Discussion:
Braille ATMs
(too old to reply)
Notan
2005-11-01 23:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Why do drive-up ATMs have braille instruction/buttons?

Notan
Cato
2005-11-01 23:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Notan
Why do drive-up ATMs have braille instruction/buttons?
Notan
LOL
Why for blind drivers of course. I know I encounter at least one
everyday on the road.

Haven't you ever noticed the bumps on the steering wheel and the the
gear pattern indentions on the shifter? I hope you didn't think those
were for your comfort and aesthetic appeal? ;-)
Don
2005-11-02 01:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
Haven't you ever noticed the bumps on the steering wheel and the the
gear pattern indentions on the shifter? I hope you didn't think those
were for your comfort and aesthetic appeal? ;-)
My truck has a 5 speed stick.
Over the years the knob has slowly turned, and keeps on turning, right now
it is almost upside down but in a month it will be upright again.
Anyway, awhile back I was getting the brakes done and the lady behind the
counter went out to move my truck into the bay.
I saw her get in but she never moved it.
Finally she came in and asked me to move it because she couldn't get it into
reverse.
(reverse is to the right and down, but the knob was showing to the left and
up - even though the R was upside down)
People like that should be banned from occupying the nations highways and
byways.......or just killed before their mental disease spreads to others.
heh-heh
Kris Krieger
2005-11-02 15:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Cato
Haven't you ever noticed the bumps on the steering wheel and the the
gear pattern indentions on the shifter? I hope you didn't think
those were for your comfort and aesthetic appeal? ;-)
My truck has a 5 speed stick.
Over the years the knob has slowly turned, and keeps on turning, right
now it is almost upside down but in a month it will be upright again.
Anyway, awhile back I was getting the brakes done and the lady behind
the counter went out to move my truck into the bay.
I saw her get in but she never moved it.
Finally she came in and asked me to move it because she couldn't get
it into reverse.
(reverse is to the right and down,
Isn't that consistent across *all* passenger vehicles...??
I've never driven a panel truck or larger so I don't know about them, but
it's weird IMO that anyone would really *need* to look at the knob...
Post by Don
but the knob was showing to the
left and up - even though the R was upside down)
Duuuuuhhh....
Post by Don
People like that should be banned from occupying the nations highways
and byways.......or just killed before their mental disease spreads to
others. heh-heh
Ever notice that number of offspring is inversely proportional to IQ...?
Cato
2005-11-02 15:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Don
Post by Cato
Haven't you ever noticed the bumps on the steering wheel and the the
gear pattern indentions on the shifter? I hope you didn't think
those were for your comfort and aesthetic appeal? ;-)
My truck has a 5 speed stick.
Over the years the knob has slowly turned, and keeps on turning, right
now it is almost upside down but in a month it will be upright again.
Anyway, awhile back I was getting the brakes done and the lady behind
the counter went out to move my truck into the bay.
I saw her get in but she never moved it.
Finally she came in and asked me to move it because she couldn't get
it into reverse.
(reverse is to the right and down,
Isn't that consistent across *all* passenger vehicles...??
I've never driven a panel truck or larger so I don't know about them, but
it's weird IMO that anyone would really *need* to look at the knob...
Actually I think it is different on different models of cars.
(depending on what country they're from). I have a Saab that is up to
the left, and you have to pull up on a "ring" to unlock this gear. I
have a six speed, so if they go down to the right they'll be in sixth
gear. You "really" have got to rev it to move from that gear. ;-)

I've actually had valet guys ask me how to get it in gear, eventhough
it's displayed clearly on the knob.
Edgar
2005-11-02 15:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Don
Post by Cato
Haven't you ever noticed the bumps on the steering wheel and the the
gear pattern indentions on the shifter? I hope you didn't think
those were for your comfort and aesthetic appeal? ;-)
My truck has a 5 speed stick.
Over the years the knob has slowly turned, and keeps on turning, right
now it is almost upside down but in a month it will be upright again.
Anyway, awhile back I was getting the brakes done and the lady behind
the counter went out to move my truck into the bay.
I saw her get in but she never moved it.
Finally she came in and asked me to move it because she couldn't get
it into reverse.
(reverse is to the right and down,
Isn't that consistent across *all* passenger vehicles...??
I've never driven a panel truck or larger so I don't know about them, but
it's weird IMO that anyone would really *need* to look at the knob...
Actually I think it is different on different models of cars.
(depending on what country they're from). I have a Saab that is up to
the left, and you have to pull up on a "ring" to unlock this gear. I
have a six speed, so if they go down to the right they'll be in sixth
gear. You "really" have got to rev it to move from that gear. ;-)
I've actually had valet guys ask me how to get it in gear, eventhough
it's displayed clearly on the knob.
Yup, my old bug was down and to the left, if I remember correctly, after
pushing down on the knob. But it was an older car.
--
Edgar
Don
2005-11-02 18:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgar
Yup, my old bug was down and to the left, if I remember correctly, after
pushing down on the knob. But it was an older car.
Thats right, I remember that.
I only drove a bug once but I remember about pushing the stick down into the
floor to get into reverse.
weird, but effective.
My 70 camaro was a 4 speed with the lockout like Cato mentioned, you had to
pull up on 2 little ears that stuck out the side of the stick to get it into
reverse.
I installed a Hurst Ramrod shifter in it, those are super cool.
Impossible to mis-shift.
It has a ratchet action that only lets it shift up, not down, unless you
pulled up on a trigger.
At the time, early 70's, it was THE way of hopping up a ride for racing.
Edgar
2005-11-02 19:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Edgar
Yup, my old bug was down and to the left, if I remember correctly, after
pushing down on the knob. But it was an older car.
Thats right, I remember that.
I only drove a bug once but I remember about pushing the stick down into the
floor to get into reverse.
weird, but effective.
My 70 camaro was a 4 speed with the lockout like Cato mentioned, you had to
pull up on 2 little ears that stuck out the side of the stick to get it into
reverse.
I installed a Hurst Ramrod shifter in it, those are super cool.
Impossible to mis-shift.
It has a ratchet action that only lets it shift up, not down, unless you
pulled up on a trigger.
At the time, early 70's, it was THE way of hopping up a ride for racing.
I loved my bug. One of my buddies bought a hurst short shifter for his,
I loved driving it. You move ths stick like half an inch to get ot the
next gear (exagerating). The stick replaced the push down motion with
the latch pulling motion though, and it was a T shifter.

I just replaced my 200SX with a toyota Tacoma. I too thought I would
never buy an automatic, but this truck I got is an AT. Not by choice
mind you, but because it was a steal of a deal we got from my
girlfriends dad ($10,000 blue book, bought it for around $7,000). If I
had a choice in the matter it would have been a stick for sure. Truth
be told I plan on spending another $500 adding a K&N intake and new
exhaust, to give the little 4 banger some more oomph.

BTW might as well ask, since we're on the topic, is it bad to actually
shift with an AT? The shift points on this truck are too damn low I
swear. I am constantly using the overdive button to be able to pass any
cars. Man I miss my stick.
--
Edgar
Don
2005-11-02 21:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgar
I just replaced my 200SX with a toyota Tacoma.
Hey everybody, Seer can haul plywood!
You're a truck dawg now, you can never go back to a car! LOL

I too thought I would
Post by Edgar
never buy an automatic, but this truck I got is an AT. Not by choice mind
you, but because it was a steal of a deal we got from my girlfriends dad
($10,000 blue book, bought it for around $7,000). If I had a choice in
the matter it would have been a stick for sure. Truth be told I plan on
spending another $500 adding a K&N intake and new exhaust, to give the
little 4 banger some more oomph.
...and a kevlar hood, remote airbags, spinner hubcaps, eight 16" subs with
3000 watt amp, an elephant fart resonator..... heh-heh
Post by Edgar
BTW might as well ask, since we're on the topic, is it bad to actually
shift with an AT? The shift points on this truck are too damn low I
swear. I am constantly using the overdive button to be able to pass any
cars. Man I miss my stick.
As far as I can tell an AT is not designed to be shifted all the time, it
puts undo wear and tear on the valvebody and bands in the trans.
I'd be careful if I was you.
I think a rebuilt trans goes into the $2k and up range these days.
I tore a C4 trans apart on my 66 Mustang one time.
Man, what a nightmare, snap rings and springs and shit were flying all over
the driveway.
I couldn't get it back together, so I took it to Coles and paid them $400 to
rebuild it, this was back about 1971.
But the guy let me hang around and watch how he did it so that was
interesting, learning how it does what it does.
Interesting tidbit:
The Torque Convertor on vehicles with an AT is an amazing device.
Most people have no idea what this thing is, and I was in that group.
Frankly, I was amazed that such a *primitive* thing could still exist.
The TC is the large thing that connects the engine to the trans.
In a manual trans this is called a *bell housing*.
A TC is a sealed steel donut full of trans fluid and 2 vaned wheels (they
look sort of like fan blades).
The 1st vaned wheel is connected solidly to the output shaft of the engine
and the 2nd wheel is connected to the input shaft of the trans.
When the engine is turning the 1st vaned wheel turns as well, this inturn
causes the fluid in the trans to spin with the 1st wheel.
The spinning fluid then causes the 2nd vaned wheel to turn which then
activates the gears in the trans.
There is no direct mechanical linkage between the engine and the wheels in
an AT vehicle.
Spinning fluid is the *link* between the engine and the wheels.
I was stunned when I first realized that.
My dad laughed like hell at the look on my face as I slowly realized what he
was telling me when he showed me how this happens.
Cato
2005-11-02 21:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Edgar
I just replaced my 200SX with a toyota Tacoma.
Hey everybody, Seer can haul plywood!
You're a truck dawg now, you can never go back to a car! LOL
Hey Edgar, I've got a couch to move this weekend, are you, and more
specifically, your truck free? LOL
Edgar
2005-11-02 22:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
Post by Don
Post by Edgar
I just replaced my 200SX with a toyota Tacoma.
Hey everybody, Seer can haul plywood!
You're a truck dawg now, you can never go back to a car! LOL
Hey Edgar, I've got a couch to move this weekend, are you, and more
specifically, your truck free? LOL
Sorry, I spent this past saturday doing just that...no more until I get
PAID!
--
Edgar
Cato
2005-11-02 23:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgar
Post by Cato
Post by Don
Post by Edgar
I just replaced my 200SX with a toyota Tacoma.
Hey everybody, Seer can haul plywood!
You're a truck dawg now, you can never go back to a car! LOL
Hey Edgar, I've got a couch to move this weekend, are you, and more
specifically, your truck free? LOL
Sorry, I spent this past saturday doing just that...no more until I get
PAID!
I always pay in beer. I'm a big fan of barter. ;-)
Don
2005-11-03 00:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgar
Sorry, I spent this past saturday doing just that...no more until I get
PAID!
I bought my truck brand spanking new in Oct 1990 (its a 91) and the very
first ding occured when I was helping a friend move. Arrrrr.....
Don
2005-11-03 00:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
Hey Edgar, I've got a couch to move this weekend, are you, and more
specifically, your truck free? LOL
LOL, ain't that the truth!
Edgar
2005-11-02 22:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Edgar
I just replaced my 200SX with a toyota Tacoma.
Hey everybody, Seer can haul plywood!
You're a truck dawg now, you can never go back to a car! LOL
I gotta admit, I do love my truck now, but I wouldn't mind a Subaru
Impreza WRX STi as well (when I need to get somewhere fast.
Post by Don
I too thought I would
Post by Edgar
never buy an automatic, but this truck I got is an AT. Not by choice mind
you, but because it was a steal of a deal we got from my girlfriends dad
($10,000 blue book, bought it for around $7,000). If I had a choice in
the matter it would have been a stick for sure. Truth be told I plan on
spending another $500 adding a K&N intake and new exhaust, to give the
little 4 banger some more oomph.
...and a kevlar hood, remote airbags, spinner hubcaps, eight 16" subs with
3000 watt amp, an elephant fart resonator..... heh-heh
LOL, yeah I see Toyota trucks with 20 inch wheels, and they look really
stupid, especially when you see a 4-runner like that. No, all my money
will go toward a tiny speed boost (and small gas mileage boost from the
K&N filter), and possibly getting sirrius satellite radio, but that's
about it. It already has a really slick painted on bed liner.
Post by Don
Post by Edgar
BTW might as well ask, since we're on the topic, is it bad to actually
shift with an AT? The shift points on this truck are too damn low I
swear. I am constantly using the overdive button to be able to pass any
cars. Man I miss my stick.
As far as I can tell an AT is not designed to be shifted all the time, it
puts undo wear and tear on the valvebody and bands in the trans.
I'd be careful if I was you.
I think a rebuilt trans goes into the $2k and up range these days.
I tore a C4 trans apart on my 66 Mustang one time.
Man, what a nightmare, snap rings and springs and shit were flying all over
the driveway.
I couldn't get it back together, so I took it to Coles and paid them $400 to
rebuild it, this was back about 1971.
But the guy let me hang around and watch how he did it so that was
interesting, learning how it does what it does.
The Torque Convertor on vehicles with an AT is an amazing device.
Most people have no idea what this thing is, and I was in that group.
Frankly, I was amazed that such a *primitive* thing could still exist.
The TC is the large thing that connects the engine to the trans.
In a manual trans this is called a *bell housing*.
A TC is a sealed steel donut full of trans fluid and 2 vaned wheels (they
look sort of like fan blades).
The 1st vaned wheel is connected solidly to the output shaft of the engine
and the 2nd wheel is connected to the input shaft of the trans.
When the engine is turning the 1st vaned wheel turns as well, this inturn
causes the fluid in the trans to spin with the 1st wheel.
The spinning fluid then causes the 2nd vaned wheel to turn which then
activates the gears in the trans.
There is no direct mechanical linkage between the engine and the wheels in
an AT vehicle.
Spinning fluid is the *link* between the engine and the wheels.
I was stunned when I first realized that.
My dad laughed like hell at the look on my face as I slowly realized what he
was telling me when he showed me how this happens.
You just blew my mind, LOL! Alright, so I'll ease up on the shifting,
but the overdrive button will be my only savior for at the very least
passing. Now that makes me curious as to how the AT with manual
shifting levers or flaps on the wheels work. Maybe I'll go check out
www.howstuffworks.com to see what the hell you were talking about :).
--
Edgar
Don
2005-11-03 01:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Maybe I'll go check out www.howstuffworks.com to see what the hell you
were talking about :).
There ya go.
I prolly didn't do a very good job explaining it.
But I gues thats why the first AT's were called stuff like *fluid drive*,
etc.
Its amazing, that liquid (trans fluid) drives most vehicles these days.
Don
2005-11-02 18:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
the left, and you have to pull up on a "ring" to unlock this gear. I
have a six speed, so if they go down to the right they'll be in sixth
gear. You "really" have got to rev it to move from that gear. ;-)
When I was 14 my dad tried to teach me to drive a stick, in a 65' chevy
stationwagon with a 327 racing engine, a 4 speed and a very heavy duty
clutch.
I must have stalled that thing out 50 times in the driveway before my dad
blew his stack.
He had very little patience.
About that time my uncle came by, got in the passenger side and told me to
put it in 4th gear and take off.
Again, I stalled it out a few times and you could smell the clutch disk
burning up.
Finally I got it off the line.
That exercise taught me the fundamentals of working the left and right feet
in harmony.
Too much gas and you smoke the tires, too little gas and you stall.

