower, a thing America has a good supply of, too. LET his enemy expend multi-million dollar missiles when the same thing can be accomplished by a simple machine with far fewer parts and no exotic engineering or supplies.
For that matter, sharpened roofing nails would make a reasonable facsimile of caltrops…
Anyway, as you will learn–laughter! I’ll bet at least the ‘Rat knows what a trebuchet is and how it works, that Newton never goes out of style, and that if you can loft something into the air it will come down with an unpleasant thump. Dang it, Michael! I already wrote this article once. Imagine an off balance see-saw, or recall your youth when sometimes it was necessary to divide your friends up so that you had equal weight on both ends. You don’t WANT equal weights on a trebuchet; you want to take advantage of energy you have stored on the long end to fling projectiles in the direction (well over the head of the other end, of course) what weights the other end. Grab a pencil off your desk. Find the balance point. With equal weights it will go up and down, just like a see-saw. With mildly un-equal weights the light kid has to use thigh muscles for additional power and the heavier kid must absorb some of the energy, right?
Now imagine that the weight on the short end is sufficient to cause the long end to rise abruptly, and keep increasing the weight and decreasing the distance from the balance point until you fling what is on the long end. Obviously, do not try this with your children. I haven’t tried it–other than mentally–but I rather imagine that if I took some of the drill stem or other pipe lying around I could construct a machine–and even at this level of simplicity it IS a machine–that would work. “All I need” is…you could, sort of, look at it as a pendulum, too…a long support mounted on a stand of a height sufficient so that the short end could rotate short of the ground, with a “basket” on each end. (James, dear, I’m sure you can come up with a formula.) I intend to “store” energy in two forms, the weight on the short end, when it “falls,” and the energy it took to crank the long end down, when it is released. Laughter…if I ever get all the projects on the board cleared up, I’m going to have the guys build me one with a range of a quarter to a half mile, not very big, but ample for any probable use. Anyway, when you release the long end, the arm will begin to rise and the short end will begin to fall, ja wohl? Between them they will fling my, ah, ballistic missile in the direction of where I think it would be useful. Alas, this is not “rock” country, but there is a junk yard about a mile cross country, and I have a feeling that old car engines would be quite efficacious, particularly in multiples.
Not only does this sound to me like a simple, effective solution, but think how ludicrous those who threaten “to bomb you back to the Stone Age” would look when pelted with rocks, hunks of metal, their own dead (to be gruesome) or anything else that has weight. Kinetic energy is a delightful thing, free to all.
My real point, though, is not to worry about “superior” technology. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it, what David Korech could have done if he had forseen “Operation Showboat.” Guns and a “compound” (AKA their home and church) didn’t begin to protect them. Sure, Korech was a nut, but if he didn’t care and his “congregation” didn’t care, what business was it of anyone else? I’m a nut, but if anybody kills one of my cows in an officially-sanctioned raid, a little voice whispers that it would be very satisfying to fling the body back in their direction. Not possible, perhaps, but satisfying emotionally if it could come to pass…
Kurt says:
April 23rd, 2011
6:24 pm
Ah yes, old tech at its best. Small thought though, why hurl back auto engines when big glass jars filled with liquids could be more easily had, and might do more damage to flesh? Not that I would suggest it of course, strictly hypothetical for information purposes only.
Also coming to mind are huge crossbows like machines that can hurl metal spears, or things filled with substances or messages, or if you wanted to start a fire in a wood pile from a distance.
We used to run around with old fashioned fire extinguishers, the type you fill with liquid, then pump up the pressure using a bicycle tire pump. They were great in water fights in the summer time. One of them filled with diesel could be used to throw a flame a ways, useful in burning off large chunks of brush without getting too close.