I swore I'd never own a vehicle with an automatic transmission but now a
days I'm losing my cool with it. Its quite difficult to commandeer a stick
in traffic, around a corner, while talking on the phone and rasslin with a
wendy's triple....

(my 1st car was a 62' corvair spyder turbo with a stick, which I got caught
drag racing with several times and went to jail over and numerous speeding
tickets. I blew the engine and trans a couple times too, and I only had that
thing for a year. Then I got a 66' mustang conv. with a 289 Hi-po which I
totalled twice and rebuilt twice and again got numerous speeding tickets. My
3rd vehicle was a 70 El Camino SS 454 which I never crashed nor got caught
speeding in. Then I got a 70 Camaro SS 396. all of that from the age of 15
to 19.) (in those days you could get a learners permit at 14 and a full
fledged license at 15) The times they are a changin'.....
Cato
2005-11-02 18:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Cato
the left, and you have to pull up on a "ring" to unlock this gear. I
have a six speed, so if they go down to the right they'll be in sixth
gear. You "really" have got to rev it to move from that gear. ;-)
When I was 14 my dad tried to teach me to drive a stick, in a 65' chevy
stationwagon with a 327 racing engine, a 4 speed and a very heavy duty
clutch.
I must have stalled that thing out 50 times in the driveway before my dad
blew his stack.
He had very little patience.
About that time my uncle came by, got in the passenger side and told me to
put it in 4th gear and take off.
Again, I stalled it out a few times and you could smell the clutch disk
burning up.
Finally I got it off the line.
That exercise taught me the fundamentals of working the left and right feet
in harmony.
Too much gas and you smoke the tires, too little gas and you stall.
I swore I'd never own a vehicle with an automatic transmission but now a
days I'm losing my cool with it. Its quite difficult to commandeer a stick
in traffic, around a corner, while talking on the phone and rasslin with a
wendy's triple....
(my 1st car was a 62' corvair spyder turbo with a stick, which I got caught
drag racing with several times and went to jail over and numerous speeding
tickets. I blew the engine and trans a couple times too, and I only had that
thing for a year. Then I got a 66' mustang conv. with a 289 Hi-po which I
totalled twice and rebuilt twice and again got numerous speeding tickets. My
3rd vehicle was a 70 El Camino SS 454 which I never crashed nor got caught
speeding in. Then I got a 70 Camaro SS 396. all of that from the age of 15
to 19.) (in those days you could get a learners permit at 14 and a full
fledged license at 15) The times they are a changin'.....
You stories on learning how to drive a stick sound very "familar" to
me. LOL

I learned on a 65 Mustang with a 3 speed my dad had. It had a super
stiff clutch and took me a while to get the feel for it without
stalling. Then one day, the lightbulb just went on and I had it down,
and wondered why I was having so much trouble. I have mostly owned
sticks my whole life, with a few exceptions, and I love them. My
newest car (2004) is awesome with the new six speed. I can now
downshift on the highway without the gears revving too high. Once I
got this many gears, I wouldn't go back to 4 or 5.

BTW, my dad briefly had the fastest car I have ever driven. 71 GTO,
which had been special ordered from the factory for track racing. My
dad somehow came into possession of this beast. 500hp, hurst 4 speed,
true ram air, lowered suspension and longer front end, and no ac, of
course. Very dangerous car, and eventually my mom won out and made him
sell it. Damn chicks. ;-)
Don
2005-11-02 20:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
I learned on a 65 Mustang with a 3 speed my dad had. It had a super
stiff clutch and took me a while to get the feel for it without
stalling. Then one day, the lightbulb just went on and I had it down,
and wondered why I was having so much trouble. I have mostly owned
sticks my whole life, with a few exceptions, and I love them. My
newest car (2004) is awesome with the new six speed. I can now
downshift on the highway without the gears revving too high. Once I
got this many gears, I wouldn't go back to 4 or 5.
BTW, my dad briefly had the fastest car I have ever driven. 71 GTO,
which had been special ordered from the factory for track racing. My
dad somehow came into possession of this beast. 500hp, hurst 4 speed,
true ram air, lowered suspension and longer front end, and no ac, of
course. Very dangerous car, and eventually my mom won out and made him
sell it. Damn chicks. ;-)
The old daze. Muscle cars. Did it all really happen or was it just a dream?
Back then just about everybody, cept wealthy folk, worked on their own
rides.
There were no $30 oil change places, and most maintenance stuff was done
routinely by the owners.
When I was 7-8 y.o. and wanted to go out and ride bikes with my friends, my
dad would tell me to crawl under the car with him to fix a trans or put in
new U joints or whatever and he'd say, 'Some day you'll thank me for it'.
And he was right. I learned how engines, and vehicles in general, worked at
an early age and to this day that knowledge helps to understand whats going
on with my rides. I don't work on rides much anymore, its way to hot around
here, but I at least know when a mechanic is trying to jerk my chain.
P Fritz
2005-11-02 20:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Cato
I learned on a 65 Mustang with a 3 speed my dad had. It had a super
stiff clutch and took me a while to get the feel for it without
stalling. Then one day, the lightbulb just went on and I had it down,
and wondered why I was having so much trouble. I have mostly owned
sticks my whole life, with a few exceptions, and I love them. My
newest car (2004) is awesome with the new six speed. I can now
downshift on the highway without the gears revving too high. Once I
got this many gears, I wouldn't go back to 4 or 5.
BTW, my dad briefly had the fastest car I have ever driven. 71 GTO,
which had been special ordered from the factory for track racing. My
dad somehow came into possession of this beast. 500hp, hurst 4 speed,
true ram air, lowered suspension and longer front end, and no ac, of
course. Very dangerous car, and eventually my mom won out and made him
sell it. Damn chicks. ;-)
The old daze. Muscle cars. Did it all really happen or was it just a dream?
Back then just about everybody, cept wealthy folk, worked on their own
rides.
There were no $30 oil change places, and most maintenance stuff was done
routinely by the owners.
Yes, but in those days when you opened the hood, you could see the
engine......not 3000 hoses.
Post by Don
When I was 7-8 y.o. and wanted to go out and ride bikes with my friends, my
dad would tell me to crawl under the car with him to fix a trans or put in
new U joints or whatever and he'd say, 'Some day you'll thank me for it'.
And he was right. I learned how engines, and vehicles in general, worked at
an early age and to this day that knowledge helps to understand whats going
on with my rides. I don't work on rides much anymore, its way to hot around
here, but I at least know when a mechanic is trying to jerk my chain.
Don
2005-11-02 21:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by P Fritz
Yes, but in those days when you opened the hood, you could see the
engine......not 3000 hoses.
LOL you got that right!
My brother just bought a new Avalanche and brought it by to brag.
'Course he had to pop the hood and show me that giant 5.7 engine.
I looked in there, then I looked at him and said, 'Where's the engine? This
looks like a bunch of plumbing supplies!!!' LOL
Cato
2005-11-02 20:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
The old daze. Muscle cars. Did it all really happen or was it just a dream?
Back then just about everybody, cept wealthy folk, worked on their own
rides.
There were no $30 oil change places, and most maintenance stuff was done
routinely by the owners.
When I was 7-8 y.o. and wanted to go out and ride bikes with my friends, my
dad would tell me to crawl under the car with him to fix a trans or put in
new U joints or whatever and he'd say, 'Some day you'll thank me for it'.
And he was right. I learned how engines, and vehicles in general, worked at
an early age and to this day that knowledge helps to understand whats going
on with my rides. I don't work on rides much anymore, its way to hot around
here, but I at least know when a mechanic is trying to jerk my chain.
I do hear you. I remember the old days when I could work on my old 65
mustang and "actually" reach around inside the front hood. My current
car completely confounds me when I open the hood. Not one inch of
unused space. Old cars are fun to drive around, my wife and I have a
80 Mercedes 380 SL convertible that we tool around in when the
weather's nice, but when I want performance though, I will take my new
car anyday. It can actually corner and break without locking
up.(gasp!) It's actually faster than a lot of the old muscle cars. I
had this kid pull up to me the other day in an old cutlass and gave me
the "look". Wasn't even close, as I waved to him in my rear window.
Gotta love a turbo on the highway. I don't need no stickin 8
cylinders. LOL
Kris Krieger
2005-11-02 21:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Cato
I learned on a 65 Mustang with a 3 speed my dad had. It had a super
stiff clutch and took me a while to get the feel for it without
stalling. Then one day, the lightbulb just went on and I had it
down, and wondered why I was having so much trouble. I have mostly
owned sticks my whole life, with a few exceptions, and I love them.
My newest car (2004) is awesome with the new six speed. I can now
downshift on the highway without the gears revving too high. Once I
got this many gears, I wouldn't go back to 4 or 5.
BTW, my dad briefly had the fastest car I have ever driven. 71 GTO,
which had been special ordered from the factory for track racing. My
dad somehow came into possession of this beast. 500hp, hurst 4
speed, true ram air, lowered suspension and longer front end, and no
ac, of course. Very dangerous car, and eventually my mom won out and
made him sell it. Damn chicks. ;-)
The old daze. Muscle cars. Did it all really happen or was it just a
dream? Back then just about everybody, cept wealthy folk, worked on
their own rides.
And VW Beetles ;) Easy to maintain.
Ours got good gas mileage, too, even without having enough computer chips
to run a moon landing <g>
Post by Don
There were no $30 oil change places, and most maintenance stuff was
done routinely by the owners.
When I was 7-8 y.o. and wanted to go out and ride bikes with my
friends, my dad would tell me to crawl under the car with him to fix a
trans or put in new U joints or whatever and he'd say, 'Some day
you'll thank me for it'. And he was right. I learned how engines, and
vehicles in general, worked at an early age and to this day that
knowledge helps to understand whats going on with my rides. I don't
work on rides much anymore, its way to hot around here, but I at least
know when a mechanic is trying to jerk my chain.
Edgar
2005-11-02 23:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Don
Post by Cato
I learned on a 65 Mustang with a 3 speed my dad had. It had a super
stiff clutch and took me a while to get the feel for it without
stalling. Then one day, the lightbulb just went on and I had it
down, and wondered why I was having so much trouble. I have mostly
owned sticks my whole life, with a few exceptions, and I love them.
My newest car (2004) is awesome with the new six speed. I can now
downshift on the highway without the gears revving too high. Once I
got this many gears, I wouldn't go back to 4 or 5.
BTW, my dad briefly had the fastest car I have ever driven. 71 GTO,
which had been special ordered from the factory for track racing. My
dad somehow came into possession of this beast. 500hp, hurst 4
speed, true ram air, lowered suspension and longer front end, and no
ac, of course. Very dangerous car, and eventually my mom won out and
made him sell it. Damn chicks. ;-)
The old daze. Muscle cars. Did it all really happen or was it just a
dream? Back then just about everybody, cept wealthy folk, worked on
their own rides.
And VW Beetles ;) Easy to maintain.
Ours got good gas mileage, too, even without having enough computer chips
to run a moon landing <g>
Yeah, 10 bucks could take me on a 4 hour trip to school, up the 101.
Those were the days. I did everything on my Bug except rebuild the
engine itself, and throw on the shitty primer paint job. What I really
want next is an old motorcycle I can work on myself, possibly restore,
like an old BMW R90s. I think if I won the lotto the first thing I
would want is a Vincent Black Shadow.