If one was in a Mad Max scenario, needing to defend ones place from a pillaging horde, One could also fall back on a very old tech trick of spreading flammables around the KZ. They mostly used oils I believe, but big jars of gas or diesel hidden in key spots could ruin an invading army’s whole year when you started shooting at them with first a rifle, then a flare gun. Or go combo old and new: glass jars hidden with electric dispersal/ignition. Or irrigation system in place that has an electric control system and does not pump water. Might make somebody think twice before attempting a second round.
Yea, there is a lot that can be relearned from old tech. Don’t try it at home, for entertainment and info purposes only kids. The Libyan madman is a quitter if he just rolls over and leaves, and I don’t think that’s one label he qualifies for. Hate to admit it that though I never thought I would be rooting for him, but in this case I do. Wrong is wrong, and he was at least keeping the area more stable than it has been in a while. Life ain’t pretty, life ain’t fair. Get over it.
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 24th, 2011
11:48 am
uh…a bit tied up here negotiating for a bullet proof vehicle, the very thought of which has frizzled all my synapses
Kurt says:
April 24th, 2011
1:25 pm
Bullet proof vehicle? Uh, is there something ya ain’t telling us? Do you need some protective services?
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 24th, 2011
9:27 pm
We got it!!! No…I don’t exactly “need” a bullet proof vehicle, at least at present, although why someone in a cartel didn’t buy it I can’t imagine, but you all know me/us very well. Dear Charles has his passion for Jeeps of any sort, and no one could expect me not to want a bullet proof vehicle custom-built for a Latin American head of state, now, could they? ’79, El Salvador, probably for Napeoleon Duarte, but I don’t know yet. So…a Grand Wagoneer, with that history, was totally irresistible. The cheapest package I could find (including providing your own SUV and 90 days to install inch thick steel and bullet proof glass) was $70,000. Mind, that doesn’t protect the radiator or the chauffeur, or include bullet proof tires, which the Wagonneer probably doesn’t, eith.
C’mon, now! Certainly, I would have preferred a big, older armored Mercedes, but since this is the ONLY one I have ever seen for sale–and in lovely shape; silver outside, gray inside–I’m not the kind to object because the Princess is a little cross-eyed. I have laughed until my stomach hurts. Charles is smiling mostly at my pleasure, but he doesn’t fool me at all. He really wants it, too. Okay, so it isn’t as special as spending fifty or sixty million on a few of Elizabeth Taylor’s jewels, perhaps…but it probably is and I couldn’t afford the jewelry. 100,000 on the odometer, 5,000 since a rebuild, and it is only 400 miles away. What we’re really hoping is that it has something bigger than the standard 15 gallon tank because we don’t suppose the mileage is all that great.
Oh, my, I’m going off in whoops again!
Kurt says:
April 25th, 2011
1:50 am
Sweet!!! Too bad I ain’t there, I’d volunteer to go pick it up and drive it back for ya. Charles would probably say no way though, he wants that fun for himself lol.
Ken JMR says:
April 25th, 2011
6:51 am
Linda, congratulations on your new ride. I look forward to reading more details. For those who already have a SHTF vehicle of their choice, I seem to remember “official vehicles” in far off places that had a protective clear film applied to the inside of the windows. Just a thought, although not being where the bullets are is the still the best strategy, IMHO.
Alaskasense says:
May 5th, 2011
12:24 am
Hi, Linda (and everyone else),
Made it to the Ring, picked this article for my first connection so you have my email, and got all wrapped up in the wide-ranging discussion. My, it does wander all over! I am tempted by a dozen rabbit trails, but for today I’ll just wander a little ways down the low tech warfare trail. There are many competing philosophies in the world of warfare, but with very few exceptions most agree on more is better. That can mean throw weight, net explosive weight, numbers of men, tanks, bombs, whatever, or kilotons if we are discussing nuclear options. There are a few enduring wise men, such as Sun Tzu, who teach a thinking person’s approach to winning wars. Unfortunately their teachings too often are used to justify “more is better” rather than to develop a deeper understanding of how one’s opponent thinks and views winning and losing. Once that understanding is reached, one can then tailor one’s war techniques and targets to more rapidly and less painfully achieve the desired outcome. In the world of warmaking tools, “more is better” comes out in ever more advanced technology, ever more complexity in order to fit every last nifty capability into every platform (think fancy fighters, for example).