Loading Image...
--
Edgar
Don
2005-11-03 01:14:16 UTC
Permalink
I think if I won the lotto the first thing I would want is a Vincent
Black Shadow.
http://www.thevincent.com/1950_black_shadow.jpg
Oh dear, catch me I'm falling.
If that thing were mine it'd be mounted on the wall of my living room, as
functional art (is there such a thing?), and if my wife didn't like it she'd
hit the road. LOL
just kiddin.....
Kris Krieger
2005-11-03 18:37:18 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Edgar
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Don
The old daze. Muscle cars. Did it all really happen or was it just a
dream? Back then just about everybody, cept wealthy folk, worked on
their own rides.
And VW Beetles ;) Easy to maintain.
Ours got good gas mileage, too, even without having enough computer
chips to run a moon landing <g>
Yeah, 10 bucks could take me on a 4 hour trip to school, up the 101.
Those were the days. I did everything on my Bug except rebuild the
engine itself, and throw on the shitty primer paint job. What I
really want next is an old motorcycle I can work on myself, possibly
restore, like an old BMW R90s. I think if I won the lotto the first
thing I would want is a Vincent Black Shadow.
http://www.thevincent.com/1950_black_shadow.jpg
That'd be great, I envy people who can ride them (I don't a good enough
sense of balance, can't control one :p ).

Some of the little experimental cars (incl. solar models <g>) look very
interesting but sadly, they're just not suitable to today's roads.
Admittedly, tho' if I knew I would be living permanently in a very sunny
area, a Solar one would be interesting as a possible emergency transport.
((Yeah, I've also been looking at plans for Solar Ovens...seen too many
post-apocalyptic-genre SF flicks I guess <LOL!>))
Edgar
2005-11-03 19:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
[ ... ]
Post by Edgar
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Don
The old daze. Muscle cars. Did it all really happen or was it just a
dream? Back then just about everybody, cept wealthy folk, worked on
their own rides.
And VW Beetles ;) Easy to maintain.
Ours got good gas mileage, too, even without having enough computer
chips to run a moon landing <g>
Yeah, 10 bucks could take me on a 4 hour trip to school, up the 101.
Those were the days. I did everything on my Bug except rebuild the
engine itself, and throw on the shitty primer paint job. What I
really want next is an old motorcycle I can work on myself, possibly
restore, like an old BMW R90s. I think if I won the lotto the first
thing I would want is a Vincent Black Shadow.
http://www.thevincent.com/1950_black_shadow.jpg
That'd be great, I envy people who can ride them (I don't a good enough
sense of balance, can't control one :p ).
Some of the little experimental cars (incl. solar models <g>) look very
interesting but sadly, they're just not suitable to today's roads.
Admittedly, tho' if I knew I would be living permanently in a very sunny
area, a Solar one would be interesting as a possible emergency transport.
((Yeah, I've also been looking at plans for Solar Ovens...seen too many
post-apocalyptic-genre SF flicks I guess <LOL!>))
Lots of people have been "hacking" their Toyota Prius vehicles to give
them higher gas mileages. One is to replace the standard batteries with
higher capacity (and higher priced) batteries, not sure if they use NiMH
or Lion or whatever, but it is something like that. Then they make the
car able to be plugged in. The car then runs off the extra juice for
much longer, until it gets down to about standard Prius levels, then it
goes back to hybrid mode. This has raised the gas mileage
significantly. I've also seen one guy add solar panels to the roof,
which was very expensive. I think they might have gotten up to
something like 100MPG or more.

The thing about these cars though, is not the fact that they use less
energy (its hard to say with the inherent energy used in making the
batteries, the heavy metals used in those batteries, and the plug in
costs), but rather get us away from being dependent on oil. But I
haven't seen anything about truly lowering energy usage. I think that
will come with a move to more local economies.
--
Edgar
Kris Krieger
2005-11-03 20:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgar
Post by Kris Krieger
[ ... ]
Post by Edgar
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Don
The old daze. Muscle cars. Did it all really happen or was it just
a dream? Back then just about everybody, cept wealthy folk, worked
on their own rides.
And VW Beetles ;) Easy to maintain.
Ours got good gas mileage, too, even without having enough computer
chips to run a moon landing <g>
Yeah, 10 bucks could take me on a 4 hour trip to school, up the 101.
Those were the days. I did everything on my Bug except rebuild the
engine itself, and throw on the shitty primer paint job. What I
really want next is an old motorcycle I can work on myself, possibly
restore, like an old BMW R90s. I think if I won the lotto the first
thing I would want is a Vincent Black Shadow.
http://www.thevincent.com/1950_black_shadow.jpg
That'd be great, I envy people who can ride them (I don't a good
enough sense of balance, can't control one :p ).
Some of the little experimental cars (incl. solar models <g>) look
very interesting but sadly, they're just not suitable to today's
roads. Admittedly, tho' if I knew I would be living permanently in a
very sunny area, a Solar one would be interesting as a possible
emergency transport. ((Yeah, I've also been looking at plans for
Solar Ovens...seen too many post-apocalyptic-genre SF flicks I guess
<LOL!>))
Lots of people have been "hacking" their Toyota Prius vehicles to give
them higher gas mileages. One is to replace the standard batteries
with higher capacity (and higher priced) batteries, not sure if they
use NiMH or Lion or whatever, but it is something like that. Then
they make the car able to be plugged in. The car then runs off the
extra juice for much longer, until it gets down to about standard
Prius levels, then it goes back to hybrid mode. This has raised the
gas mileage significantly. I've also seen one guy add solar panels to
the roof, which was very expensive. I think they might have gotten up
to something like 100MPG or more.
Wild stuff - I have to admit, I never would have thought of any of that.
Certainly if one lives in areas that are frequently knocked out by storms,
some sort of alternative transportaion would be a real boon IMO. I've read
that some current solar collectors work decently even in cloudy weather.
Some of those seem to come on a flexible surface of some sort. IMO, if
they're a reality, it'd be a benefit to have something like that that could
be plugged into the car or *any* portable power source or power supplement.
Heck, what about using something like that as part of the structure of an
ultralight airplane of some sort?

And, of course, useful for homes as well.
Post by Edgar
The thing about these cars though, is not the fact that they use less
energy (its hard to say with the inherent energy used in making the
batteries, the heavy metals used in those batteries, and the plug in
costs), but rather get us away from being dependent on oil. But I
haven't seen anything about truly lowering energy usage. I think that
will come with a move to more local economies.
That's the question that never seems to get answered - how much raw energy
goes into the different forms. But also, how much is used over the
lifetime of the thing (I tend to own things for a really long time...except
dwellings...) IOW, if the car lasts for 15 years, then, including energy
used in construction and fuel refinement and so on, would a petroleum-based
combustion-engine vehicle use more or less energy than an alternative
energy vehicle.

I think alt. energy has a huge potential in terms of being green but also
in terms of economics, the post-oil economy, but of course I am probably
just dreaming ;)
3D Peruna
2005-11-04 16:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgar
The thing about these cars though, is not the fact that they use less
energy (its hard to say with the inherent energy used in making the
batteries, the heavy metals used in those batteries, and the plug in
costs), but rather get us away from being dependent on oil. But I haven't
seen anything about truly lowering energy usage. I think that will come
with a move to more local economies.
I think Edgar is right... instead of larger "infrastructure", we'll move to
"local" infrastructure. A couple of examples:

1) Waste water treatment. Eventually, I think that 80-90% of all waste
water will be treated on site and recycled. This will impact large
municiple waste water treatment plants.
2) Energy. Residential fuel cells, small scale fusion reactors and other
advancements will mean most energy is produced locally, rather than
regionally. This, too, will impact energy companies in ways we can't
imagine. We're still a decade (minimum) off, without a major breakthrough.
Don
2005-11-04 18:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Edgar
The thing about these cars though, is not the fact that they use less
energy (its hard to say with the inherent energy used in making the
batteries, the heavy metals used in those batteries, and the plug in
costs), but rather get us away from being dependent on oil. But I
haven't seen anything about truly lowering energy usage. I think that
will come with a move to more local economies.
I think Edgar is right... instead of larger "infrastructure", we'll move
1) Waste water treatment. Eventually, I think that 80-90% of all waste
water will be treated on site and recycled. This will impact large
municiple waste water treatment plants.
2) Energy. Residential fuel cells, small scale fusion reactors and other
advancements will mean most energy is produced locally, rather than
regionally. This, too, will impact energy companies in ways we can't
imagine. We're still a decade (minimum) off, without a major
breakthrough.
For some.
Others are moving forward right now, me for example.
I mentioned in the past that I'm getting off the grid, I meant it.
Had an extensive conversation with a college prof just yesterday about fuel
cells and the possibility of building them myself and next week my cousin, a
nook-u-ler engineer at Three Mile Island, is gonna give me the basics on
some hi-tek solar stuff he's been playing around with. In a year or 2 or 3 I
expect to be selling those converted natural resources BACK to the grid.
3D Peruna
2005-11-07 02:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by 3D Peruna
1) Waste water treatment. Eventually, I think that 80-90% of all waste
water will be treated on site and recycled. This will impact large
municiple waste water treatment plants.
2) Energy. Residential fuel cells, small scale fusion reactors and
other advancements will mean most energy is produced locally, rather than
regionally. This, too, will impact energy companies in ways we can't
imagine. We're still a decade (minimum) off, without a major
breakthrough.
For some.
Others are moving forward right now, me for example.
I mentioned in the past that I'm getting off the grid, I meant it.
Had an extensive conversation with a college prof just yesterday about
fuel cells and the possibility of building them myself and next week my
cousin, a nook-u-ler engineer at Three Mile Island, is gonna give me the
basics on some hi-tek solar stuff he's been playing around with. In a year
or 2 or 3 I expect to be selling those converted natural resources BACK to
the grid.
I'd be interested in seeing what you find out. Also, check out:
http://www.tsaugust.org/Renewables.htm#Engineering . Click and download the
PDF. Very interesting. The stuff that's most interesting is the physical
requirements for the use of renewable energy (some many square miles of land
for wind, so many square miles for biomass, etc). I'm not sure how accurate
these guy's numbers are, but even if they're off by a factor of 10, most
renewables appear to be useless on a mass scale.
Don
2005-11-07 03:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Don
Post by 3D Peruna
1) Waste water treatment. Eventually, I think that 80-90% of all waste
water will be treated on site and recycled. This will impact large
municiple waste water treatment plants.
2) Energy. Residential fuel cells, small scale fusion reactors and
other advancements will mean most energy is produced locally, rather
than regionally. This, too, will impact energy companies in ways we
can't imagine. We're still a decade (minimum) off, without a major
breakthrough.
For some.
Others are moving forward right now, me for example.
I mentioned in the past that I'm getting off the grid, I meant it.
Had an extensive conversation with a college prof just yesterday about
fuel cells and the possibility of building them myself and next week my
cousin, a nook-u-ler engineer at Three Mile Island, is gonna give me the
basics on some hi-tek solar stuff he's been playing around with. In a
year or 2 or 3 I expect to be selling those converted natural resources
BACK to the grid.
http://www.tsaugust.org/Renewables.htm#Engineering . Click and download
the PDF. Very interesting. The stuff that's most interesting is the
physical requirements for the use of renewable energy (some many square
miles of land for wind, so many square miles for biomass, etc). I'm not
sure how accurate these guy's numbers are, but even if they're off by a
factor of 10, most renewables appear to be useless on a mass scale.
Thanks Paul, I'll check it out.
And of course I'll keep you informed as I move this thing forward.
Speaking of forward, I'm going to forward an E to you here in a minute from
my cousin the nuclear engineer at Three Mile Island.
He talks in terms I don't understand, but there are a couple of *insider*
pics you might find interesting.
3D Peruna
2005-11-07 15:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Thanks Paul, I'll check it out.
And of course I'll keep you informed as I move this thing forward.
Speaking of forward, I'm going to forward an E to you here in a minute
from my cousin the nuclear engineer at Three Mile Island.
He talks in terms I don't understand, but there are a couple of *insider*
pics you might find interesting.
Thanks for the picts...very interesting. The glow is pretty cool...too bad
they can't get closer ;)

P
Don
2005-11-07 15:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Don
Thanks Paul, I'll check it out.
And of course I'll keep you informed as I move this thing forward.
Speaking of forward, I'm going to forward an E to you here in a minute
from my cousin the nuclear engineer at Three Mile Island.
He talks in terms I don't understand, but there are a couple of *insider*
pics you might find interesting.
Thanks for the picts...very interesting. The glow is pretty cool...too
bad they can't get closer ;)
Really, I thought the glow was green, ala Homer Simpson. heh-heh
He's (my cuz) coming down here in a week or 2 and I'm going to speak further
about that stuff.
He speaks on a level I can barely grasp pertaining to nook u ler stuff.
He's involved with multiple applications of various forms of energy on his
farm in PA.
Solar, wind, etc.