Now and again a highly innovative and, necessarily, brave soul will challenge the inevitable trend. One such soul came up with the Predator unmanned aircraft, which in its initial version was a light-weight long endurance slow-moving expendable surveillance drone that could provide streaming video back to its operators on the ground in a nice safe building. As the world knows, it was a brilliant success, despite being condemned by fighter pilots and criticized for the many things it could not do. And therein lies the trap into which every such simple idea falls. If it’s good as it is, just think how great it could be “if only”–and soon simplicity yields to complexity, low cost to high value, which then motivates ways to protect this high value asset.
One famous exchange occurred between a frustrated four star commander, who could see a highly desired target on the video, and an equally frustrated fighter pilot who was looking for said target but could not see the video. At the time there was no GPS on the Predator, nor any weapons, and so there was no way to convey the target location accurately–they were reduced to giving the fighter pilot the inertial navigation unit’s estimate of the Predator location, which told only a little about what its camera pointed at. General Short, in frustration, finally said, damn it, it’s right there, I can see it. And the fighter pilot, who just happened to be Capt Short, replied well, Dad, if you want me to attack the target, you just have to tell me where it is, or get the drone to shoot it by itself.
And from that conversation, related over and over by the general, we in the technical community began improving the Predator. Now renamed the Reaper, it is now hundreds of pounds heavier, with a bigger and more powerful engine, goes faster, carries its own missiles, has GPS and a variety of sophisticated electronic systems on-board, and can do a great many more things than the original Predator. It is also far more expensive, is no longer considered expendable, presents a maintenance challenge because it has been modified into existence rather than designed to its current state, and will therefore require better protection.
All is not lost, thankfully. From the success of the Predator concept has come a plethora of much smaller single purpose drones. They are more technically advanced than the trebuchet, admittedly, but in the highly sophisticated world of modern warfare, they are elegantly simple. Some simply can pop a few hundred feet up, hover or circle for tens of minutes while showing their operator who is on or behind the next building, and then come land (or controlled crash) at their feet. These systems offer the value of the high ground for reconnaissance while limiting the risk to their humans for a very small cost in weight and dollars. In this case, less is clearly more. In my view, there are many more opportunities for “less is more” solutions–especially in strategies and tactics, but that’s for another day.
The difficulties our warfighters encounter in Afghanistan with IEDs and a wide array of improvised tools and techniques make it abundantly clear that the role of simple low-tech attack tools is far from over. In fact, the history books I read years ago celebrated the use of guerilla warfare techniques, not that we used those terms back then. HIstory shows the desperate defender of the homeland, outmanned, out-equipped, but focused, has an advantage over the equipped and indoctrinated professional, for a while. Our soldiers were allowed to adapt on the spot, and so found ways to trump the IED-setters in Iraq, and ultimately prevail.
So, low tech or high, what really wins? I suggest what will win every time is a curious, confident, and trained warrior with the freedom to learn, innovate, and execute fresh ideas. High tech is hard to produce on the battlefield, so low tech will most always show up in this situation, but with modern personal high tech tools like smart phones, that’s not always the case anymore. Skunkwork-style shops set up off the battlefield with the resources and authority to react quickly to warrior needs and ideas could get the best of both. And then we’d be back to what the Soviet military used to complain about all the time–that American military just didn’t stay the same long enough to be able to figure out and train against.
So, Linda, post as a comment, or article if you prefer, and we can go from there. By the way, don’t forget the old trick of digging pits and covering them with weak boards and dirt as a way to catch intruders.
Alaskasense says:
May 5th, 2011
12:25 am
Forgot to mention, if you list me as an author, my real name is Ro Bailey.