We all know that one means of alternative energy at this point is out of the
question because of costs and the fact that, for example, the sun doesn't
shine at night and the wind isn't consistent, but I believe - and have
evidence of, people that are living off the grid and sacrificing very little
if anything at all in creature comfort.
In the link you provided, which I consumed last night, had 2 irritating
points that I reject outright.
(it also had some interesting tidbits that I downloaded for future
reference)
1) That gov't needs to subsidize alternative energy sources.
I say that gov't needs to get the hell out of the way and then aspiring
persons can make some advancement.
(its quite difficult to scale a mountain with a drunken idiot on your
back)
When gov't subsidizes stuff it is showing favoritism which then leads to
emminent corruption, then everybody suffers.
For the gov't to give something to me it must steal it from you.
None for me, thanks. I don't play that shit.
Gov't that governs least governs best.
2) That private alternative energy sources cannot compete financially or
efficiently with gov't subsidized nuclear energy.
This is only true in that gov't subsidizes nuclear energy at a cost to
all of us whether we use nuclear or not.
This is tantamount to comparing apples to oranges.
Frankly, all things governmental are well beneath me and I won't settle
for it.
I, for one, would much rather provide for myself than to suffer the
consequences borne in a corrupt system doomed to fail or cause harm to
others.
If my windmill for example fails I can fix it, for I purchased and
installed it myself, if Three Mile Island lights up I can't fix it all I can
do is die.

Take a look at folks on city/county water systems. Around here its almost a
monthly occurrence that those people have to boil their water for various
reasons. Yet as long as I dump salt in the tank and perform very minor
maintenance on my well system regularly I am assured of proper water
indefinately. BTW: In a comparison to my brother, who is on city water, my
costs are far lower than his. 3 months ago city water lines were installed
at my brothers house, he formerly had a well, and the city forced him to
connect to the city system. He had no choice in this. They also assessed him
$22k for this water deal and placed a lien on his home until it is paid.

So any sort of gov't subsidy will have inherent baggage with it, meant to
stifle and penalize, and I won't have anything to do with it.

I found it interesting that the inverters have such a short lifespan
supposedly but I wonder about the conditions in which this *fact* was
determined.
Undoubtedly awareness and maintenance are issues that effect lifespans and I
believe this may be determined on an individual basis.
Further, that site made mention that alternative energy sources invariably
come up short while trying to deliver 110 volt current.
Stop right there.
Why does one have to have a 110 volt microwave?
Why does one have to have a microwave at all?
I know 2 guys right now that are in the final stages of construction on
homes I designed late last year for out on the barren island of Cayo Costa
where resources are not available. They are using multiple means of
alternative energy, appliances and fixtures that are not dependent upon 110
volts and slight lifestyle changes.
I am meeting with one of those guys later this week and I will be gaining
additional insight from him at that time.

The thing is is that we have been used to doing things a certain way for so
long that it is difficult to see the forest for the trees.
In general a good knock upside the head cures that ailment, which I
administered to myself recently. ;-)

I'm gonna make this thing happen, a home and lifestyle devoid of grid
associated means, and I will do so at my own pace and choice.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if I can earn some of my money back
by forcing energy right back up the grids pooper, that it will be done.
I've spent most of a lifetime *pushing*, now it's time to *ride*. Hoo-Ahhh
Cato
2005-11-07 16:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Really, I thought the glow was green, ala Homer Simpson. heh-heh
He's (my cuz) coming down here in a week or 2 and I'm going to speak further
about that stuff.
He speaks on a level I can barely grasp pertaining to nook u ler stuff.
He's involved with multiple applications of various forms of energy on his
farm in PA.
Solar, wind, etc.
We all know that one means of alternative energy at this point is out of the
question because of costs and the fact that, for example, the sun doesn't
shine at night and the wind isn't consistent, but I believe - and have
evidence of, people that are living off the grid and sacrificing very little
if anything at all in creature comfort.
Don, I noticed your interest in 'living off the grid' in a "few" of
your posts. LOL

I've been meaning to post something I remembered from a few years ago,
but keep forgetting. I had a meeting with a gentleman named Ray
Anderson. He is the president of Interface Inc. If you're not familar
with that name, they are one of the larger producers of carpet tiles,
and related materials in the world. This guy was probably one of the
most interesting company execs I've ever met He is a big proponent of
the whole "Green" approach and has turned his company into one of the
corporate leaders in this approach. His approach to this permeates
down to the whole operation of his company. Everyone I met there was
"buying" into his approach, and it wasn't done through arm twisting,
but mostly through his infectious drive. This guy backs up what he
says, and walks the walk, so to speak.

Anyway, I had dinner with him a few years ago and he was talking about
this house he was building in Tennesee that was "completely" off the
Grid. Self powered, self water storage, etc. I wish my memory wasn't
so fuzzy on this because he went through everything he was doing to
cover his bases with this house. This guys obviously has the available
resources to build such a thing, and I'll look into further what all he
did with his house. His motivation for doing something like this may
be slightly different than yours, but the ultimate outcome is the same.
It was a really interesting dinner conversation, as opposed to the
usual boring ones I have had to endure. ;-)
3D Peruna
2005-11-07 17:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
I'm gonna make this thing happen, a home and lifestyle devoid of grid
associated means, and I will do so at my own pace and choice.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if I can earn some of my money
back by forcing energy right back up the grids pooper, that it will be
done.
I've spent most of a lifetime *pushing*, now it's time to *ride*. Hoo-Ahhh
The challenge with "off-grid" is usually based mostly on climate. The most
successful examples seem to be in the southwest--moderate temperatures and
plentiful sun. Every time I try and find something to move off grid, the
financial aspects keep it from happening...particularly since I'm in the
upper mid-west where winter hits hard and cold. I'm not prepared to spend
my life logging (wood) for a fuel source. And, I know, from doing the math,
that other options don't cut it when we have 30+ days of sub-zero weather
with 50% cloud cover. Fuel cells would be the primary way of moving off
grid. I'd be interested in seeing how to build your own...
Don
2005-11-08 01:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Don
I'm gonna make this thing happen, a home and lifestyle devoid of grid
associated means, and I will do so at my own pace and choice.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if I can earn some of my money
back by forcing energy right back up the grids pooper, that it will be
done.
I've spent most of a lifetime *pushing*, now it's time to *ride*. Hoo-Ahhh
The challenge with "off-grid" is usually based mostly on climate. The
most successful examples seem to be in the southwest--moderate
temperatures and plentiful sun. Every time I try and find something to
move off grid, the financial aspects keep it from happening...particularly
since I'm in the upper mid-west where winter hits hard and cold. I'm not
prepared to spend my life logging (wood) for a fuel source. And, I know,
from doing the math, that other options don't cut it when we have 30+ days
of sub-zero weather with 50% cloud cover. Fuel cells would be the primary
way of moving off grid. I'd be interested in seeing how to build your
own...
OK, just got off the phone with the Cayo Costa Island house guy (Randy) and
he gave some good info.
As I said before, regarding Alt. energy, you have to adjust your way of
looking at stuff.
Until a few months ago we had 2 side by side refrigerators, roughly $2500
total cost.
One in the kitchen and one in the garage.
The one in the garage was 14 years old and it failed a couple months ago, so
I was going to replace it with a 14 cf model from Lowes for about $400.
I no longer like side by sides, they are terribly inefficient, and the
freezer space is deplorable. Further, the water in the door is not very cold
and we don't use a lot of ice. So for us a side by side is not the best
choice. The $400 model was 14 cf, and had the freezer on the top.
Randy is going to email the info on the PV panels he purchased from a place
in Ariz.
The panels cost $700 each and it requires 2 to run his fridge.
Now $1400 seems like a lot of coin just to power a fridge but that is the
last time you pay for it.
(there are other things too, an inverter, storage cells, switching, etc.)
Just this morning I wrote a check to the electric company for $325 and
change. Thats what our power bills are during the summer months.
In one years worth of electric bills I will be able to have a pretty decent
PV array.
Not only that, during Charley we were out of elect for 5 days, 2 days during
Wilma and in the past year our elect has went off no less than 30 times
ranging from a few mins to 4 hours. With alternative energy we won't have to
put up with that stuff.
Oh yeah, on the news tonight they said Jeb Bush is getting ready to approve
the THIRD rate hike this year for the power company's.
They said if you use 2001 kw per year you will pay $1000 more per year for
electricty.
The writing's on the wall.
3D Peruna
2005-11-08 15:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Don
I'm gonna make this thing happen, a home and lifestyle devoid of grid
associated means, and I will do so at my own pace and choice.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if I can earn some of my money
back by forcing energy right back up the grids pooper, that it will be
done.
I've spent most of a lifetime *pushing*, now it's time to *ride*. Hoo-Ahhh
The challenge with "off-grid" is usually based mostly on climate. The
most successful examples seem to be in the southwest--moderate
temperatures and plentiful sun. Every time I try and find something to
move off grid, the financial aspects keep it from
happening...particularly since I'm in the upper mid-west where winter
hits hard and cold. I'm not prepared to spend my life logging (wood) for
a fuel source. And, I know, from doing the math, that other options
don't cut it when we have 30+ days of sub-zero weather with 50% cloud
cover. Fuel cells would be the primary way of moving off grid. I'd be
interested in seeing how to build your own...
OK, just got off the phone with the Cayo Costa Island house guy (Randy)
and he gave some good info.
As I said before, regarding Alt. energy, you have to adjust your way of
looking at stuff.
Until a few months ago we had 2 side by side refrigerators, roughly $2500
total cost.
One in the kitchen and one in the garage.
The one in the garage was 14 years old and it failed a couple months ago,
so I was going to replace it with a 14 cf model from Lowes for about $400.
I no longer like side by sides, they are terribly inefficient, and the
freezer space is deplorable. Further, the water in the door is not very
cold and we don't use a lot of ice. So for us a side by side is not the
best choice. The $400 model was 14 cf, and had the freezer on the top.
Randy is going to email the info on the PV panels he purchased from a
place in Ariz.
The panels cost $700 each and it requires 2 to run his fridge.
Now $1400 seems like a lot of coin just to power a fridge but that is the
last time you pay for it.
(there are other things too, an inverter, storage cells, switching, etc.)
Just this morning I wrote a check to the electric company for $325 and
change. Thats what our power bills are during the summer months.
In one years worth of electric bills I will be able to have a pretty
decent PV array.
Not only that, during Charley we were out of elect for 5 days, 2 days
during Wilma and in the past year our elect has went off no less than 30
times ranging from a few mins to 4 hours. With alternative energy we won't
have to put up with that stuff.
Oh yeah, on the news tonight they said Jeb Bush is getting ready to
approve the THIRD rate hike this year for the power company's.
They said if you use 2001 kw per year you will pay $1000 more per year for
electricty.
The writing's on the wall.
Don,

I fully understand the issues as you presented them...but that's not the
problem. Sunlight and average temperature (over months) make a huge
difference. There are available tables for average cloud cover over
different cities and parts of the country. For example, St. Louis has about
50% cloud cover (on average, IIRC). This means that you need to factor that
into your PV panel requirements from day one. Combine that with the fact
that the summer season there has 90% humidity and little wind for 5 months
of the year, you see that using PV to provide power for cooling isn't
feasible. What's the alternative? Wind? The summer season in St. Louis is
low wind (higher winds in the winter). OK...so we go with a ground source
heat pump, powered by PV panels. Sure...that's the ticket, right?
Well...our heat pump draws 50 amps to get started. So, you'd need to get a
pretty good battery system to make sure it works. Next, let's look at super
insulating our houses...can it be done...yes, but there go most of the
windows and natural light*.

I'm not against alternative systems, I just haven't found that the
trade-offs are worth it. Until the costs and other significant issues get
resolved it's only for those few who have significantly different priorities
(ie, they're trying to prove something to themselves, or sometimes others,
or what to disappear, or something like that--note there's no value
judgement in having different priorities).

I'm pulling for you, but it's a hard road.

I'll try and find it--but there was a guy who went completely off grid. He
researched it much before he went off grid and ended up picking a spot in AZ
because of cheap land, plentiful sunshine, relatively moderate year-round
temperatures. He had PV and solar water heaters, plus a windmill or two.
He also went with low voltage light fixtures and other things to reduce his
consumption. In the end, he still had to run the generator occasionally to
keep things humming. And this is someone who knew well in advance what
needed to happen to go completely off grid.

* Odd thing... I remember being in graduate school and our resident
"environmental" professor was a ball of contradictions (aren't they always).
He would argue one day that you could build a super-efficient house in St.
Louis that required minimal heating and cooling. We'd argue that nobody
would want to live in it because of the little natural light and ventilation
available. The next day, he'd talk about using maximum natural light and
ventilation. When we pointed out what he said the day before, he'd get mad
and start swearing at us... there was no pleasing the guy.

P
Don
2005-11-08 16:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Don
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Don
I'm gonna make this thing happen, a home and lifestyle devoid of grid
associated means, and I will do so at my own pace and choice.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if I can earn some of my money
back by forcing energy right back up the grids pooper, that it will be
done.
I've spent most of a lifetime *pushing*, now it's time to *ride*. Hoo-Ahhh
The challenge with "off-grid" is usually based mostly on climate. The
most successful examples seem to be in the southwest--moderate
temperatures and plentiful sun. Every time I try and find something to
move off grid, the financial aspects keep it from
happening...particularly since I'm in the upper mid-west where winter
hits hard and cold. I'm not prepared to spend my life logging (wood)
for a fuel source. And, I know, from doing the math, that other options
don't cut it when we have 30+ days of sub-zero weather with 50% cloud
cover. Fuel cells would be the primary way of moving off grid. I'd be
interested in seeing how to build your own...
OK, just got off the phone with the Cayo Costa Island house guy (Randy)
and he gave some good info.
As I said before, regarding Alt. energy, you have to adjust your way of
looking at stuff.
Until a few months ago we had 2 side by side refrigerators, roughly $2500
total cost.
One in the kitchen and one in the garage.
The one in the garage was 14 years old and it failed a couple months ago,
so I was going to replace it with a 14 cf model from Lowes for about $400.
I no longer like side by sides, they are terribly inefficient, and the
freezer space is deplorable. Further, the water in the door is not very
cold and we don't use a lot of ice. So for us a side by side is not the
best choice. The $400 model was 14 cf, and had the freezer on the top.
Randy is going to email the info on the PV panels he purchased from a
place in Ariz.
The panels cost $700 each and it requires 2 to run his fridge.
Now $1400 seems like a lot of coin just to power a fridge but that is the
last time you pay for it.
(there are other things too, an inverter, storage cells, switching, etc.)
Just this morning I wrote a check to the electric company for $325 and
change. Thats what our power bills are during the summer months.
In one years worth of electric bills I will be able to have a pretty
decent PV array.
Not only that, during Charley we were out of elect for 5 days, 2 days
during Wilma and in the past year our elect has went off no less than 30
times ranging from a few mins to 4 hours. With alternative energy we
won't have to put up with that stuff.
Oh yeah, on the news tonight they said Jeb Bush is getting ready to
approve the THIRD rate hike this year for the power company's.
They said if you use 2001 kw per year you will pay $1000 more per year
for electricty.
The writing's on the wall.
Don,
I fully understand the issues as you presented them...but that's not the
problem. Sunlight and average temperature (over months) make a huge
difference. There are available tables for average cloud cover over
different cities and parts of the country. For example, St. Louis has
about 50% cloud cover (on average, IIRC). This means that you need to
factor that into your PV panel requirements from day one. Combine that
with the fact that the summer season there has 90% humidity and little
wind for 5 months of the year, you see that using PV to provide power for
cooling isn't feasible. What's the alternative? Wind? The summer season
in St. Louis is low wind (higher winds in the winter). OK...so we go with
a ground source heat pump, powered by PV panels. Sure...that's the
ticket, right? Well...our heat pump draws 50 amps to get started. So,
you'd need to get a pretty good battery system to make sure it works.
Next, let's look at super insulating our houses...can it be done...yes,
but there go most of the windows and natural light*.
I'm not against alternative systems, I just haven't found that the
trade-offs are worth it. Until the costs and other significant issues get
resolved it's only for those few who have significantly different
priorities (ie, they're trying to prove something to themselves, or
sometimes others, or what to disappear, or something like that--note
there's no value judgement in having different priorities).
I'm pulling for you, but it's a hard road.
I'll try and find it--but there was a guy who went completely off grid.
He researched it much before he went off grid and ended up picking a spot
in AZ because of cheap land, plentiful sunshine, relatively moderate
year-round temperatures. He had PV and solar water heaters, plus a
windmill or two. He also went with low voltage light fixtures and other
things to reduce his consumption. In the end, he still had to run the
generator occasionally to keep things humming. And this is someone who
knew well in advance what needed to happen to go completely off grid.
* Odd thing... I remember being in graduate school and our resident
"environmental" professor was a ball of contradictions (aren't they
always). He would argue one day that you could build a super-efficient
house in St. Louis that required minimal heating and cooling. We'd argue
that nobody would want to live in it because of the little natural light
and ventilation available. The next day, he'd talk about using maximum
natural light and ventilation. When we pointed out what he said the day
before, he'd get mad and start swearing at us... there was no pleasing
the guy.
Yes, I understand that what I'm talking about is a rough row to hoe.
Frankly most of the true *off grid* homes that I've seen are things I
wouldn't want to live in.
I said that some of this stuff would require a lifestyle adjustment, but
come on.
I'm a pretty good salesman but I'd never be able to convince my wife to live
in an abandoned caboose in the woods with a windmill made out of discarded
brake drums. LOL
At the very least I'm going to thoroughly investigate this stuff and if I
can recognize any sort of advantage I will go for it.
Before I lay out any money I will know EVERYTHING about it and I will
proceed at a snails pace.
The last thing I need is a bunch of expensive equipment laying around
pissing me off everytime I think about it. LOL
I appreciate any and all input you and anyone else have provided or will
provide.
BTW: Most of the acreage we have been researching has running water on the
land, a stream or creek, and a lake or pond, and one of my requirments is
dense woods for firewood and other things.
These things present additional possibilites in my goal.
Tim
2005-11-08 17:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Yes, I understand that what I'm talking about is a rough row to hoe.
Frankly most of the true *off grid* homes that I've seen are things I
wouldn't want to live in.
I said that some of this stuff would require a lifestyle adjustment,
but come on.
I'm a pretty good salesman but I'd never be able to convince my wife
to live in an abandoned caboose in the woods with a windmill made out
of discarded brake drums. LOL
At the very least I'm going to thoroughly investigate this stuff and
if I can recognize any sort of advantage I will go for it.
Before I lay out any money I will know EVERYTHING about it and I will
proceed at a snails pace.
The last thing I need is a bunch of expensive equipment laying around
pissing me off everytime I think about it. LOL
I appreciate any and all input you and anyone else have provided or
will provide.
BTW: Most of the acreage we have been researching has running water
on the land, a stream or creek, and a lake or pond, and one of my
requirments is dense woods for firewood and other things.
These things present additional possibilites in my goal.
Don

I may have posted this before so apologies if it's old news

There is an Earthship forum which you can subscribe to here
http://mail.tnstaafl.net/mailman/listinfo/sb_tnstaafl.net

And also their archives -
http://mail.tnstaafl.net/pipermail/sb_tnstaafl.net/

It will give you a pretty good insight into people who are building and
living off grid at the moment

One topic recently is people having major problems with storage batterys
failing

Anyway hopefully it will be of some interest

As far as eco friendly/green building goes my take on it is that you need
high thermal mass coupled with high(ish) solar gain which then needs to be
controlled by solar shading and passive ventilation.

Passive ventilation also gives the oppertunity to provide night time pre
cooling of the building
Don
2005-11-08 18:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Tim, this message is now saved to the archives.
Post by Tim
I may have posted this before so apologies if it's old news
There is an Earthship forum which you can subscribe to here
http://mail.tnstaafl.net/mailman/listinfo/sb_tnstaafl.net
And also their archives -
http://mail.tnstaafl.net/pipermail/sb_tnstaafl.net/
It will give you a pretty good insight into people who are building and
living off grid at the moment
One topic recently is people having major problems with storage batterys
failing
Anyway hopefully it will be of some interest
As far as eco friendly/green building goes my take on it is that you need
high thermal mass coupled with high(ish) solar gain which then needs to be
controlled by solar shading and passive ventilation.
Passive ventilation also gives the oppertunity to provide night time pre
cooling of the building
Kris Krieger
2005-11-08 21:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Don
I'm gonna make this thing happen, a home and lifestyle devoid of
grid associated means, and I will do so at my own pace and choice.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if I can earn some of my
money back by forcing energy right back up the grids pooper, that it
will be done.
I've spent most of a lifetime *pushing*, now it's time to *ride*. Hoo-Ahhh
The challenge with "off-grid" is usually based mostly on climate.
The most successful examples seem to be in the southwest--moderate
temperatures and plentiful sun. Every time I try and find something
to move off grid, the financial aspects keep it from
happening...particularly since I'm in the upper mid-west where winter
hits hard and cold. I'm not prepared to spend my life logging (wood)
for a fuel source. And, I know, from doing the math, that other
options don't cut it when we have 30+ days of sub-zero weather with
50% cloud cover. Fuel cells would be the primary way of moving off
grid. I'd be interested in seeing how to build your own...
OK, just got off the phone with the Cayo Costa Island house guy
(Randy) and he gave some good info.
As I said before, regarding Alt. energy, you have to adjust your way
of looking at stuff.
Until a few months ago we had 2 side by side refrigerators, roughly
$2500 total cost.
One in the kitchen and one in the garage.
The one in the garage was 14 years old and it failed a couple months
ago, so I was going to replace it with a 14 cf model from Lowes for
about $400. I no longer like side by sides, they are terribly
inefficient, and the freezer space is deplorable. Further, the water
in the door is not very cold and we don't use a lot of ice. So for us
a side by side is not the best choice.
Why not 2 chest coolers - one as fridge, one as freezer?
Post by Don
The $400 model was 14 cf, and
had the freezer on the top. Randy is going to email the info on the PV
panels he purchased from a place in Ariz.
The panels cost $700 each and it requires 2 to run his fridge.
Now $1400 seems like a lot of coin just to power a fridge but that is
the last time you pay for it.
(there are other things too, an inverter, storage cells, switching,
etc.) Just this morning I wrote a check to the electric company for
$325 and change. Thats what our power bills are during the summer
months. In one years worth of electric bills I will be able to have a
pretty decent PV array.
That's the part that people always forget. Best thing is if you can build
a unit that you can move with you. Then it's definitely a one-time cost.

And electricity won't be getting any cheaper...
Post by Don
Not only that, during Charley we were out of elect for 5 days, 2 days
during Wilma and in the past year our elect has went off no less than
30 times ranging from a few mins to 4 hours. With alternative energy
we won't have to put up with that stuff.
That's why I was thinking it'd be great if AE sources could be made
portable. When a storm threated, pack them up and stow; when ti passes,
pull them out and set them back up.
Post by Don
Oh yeah, on the news tonight they said Jeb Bush is getting ready to
approve the THIRD rate hike this year for the power company's.
They said if you use 2001 kw per year you will pay $1000 more per year
for electricty.
The writing's on the wall.
Don;t forget your Solar Oven ;)
Edgar
2005-11-08 17:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Don
I'm gonna make this thing happen, a home and lifestyle devoid of grid
associated means, and I will do so at my own pace and choice.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if I can earn some of my money
back by forcing energy right back up the grids pooper, that it will be
done.
I've spent most of a lifetime *pushing*, now it's time to *ride*. Hoo-Ahhh
The challenge with "off-grid" is usually based mostly on climate. The most
successful examples seem to be in the southwest--moderate temperatures and
plentiful sun. Every time I try and find something to move off grid, the
financial aspects keep it from happening...particularly since I'm in the
upper mid-west where winter hits hard and cold. I'm not prepared to spend
my life logging (wood) for a fuel source. And, I know, from doing the math,
that other options don't cut it when we have 30+ days of sub-zero weather
with 50% cloud cover. Fuel cells would be the primary way of moving off
grid. I'd be interested in seeing how to build your own...
I think the desert is a good for living off the grid as well, if you
don't mind staying inside almost all the time. Build out of massive
concrete that can soak up the suns heat during the day (maybe partially
underground too), then pull down exterior insulation on the concrete
mass so the heat that was stored during the day permeates inside during
the cold nights. Plus you'll have more sun energy then you know what to
do with.
--
Edgar
Kris Krieger
2005-11-08 22:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgar
I think the desert is a good for living off the grid as well, if you
don't mind staying inside almost all the time.
Why inside most of the time? Yeah, 120 is too much but up to 100 and dry
is decent if you're careful about bringing water and wearing a good hat.

And snake boots ;) !
Post by Edgar
Build out of massive
concrete that can soak up the suns heat during the day (maybe
partially underground too), then pull down exterior insulation on the
concrete mass so the heat that was stored during the day permeates
inside during the cold nights. Plus you'll have more sun energy then
you know what to do with.
And rainwater collectors and cisterns. Use native plants to provide
shading. Run air vents undergoround to cool air before it come inside(with
good screens of course to keep spiders etc. out of the vents...) And so on.
Don
2005-11-08 23:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Edgar
I think the desert is a good for living off the grid as well, if you
don't mind staying inside almost all the time.
Why inside most of the time? Yeah, 120 is too much but up to 100 and dry
is decent if you're careful about bringing water and wearing a good hat.
And snake boots ;) !
Or a quick eye and a shovel, for those nefarious devils that exceed 5'.
(the last one I got that way was a 6' Coachwhip in the backyard that Brandy
had cornered. Non-poisonous but has a nasty clinging bite)
On smaller specimens, under 2', I have found grill tongs quite effective.
(I have an extra pair hanging on the workshop wall just for that purpose)
For some reason our pool skimmer seems to be attractive to small Coral
snakes, under about 2'.
I bet I've extracted 20 or more since we've lived here.

I don't like snakes, they do something to me on a primal level, can't
rightly explain it.
No other animal effects me that way.
But then I've never been face to face with say, a cheetah. <shiver>
Kris Krieger
2005-11-08 23:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Edgar
I think the desert is a good for living off the grid as well, if you
don't mind staying inside almost all the time.
Why inside most of the time? Yeah, 120 is too much but up to 100 and
dry is decent if you're careful about bringing water and wearing a
good hat.
And snake boots ;) !
Or a quick eye and a shovel, for those nefarious devils that exceed
5'. (the last one I got that way was a 6' Coachwhip in the backyard
that Brandy had cornered. Non-poisonous but has a nasty clinging bite)
On smaller specimens, under 2', I have found grill tongs quite
effective. (I have an extra pair hanging on the workshop wall just for
that purpose) For some reason our pool skimmer seems to be attractive
to small Coral snakes, under about 2'.
I bet I've extracted 20 or more since we've lived here.
I don't like snakes, they do something to me on a primal level, can't
rightly explain it.
No other animal effects me that way.
But then I've never been face to face with say, a cheetah. <shiver>
Actually, snakes don't bother me as much as shinu black spiders with very
large abdomens - all of which iassume to be some form of Wodow (black widow
or northern widow). Got bitten by a brown recluse once, the damn thing was
barely visible - my whole leg swelled up 2X+ and turned a psychedelic mass
of dappled and networked blues, greens, purples, reds, and so on. Went to
the hospital - they gave me Benadryl of all things, no anti-venom. It took
ages to heal. Thinks like Harvesters ("daddy longlegs") and whatnot, i
don't care about much, tho' the webs are annoying.

Part of the way I like to do the yard includes features that also end up
providing nice hidey-holes for all sort of critters, including snakes. The
good thing with snakes is that at least they're large enough for me to
*see*, and I always walk in the yard with a stick anyway. OTOH Black
Widows could probably kill me pretty much when they hatch, and I'd never
see them. I'm also allergic to bees/wasps. And mosquitoes (and I'm one of
those mosquito magnites - guess I smell like Limburger cheese...) So all
in all, insects bother me more than snakes.

Any large cat would be pretty terrifying. OTOH any animl can be a problem
if one crosses it. The animal that is most terrifying of all, tho', is the
hairless primate ;)
Kris Krieger
2005-11-09 19:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Actually, snakes don't bother me as much as shinu black spiders with
very large abdomens -
Make that "shiny".

I could create a whole new language from my awful typing
- and nope, I dunno how I could learn to play piano at one point, and yet
be such a completely pathetic typist =:-o ((I have to correct as I type,
takes a long time))

Anyhoo, speaking of low-profile critters, I keep wondering whether part of
the problem of them getting into the house might be alleviated by (1) the
outward-swingong doors you'd mentioned in another post (for hurricane
resistance/survivability) and (2) elevating slabs in some way.

Thing that bothers me about slabs is that they are so close to ground
level.

Does it cost significantly more to put a house up on some sort of crawl
space or more elevated slab (or whatever - I don't knwo the technical
jargon) than it costs to use the usual nearly-ground-level thing?

I also think it'd be good to "crown" the ground, build it up, where the
house will be put on top of it, to encourage water to go *away* from the
house - as low as the dang things are, simply trying to slope the yard a
bit doesn't work, slab is too low to get a decent slope away from the
house.

I'm not talking a *huge* amount of extra height, but it seem to me that the
height of the liviing-area floors ought to be at *least* 6" (pref. IMO 12")
above the level of the ground. It seems so logical to me - but that
doesn't mean it is technically correct.

The only reason I can think of, for having houses so low, is that it's just
cheaper.


All that being said, and going off on yet another tangent, I was blithering
at one point abut trying to figure out how to estimate costs for various
unusual features. Here is a new question:

Firstly, do Architects/Designers charge by the hour, or by the job?

I'm asking to lead into another Q.
What would be a ball-park figure - if this would even be possible - for
taking a basic floorplan to a professional, and having not a whole design
done per se, but get something like a ballpark cost estimate for a shell?
I'd have a lot of guidelines already set down and would need just a
ballpark "per sq ft" figure.

The reason I'm asking is, it seems silly to pay someone to do a full-blown
design (i.e. down to faucets and toilet handles and so on) *and then* find
out that the shell itself is way beyond budget. Plus, it's better if one
can plan ahead for a cost-range.

It wouldn't be a contract. I'm just trying to figure out whether I could
ever build what I want, in terms of structure and quality, or whether it's
all a sick fantasy and I'll have to settle for an average developer-type
place.


So, if I'd pay $50K for a lot and would go up to $300K for the house (all-
inclusive), I want to find out whether I can get a 2500 sq ft house with 2+
car garage (part of it set aside with window, as a workroom), utilizing
various insulation, storm-resistant, construction (e.g., poured concrete)
and like that. Stuff like cabinets and fixtures are easy to figure out
because all I have to do is go to Home Depot with a pad and pen. Cabinets
go per linear foot so all I need is a general idea of kitchen size to
figure that one. What I can't find is any sort of pricing info on the
fundamentals. Which is why I'm wondering whether professionals would do
something like a ballpark estimate and a ballpark figure for what such a
general estimate might cost.


So what would a pro charge (ballpark figure, *not* precise contract number)
to do that sort of a loose estimate?

- K.
Don
2005-11-09 22:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Does it cost significantly more to put a house up on some sort of crawl
space or more elevated slab (or whatever - I don't knwo the technical
jargon) than it costs to use the usual nearly-ground-level thing?
Depends on local requirments and costs.
Here, the first floor must be 10' above sea level (ASL) and if the existing
land is only 6' ASL the owner must decide between raising the land with fill
or going with an elevated floor system (non-concrete slab). Everything I do
on the islands is done the latter way but the cheap assed tract home
builders here in the city prefer to stick with the same ol same ol and thus
you see fleets of dump trucks all over the place all the time delivering
fill dirt and destroying the streets in the process. Our 1/4 acre lot
(80'x125') required 32 17 yard dump truck loads to bring the lot up to
necessary height before the slab could be poured then 12 more loads to do
the finish grading. That was almost years ago and I don't remember the cost
per load then, but now a days the cost is about $300 per load. It adds up
quick. The powers that be keep raising the required height for floors around
here every year and I predict that even the most hard headed and stubborn
contractor will eventually have to convert to a raised floor system in the
future.

Personally I like the look of a home that is raised off the ground a few
feet with a crawl space below. I do them on a series of 16"x16" pier blocks
and LVLs and TJI's then infill the openings with lattice.

The fill dirt companies purchase, or lease a large chunk of ground and dig
the center out and sell it for fill dirt then after a few years turn the
whole thing into lake front property which is highly desirable. They make
money by digging a hole then sell the hole. Ya gotta admit, its shear
genius.
(if you dig a hole 3' deep here it will fill up with water almost
immediately)
Don
2005-11-09 22:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
the finish grading. That was almost years ago and I don't remember the
cost per load then,
should say, 'almost 4 years ago....'
Kris Krieger
2005-11-10 00:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Kris Krieger
Does it cost significantly more to put a house up on some sort of
crawl space or more elevated slab (or whatever - I don't knwo the
technical jargon) than it costs to use the usual nearly-ground-level
thing?
Depends on local requirments and costs.
Here, the first floor must be 10' above sea level (ASL) and if the
existing land is only 6' ASL the owner must decide between raising the
land with fill or going with an elevated floor system (non-concrete
slab). Everything I do on the islands is done the latter way but the
cheap assed tract home builders here in the city prefer to stick with
the same ol same ol and thus you see fleets of dump trucks all over
the place all the time delivering fill dirt and destroying the streets
in the process. Our 1/4 acre lot (80'x125') required 32 17 yard dump
truck loads to bring the lot up to necessary height before the slab
could be poured then 12 more loads to do the finish grading. That was
almost years ago and I don't remember the cost per load then, but now
a days the cost is about $300 per load. It adds up quick.
Seriously - that's an impressive number. They seem to have done that when
this neighborhood was built (1960's) but that was mostly in this area.
Most residential neighborhoods are flatter, and the new ones are all flat
as pancakes.
Post by Don
The powers
that be keep raising the required height for floors around here every
year and I predict that even the most hard headed and stubborn
contractor will eventually have to convert to a raised floor system in
the future.
Personally I like the look of a home that is raised off the ground a
few feet with a crawl space below. I do them on a series of 16"x16"
pier blocks and LVLs and TJI's then infill the openings with lattice.
Now that sounds attractive to me as well.

The other advantage of a raised house is that people walking or driving by
can't see right into your house. ((Even with sheers up or a reflective
coating/film, any backlighting can still spotlight you in the house.)) So
again, I like your idea. It'd work with various "styles" (e.g.
comtemporary, mediterranian, etc.) based upon the screening treatment of
the open area. Lattice is good for traditional, esp. since they make the
vinyl (I think it is) lattice now, which resists humidity, but there would
be many creative options.

I'm assuming that the space is not walled in by concrete or block where you
are, because floodwater might turn the blocks etc. into battering rams...

Also, I like the idea of not having to dig up the slab to get to any of the
ducts or so on.
Post by Don
The fill dirt companies purchase, or lease a large chunk of ground and
dig the center out and sell it for fill dirt then after a few years
turn the whole thing into lake front property which is highly
desirable. They make money by digging a hole then sell the hole. Ya
gotta admit, its shear genius.
Well, you have given a potential answer to something I've been wondering
about since I first started looking at places here. Which is, why so many
of these new developments have all these perfect ponds. The "bottoms"
might be the actual level ofthe land before they moved the dirt around...or
they might have been the original fill for the older neighborhoods.

Either way, I have to admit it's clever. Reminds me of the old comedy
routine where the conman ends up getting $20 as "change" fr a $5 bill.
Just more evidence that reality *is* often stranger than fiction.

So now, esp. with fuel prices being high, it's probalby *cheaper* to
actually do the pylons, but I'm sure the "developers" adjust their prices
so as to continue with the "land creation" scheme.


As an aside, speaking of land creation, I saw a teevee special about one of
the small coastal Arabic countries (?Brunei?) which is building palm-tree-
shaped "neoland" for development. I'll try to remember to find and post
the link. It was interesting in one way and in another, just made me shake
my head. But certainly sheer engineering audacity, and interesting from
that standpoint.
Post by Don
(if you dig a hole 3' deep here it will fill up with water almost
immediately)
Yeah, Richmond (immediately south of Vancouver, BC) was like that - the
"island" was actually a large alluvial deposit formed over who thousands (I
assume) of years by the Frasier River. There was a "drain" in the front
yard and when you looked in, the water table was only a couple feet down.
((Lucky that no liquifaction occured with that PacNW earthquake in, what,
1998 or thereabouts. Really nice sonic reverberation tho'.)) Richmond was
where we rented the house that had water seep in over the slab and the
weeds grew up under it into the living room, has bug nests under the
footing (visible by lifting the edge of the carpet) and so on. And the mold
in that place was a health nightmare for me.

Just one more reason I'm kind of obsessed with the word "elevate".

Anyway, I remember you also mentioning pylons sunk down, which is good for
areas which have loose/sandy soil, keep the places from sinking/floating
away. Also makes sense to me.

((Hmmm, the next logical addition seems to be.....retractible stairs <G!>))
Don
2005-11-10 03:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
As an aside, speaking of land creation, I saw a teevee special about one of
the small coastal Arabic countries (?Brunei?) which is building palm-tree-
shaped "neoland" for development.
I saw that, it was on *Megastructures* on the Science Channel, its called
Palmtree Island and the first in a series of islands, cuminating with the
World Island, being built by one of the richest doodz in the world.
I imediately opend Google Earth and zoomed in on Dubai and scrolled the
coast but didn't see it. Thats what I don't like about GE, its images aren't
current.
Oh well.
Kris Krieger
2005-11-10 20:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Kris Krieger
As an aside, speaking of land creation, I saw a teevee special about one of
the small coastal Arabic countries (?Brunei?) which is building
palm-tree- shaped "neoland" for development.
I saw that, it was on *Megastructures* on the Science Channel, its
called Palmtree Island and the first in a series of islands,
cuminating with the World Island, being built by one of the richest
doodz in the world. I imediately opend Google Earth and zoomed in on
Dubai and scrolled the coast but didn't see it. Thats what I don't
like about GE, its images aren't current.
Oh well.
Dubei, thanks. ((I can;'t blame old age - my short-term memory *is* all it
used to be!)) I haven't toyed with Google Earth yet but I have to keep it
in mind. But that program was interesting - and a bit scary. My jaw
dropped when they talked about all the stuff that kept getting added on to
the island - IOW, if I understood correctly, in excess of the engineering
parameters. I hope they use some very deep pylons... But the concept is
interesting. They are also I *think* (not sure) doing something like that,
on a much smaller scale, in some areas of the Texas coast. I have not gone
back to anything to see how those areas fared after Rita; I only remember
having seen the real estate ads. Wondering just how "real" that real
estate is at this point... But it remains an interesting concept IMO.
gruhn
2005-11-10 21:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
I haven't toyed with Google Earth yet
Eh hehm. Isn't it about time, well, well PAST time, you got started?
;-)
Kris Krieger
2005-11-10 22:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by gruhn
Post by Kris Krieger
I haven't toyed with Google Earth yet
Eh hehm. Isn't it about time, well, well PAST time, you got started?
;-)
Um, er, well <shuffle shuffle> ... I keep forgetting ...
Don
2005-11-10 21:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Don
Post by Kris Krieger
As an aside, speaking of land creation, I saw a teevee special about one of
the small coastal Arabic countries (?Brunei?) which is building
palm-tree- shaped "neoland" for development.
I saw that, it was on *Megastructures* on the Science Channel, its
called Palmtree Island and the first in a series of islands,
cuminating with the World Island, being built by one of the richest
doodz in the world. I imediately opend Google Earth and zoomed in on
Dubai and scrolled the coast but didn't see it. Thats what I don't
like about GE, its images aren't current.
Oh well.
Dubei, thanks. ((I can;'t blame old age - my short-term memory *is* all it
used to be!)) I haven't toyed with Google Earth yet but I have to keep it
in mind. But that program was interesting - and a bit scary. My jaw
dropped when they talked about all the stuff that kept getting added on to
the island - IOW, if I understood correctly, in excess of the engineering
parameters. I hope they use some very deep pylons... But the concept is
interesting. They are also I *think* (not sure) doing something like that,
on a much smaller scale, in some areas of the Texas coast. I have not gone
back to anything to see how those areas fared after Rita; I only remember
having seen the real estate ads. Wondering just how "real" that real
estate is at this point... But it remains an interesting concept IMO.
I think the word is *liquification* and they specifically addressed that on
the show.
When water infiltrates the soil, the soil tends to dissolves back into the
water.
They showed a small example of a handfull of sand in a bowl then they poured
water in, then they slowly revolved the bowl and the sand basically
disintegrated into a soup.
To address this on a grand scale they invented a vertical machine resembling
a well driller that penetrated the soil and vibrated like hell. This caused
the sand particulates to concentrate and compact themselves together into a
rock like consistency. They did this thousands of times all over the island.
In my opinion, only nature can create rock that will stand up to other
nature's forces. Time will tell.

They also built a semi-circle breakwater around the perimeter of the island
to counter the wave erosion.

Here's what I find amazing.
That entire area, the middle east, is generally thought of as being very
backward but if you look at the architecture that has been taking place in
that region for the past couple of decades you'll see that they are doing
some stunning stuff. How about that hotel that resembles a sailboat with
billowing sails? While they may wrap houndstooth beach towels around their
heads, cut peoples hands off for stealing, shroud the women in wispy garb
and squat to expel yesterdays camel lip steak, they are certainly breaking
the bounds of conventional theory in the large scale commercial structures
they imagine. Contrast that to the finger pointers here in the US that
struggle to continuously produce the same ol' plain vanilla boxes of
dispair......
Maybe *they* are right and *we* are wrong?
(one things for certain, if your hands/dik are cut off you won't be doing
much stealing/raping in the future)
Kris Krieger
2005-11-10 23:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Don
Post by Kris Krieger
As an aside, speaking of land creation, I saw a teevee special about one of
the small coastal Arabic countries (?Brunei?) which is building
palm-tree- shaped "neoland" for development.
I saw that, it was on *Megastructures* on the Science Channel, its
called Palmtree Island and the first in a series of islands,
cuminating with the World Island, being built by one of the richest
doodz in the world. I imediately opend Google Earth and zoomed in on
Dubai and scrolled the coast but didn't see it. Thats what I don't
like about GE, its images aren't current.
Oh well.
Dubei, thanks. ((I can;'t blame old age - my short-term memory *is* all it
used to be!)) I haven't toyed with Google Earth yet but I have to
keep it in mind. But that program was interesting - and a bit scary.
My jaw dropped when they talked about all the stuff that kept
getting added on to the island - IOW, if I understood correctly, in
excess of the engineering parameters. I hope they use some very deep
pylons... But the concept is interesting. They are also I *think*
(not sure) doing something like that,
on a much smaller scale, in some areas of the Texas coast. I have not gone
back to anything to see how those areas fared after Rita; I only
remember having seen the real estate ads. Wondering just how "real"
that real estate is at this point... But it remains an interesting
concept IMO.
I think the word is *liquification* and they specifically addressed
that on the show.
Oh..., I'd thought"liquification" applied to the results of an earthquake
in a zone of sandy soil. I saw the part about the giant vibrators
compacting the sand, but I also thought that three were weight limits based
upon the narrowness of the created land. I just recall that they did
mention, in the show, that engineers mentione being concerned about the
continual increases in load upon the created land.
Post by Don
When water infiltrates the soil, the soil tends to dissolves back into
the water.
They showed a small example of a handfull of sand in a bowl then they
poured water in, then they slowly revolved the bowl and the sand
basically disintegrated into a soup.
Oh, I see - I'd gotten confused between that, and the earthquake
phenomenon.
Post by Don
To address this on a grand scale they invented a vertical machine
resembling a well driller that penetrated the soil and vibrated like
hell. This caused the sand particulates to concentrate and compact
themselves together into a rock like consistency. They did this
thousands of times all over the island. In my opinion, only nature can
create rock that will stand up to other nature's forces. Time will
tell.
With water, it's always just a matter of time. Water can be the gentlest
of things, yet it is the most powerful of things. And it's relentless.
So it;'s a matter of "when", as in, how long will the things survive before
water has its way with them.
Post by Don
They also built a semi-circle breakwater around the perimeter of the
island to counter the wave erosion.
Here's what I find amazing.
That entire area, the middle east, is generally thought of as being
very backward but if you look at the architecture that has been taking
place in that region for the past couple of decades you'll see that
they are doing some stunning stuff.
That IMO is true. I've always had an almost peculiar visual interest in
desert architecture in general, and you've got to give the Arabian nations
credit in that they've financed some awesome structures.

((I know, the PC thing would be to yammer that they should solve poverty
first, but there are large problems with that view...))
Post by Don
How about that hotel that
resembles a sailboat with billowing sails?
Yeah, I've seen pics of that one. I wanted to try to find a poster or
print I could ut up on my wall. Something about it appeals to me quite a
lot.
Post by Don
While they may wrap
houndstooth beach towels around their heads,
Well, that part is practical because of the sun...even with a hat, unless
the brin hangs over the neck and shades it, you can get a vicious burn
unless you stick a handkerchief or towel under your hat and let it hang
over neck and ears.

Cultural things aside (as my personal disagreemnets with lack of personal
liberty are known, as are the many shortcomings of the current culture in
our own nation), it is true that, as you said,
Post by Don
[ ... ] they are certainly breaking the bounds of
conventional theory in the large scale commercial structures they
imagine.
I also think that the traditional buildings are of interest in terms of
practicality, which is prob. a whole 'nother Saga ;)
Post by Don
Contrast that to the finger pointers here in the US that
struggle to continuously produce the same ol' plain vanilla boxes of
dispair......
Now THAT is a well-turned phrase IMO. Sums up so much of my own
disillusionment in several major areas...problems with current definitions
about euality being among them (remembering a short DF story about a
society where people with talents were handicapped so that everyone would
be "equal" - so dancers had to wear leg irons, intelligent people were
given drugs, musicians had to wear mitts, and so on)...

((Related tangentially to the new info re: recently-discovered genetic
differnces in brain structure/function between populations long-isolated
from one another...))
Post by Don
Maybe *they* are right and *we* are wrong?
(one things for certain, if your hands/dik are cut off you won't be
doing much stealing/raping in the future)
That is a whole different can of worms, tho'. In an effort <pant pant
sweat sweat> to be succinct, I'll just say that IMO, there are too many
grey areas and therre are too amny poeple who exaggerate, lie, or just
plain misinterperet situations.

There has to be a balnce between justice and mercy - and at the same time,
mercy cannot be allowed to descend into spineless coddling. There is a
time to cease wringing one's hands worrying over whether some multiple
child rapist-torturer has cable tv and internet access and chocolate ice
cream every Saturday.
gruhn
2005-11-10 00:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
whole thing into lake front property which is highly desirable. They make
money by digging a hole then sell the hole. Ya gotta admit, its shear
I grew up on rolling terrain nearish Boston. We were on a terrain feature
that from some directions qualified as hill. Around the back they stripped
off the top. Sold that. Good topsoil. Dug out the middle. Good glacial
gravel. Built houses on the floor of the pit. Sold them top soil because
nothing would grow on the sand and rocks from deep inside the old hill.
Being _in_ an old gravel pit, the neighbourhood will never look nice. And
they did the bit where in the corner there's a house with an extra long
drive directly behind a house with actual street frontage. Of course, they
all sold. ... 1980ish, $95,000+ (depending) iirc.
Kris Krieger
2005-11-10 00:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by gruhn
Post by Don
whole thing into lake front property which is highly desirable. They
make money by digging a hole then sell the hole. Ya gotta admit, its
shear
I grew up on rolling terrain nearish Boston. We were on a terrain
feature that from some directions qualified as hill. Around the back
they stripped off the top. Sold that. Good topsoil. Dug out the
middle. Good glacial gravel. Built houses on the floor of the pit.
Sold them top soil because nothing would grow on the sand and rocks
from deep inside the old hill. Being _in_ an old gravel pit, the
neighbourhood will never look nice. And they did the bit where in the
corner there's a house with an extra long drive directly behind a
house with actual street frontage. Of course, they all sold. ...
1980ish, $95,000+ (depending) iirc.
Our place in Lowell was on an unterraced hillside with only a thin layer of
clay-like dirt on top. Sold for over 3X that this past Spring - prob.
could have gone for more but quick sale was paramount, esp. given the low
quality of the construction.

The boulders in the yard were IMO one of the nicest features. If you saw
my 3D render of my model of it, you might be able to see that the front was
partially on huge boulders (black and white granite with white quartz-
looking strreaks through it), so it had a sort of "house on the hill"look,
which really added to a basic boring neoColonial style. The yard backed up
onto a swamp oh I mean "conservation area <g!> and the builder had pushed
the biggest boulders to form a curved boundary at the back (where there was
a falloff of about 4' on average). One of the "landscape designers" I'd
interviewed went on about removing them and putting up a fence to hide the
woods <!!>. Another wanted to buy them outright.

Kind of funny. Can I buy your used rocks? Heh.


But in a pit? Bleh. There must have been no breeze - or drainage...
gruhn
2005-11-10 01:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by gruhn
1980ish, $95,000+ (depending) iirc.
Our place in Lowell was on an unterraced hillside with only a thin layer of
clay-like dirt on top. Sold for over 3X that this past Spring - prob.
Them ones in Medfield are probably half a mill.
Post by Kris Krieger
The boulders in the yard were IMO one of the nicest features. If you saw
Ooo....
Post by Kris Krieger
onto a swamp oh I mean "conservation area <g!> and the builder had pushed
Precious wetlands.
Post by Kris Krieger
But in a pit? Bleh. There must have been no breeze - or drainage...
It was open one end and with fairly good slope from the back actually. Not a
hard-core pit but certainly no longer a hill on one side and in the middle.
And it's all that NE glacial sand and gravel.
Kris Krieger
2005-11-10 20:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by gruhn
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by gruhn
1980ish, $95,000+ (depending) iirc.
Our place in Lowell was on an unterraced hillside with only a thin
layer
of
Post by Kris Krieger
clay-like dirt on top. Sold for over 3X that this past Spring - prob.
Them ones in Medfield are probably half a mill.
Yup. Lowell was problematic for a lot fo people because you had to cross
the Merrimack River to get to Boston or pretty much anywhere else in the
state. Given urban sprawl, tho' I expect that prices will keep going up,
for a while at least.

Medfield I'm not familiar with off the top of my head. I though that a lot
of Chelmsford was nice, tho' - *huge* lots. We'd bid on a place there,
older, kind of small, but incredible potential with both hstructure and
lot! - the story is bizarre so I'll go ahead and tell it. We were one of
the first people to see it after it came onto the market, and the owners
stipulated that they wanted to move out by mid-December - which was perfect
for us. We were ready, right then and there, pre-approved and down-
payment at the ready, to get into a place because temporary housing is
always incredibly minimal (and incredibly overpriced, esp. once the company
stops paying for it). So we offerd the asking price. Well, I dunno
whether the people (retired Naval officer I think, and his wife) just
didn't like the look of us, or what, but they rejected the offer and raised
their price by $5K. We could have handled it but it pissed us off, so we
kept looking. As things turned out, not only did they not get their $5K
extra, but they ended up selling it half a year later at, if I remember
correctly, close to $10K *under* what we had offered.

People are so weird. When we sold, a couple of the neighbors got PO'ed
because they thought we asked "too little" and it'd bring down their own
property values - well, we set a selling price that (1) left room for a bit
of buyer negotiation (psychological ploy), (2) left us with a modest
profit, and (3) would move the place as fast as possible (apx 18 days as it
turned out).
Post by gruhn
Post by Kris Krieger
The boulders in the yard were IMO one of the nicest features. If you saw
Ooo....
Ironically I only havea couple old pics from the Winter, right after we
bought, and there was not even one blade of grass, just frozen mud. But I
ought to post tham, as they show the front boulders and height of the yard
nicely. As you know, I have a definite liking for places that are
eleveated above passer-by level ;)
Post by gruhn
Post by Kris Krieger
onto a swamp oh I mean "conservation area <g!> and the builder had pushed
Precious wetlands.
Post by Kris Krieger
But in a pit? Bleh. There must have been no breeze - or drainage...
It was open one end and with fairly good slope from the back actually.
Not a hard-core pit but certainly no longer a hill on one side and in
the middle. And it's all that NE glacial sand and gravel.
Ah...
Sand and ravel is a challenge because it's one thing to have good drainage
for plants, but it's another to have so little in the way of nutrients and
moisture. Takes a lot of deep digging and amendment.

The other thing I'd worry about would be sinking, but clay isn't much
better I supposed, because it shrinks as it dries and then expands when
wet, so you end up with a lot of structural stress...
gruhn
2005-11-10 21:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
extra, but they ended up selling it half a year later at, if I remember
correctly, close to $10K *under* what we had offered.
Hopefully you took the time to go back and mock them in person.
Post by Kris Krieger
People are so weird. When we sold, a couple of the neighbors got PO'ed
because they thought we asked "too little" and it'd bring down their own
Did they offer ahead of time to subsidize the purchase price? Were they
willing to pay for the value they expected?
Post by Kris Krieger
eleveated above passer-by level ;)
"Look out belooooowww!" >splut<
Post by Kris Krieger
moisture. Takes a lot of deep digging and amendment.
Twenty years later some of the lots are looking nice (in and of themselves.
I still make no positive comment for the development that shouldn't be).
Post by Kris Krieger
better I supposed, because it shrinks as it dries and then expands when
wet, so you end up with a lot of structural stress...
see "Phoenix".
Kris Krieger
2005-11-10 22:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by gruhn
Post by Kris Krieger
extra, but they ended up selling it half a year later at, if I
remember correctly, close to $10K *under* what we had offered.
Hopefully you took the time to go back and mock them in person.
By that time, I was too busy trying to get a garden started, among all the
other stuff. Actually, IOW I forgot. Too much other brain input-output.
Like trying to memorize plant encyclopedias and so on :)

Heck, I had even forgotton abut $200 someone owed me - took me something
like 6 years to remember about it, by which time it made no sense to bother
as I was on the other side of the continent by then. ((Which is why I
don't loan anything!))
Post by gruhn
Post by Kris Krieger
People are so weird. When we sold, a couple of the neighbors got
PO'ed because they thought we asked "too little" and it'd bring down
their own
Did they offer ahead of time to subsidize the purchase price? Were
they willing to pay for the value they expected?
<LOL!> ;)

Well, you can imagine how much I actually cared about their "anguish", heh.
Post by gruhn
Post by Kris Krieger
eleveated above passer-by level ;)
"Look out belooooowww!" >splut<
*Exactly!* <L!> Also good for that boiling liquid during invasion
attempts ;)

((Mental image of Charles Laughton in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame",
spilling the huge puts of melted lead down onto the attackers...))
Post by gruhn
Post by Kris Krieger
moisture. Takes a lot of deep digging and amendment.
Twenty years later some of the lots are looking nice
heck of a long wait tho'...yet typical it seems...
Post by gruhn
(in and of
themselves. I still make no positive comment for the development that
shouldn't be).
<nod>
Post by gruhn
Post by Kris Krieger
better I supposed, because it shrinks as it dries and then expands
when wet, so you end up with a lot of structural stress...
see "Phoenix".
For clay? I thought it was packed sand - but that was just an assumption.

Another good reason to rent for a year before buying or building. Scope
out the soils (as well as climate, and everything else).
gruhn
2005-11-10 22:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by gruhn
see "Phoenix".
For clay? I thought it was packed sand - but that was just an assumption.
We have clayey sand and sandy clay for the most part.
Kris Krieger
2005-11-10 23:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by gruhn
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by gruhn
see "Phoenix".
For clay? I thought it was packed sand - but that was just an assumption.
We have clayey sand and sandy clay for the most part.
Is that what is called "hardpan"?

Sounds like quite a challenge. In S. CA, there was this stuff that was
like sand with a ot of ultra-fine silt of something in it. Very difficult
to dig up (which is how I got the partial tears in my achilles tendon -
nailed the other foot hitting those MA boulders witha chovel - switched to
using a pickaxe, whih worked really well). I amended it but not too
heavily except for the 2 areas (small as in, maybe 5'X5') that were mostly
shady and suitable for a bit more moisture.

Oh gawd, I'm starting up again with the plants =8-O !!
Muuuust.....stoppppp........!!!!

Kris Krieger
2005-11-07 21:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Don
Post by 3D Peruna
1) Waste water treatment. Eventually, I think that 80-90% of all
waste water will be treated on site and recycled. This will impact
large municiple waste water treatment plants.
2) Energy. Residential fuel cells, small scale fusion reactors
and other advancements will mean most energy is produced locally,
rather than regionally. This, too, will impact energy companies in
ways we can't imagine. We're still a decade (minimum) off, without
a major breakthrough.
For some.
Others are moving forward right now, me for example.
I mentioned in the past that I'm getting off the grid, I meant it.
Had an extensive conversation with a college prof just yesterday
about fuel cells and the possibility of building them myself and
next week my cousin, a nook-u-ler engineer at Three Mile Island, is
gonna give me the basics on some hi-tek solar stuff he's been
playing around with. In a year or 2 or 3 I expect to be selling
those converted natural resources BACK to the grid.
http://www.tsaugust.org/Renewables.htm#Engineering . Click and
download the PDF. Very interesting. The stuff that's most
interesting is the physical requirements for the use of renewable
energy (some many square miles of land for wind, so many square miles
for biomass, etc). I'm not sure how accurate these guy's numbers
are, but even if they're off by a factor of 10, most renewables
appear to be useless on a mass scale.
Thanks Paul, I'll check it out.
And of course I'll keep you informed as I move this thing forward.
Speaking of forward, I'm going to forward an E to you here in a minute
from my cousin the nuclear engineer at Three Mile Island.
He talks in terms I don't understand, but there are a couple of
*insider* pics you might find interesting.
All in this sub-topic sounds like good stuff to me.

Whatever the masses do, is IMO not the point when it coems down to trying
to live one's own life. I personally am not convinced that non-oil-based
energy is useless on a large scale - some states are already using it), but
regardless, nothing wrong with being as off-grid as possible, IMO.
3D Peruna
2005-11-07 22:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
All in this sub-topic sounds like good stuff to me.
Whatever the masses do, is IMO not the point when it coems down to trying
to live one's own life. I personally am not convinced that non-oil-based
energy is useless on a large scale - some states are already using it), but
regardless, nothing wrong with being as off-grid as possible, IMO.
What do you mean "non-oil-based energy"? And, which states are already
using it?
Kris Krieger
2005-11-07 23:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Kris Krieger
All in this sub-topic sounds like good stuff to me.
Whatever the masses do, is IMO not the point when it coems down to
trying to live one's own life. I personally am not convinced that
non-oil-based energy is useless on a large scale - some states are
already using it), but
regardless, nothing wrong with being as off-grid as possible, IMO.
What do you mean "non-oil-based energy"? And, which states are
already using it?
CA has at least one large wind-farm, I thought NM did as well. I thought
thre were a few others.

I mean electricity not generated by burning petroleum.

I know that metals require alot of heat for shaping, alloying, etc., and
nope, I don't know the figures for how much oil or coal the furnaces burn.
But I'm not sure that's the point because making a wind turbine is a one
time event, whereas running a home (esp. one that is energy-intensive) goes
on and on.
3D Peruna
2005-11-08 01:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Kris Krieger
All in this sub-topic sounds like good stuff to me.
Whatever the masses do, is IMO not the point when it coems down to
trying to live one's own life. I personally am not convinced that
non-oil-based energy is useless on a large scale - some states are
already using it), but
regardless, nothing wrong with being as off-grid as possible, IMO.
What do you mean "non-oil-based energy"? And, which states are
already using it?
CA has at least one large wind-farm, I thought NM did as well. I thought
thre were a few others.
Yes...there are wind farms all over the place. The problem is that they
generate a fraction of a percent of the electricity the country uses. In
order for them to make a dent in our total usage, the area required is
something on the order of all of the New England states combined. And even
then you need to take into account the fact that the wind doesn't always
blow hard enough. Yes, it's being used, but it's the proverbial drop in the
bucket <bold><italics><underline> and it always will be a drop in the
bucket, no more </underline></italics></bold>.
Post by Kris Krieger
I mean electricity not generated by burning petroleum.
OK....what other options are there? How many are cost effective? How about
effective at all on a mass scale at the quality level we've come to expect?
I know of only one economically feasible one at this time.
Post by Kris Krieger
I know that metals require alot of heat for shaping, alloying, etc., and
nope, I don't know the figures for how much oil or coal the furnaces burn.
But I'm not sure that's the point because making a wind turbine is a one
time event, whereas running a home (esp. one that is energy-intensive) goes
on and on.
Read the report I sited...look at the math done regarding the physical
requirements (much less the infrastructure requirements). You'll learn that
wind energy, on a large scale, is a boondoggle, too.

Hey...I'd love to have cheap, renewable, clean electricity. The fact is,
we're not even close to being there yet. We've not invented the techology
to make it happen.
Kris Krieger
2005-11-08 22:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Kris Krieger
All in this sub-topic sounds like good stuff to me.
Whatever the masses do, is IMO not the point when it coems down to
trying to live one's own life. I personally am not convinced that
non-oil-based energy is useless on a large scale - some states are
already using it), but
regardless, nothing wrong with being as off-grid as possible, IMO.
What do you mean "non-oil-based energy"? And, which states are
already using it?
CA has at least one large wind-farm, I thought NM did as well. I
thought thre were a few others.
Yes...there are wind farms all over the place. The problem is that
they generate a fraction of a percent of the electricity the country
uses. In order for them to make a dent in our total usage, the area
required is something on the order of all of the New England states
combined.
Part of the problem is people and businesses waste and squander. As long
as energy is reasonably cheap, they will continue to do so.

That being said, what I think will happen out of necessity is a few things:
(1) fossil fuel use will become extremely expensive
(2) as fossil fuel use lessens, alternative energy use will increase
(3) as the cost of energy increases, energy consumption will decrease and
people will turn to technologies that use less electricity

Can alt. energy completely meet the current and growing demands for energy?

Of course not. But I don't think that useage can remain at its current
levels.

The article you emntioned cites all these reason why wind energy is
supposedly a boondoggle.

Well, fine, and meanwhile, what....?

The thing I loathe so much about naysayers is that
*they NEVER offer answers*.

For each and every idea anyone wants tot try, the naysayers have a hundred
"reasons" why it will supposedly never work. All they do is find excuses
for not taking steps to start changing the way people do things.
Technology takes time to develop but part of that development process is
building the thing and then seeing how it works, where its inefficiencies
lie, and making improvements. Sitting around complainning that this or
that can't completely meet all our energy "needs" (many of which are, let's
face it, just pure gluttony and not needs at all) is worse than useless, it
gets in the way of people who are trying to develop new technologies.

Naysayers have always existed - I'd bet dollars to donuts that there were
two dozen people standing around, whining about having to carry heavy
loads, but telling the guy who invented the wheel that it was a stupid
useless thing to bother with.


The plain harsh reality is that, if humans insist upon continuing to
worship fertility gods, then the planet's resources will get used up and
become increasingly scarce - because recycling, as we know, is such a huge
inconvenience <gag a maggot!>. Oooh, ooh, they crow, We conquered out
environment! Well so would slime mold if it had no serious competition.
Historically, people generally have shown no more long-term intelligence
than a colony of 'Pseudomonas aeruginosa' in a petri dish, multiplying and
spreading until all the nutrients are used up and the whole thing is just a
dead stinking slime.

The thing is that bacteria don't have the cability to figure out how to
recycle and reach any sort of equilibrium within the petrie dish. Humans
claim that they do - they're always run around crowing about being oh-so-
superior to "mere animals", well fine then, let 'em *prove* it. They
haven't proven it so far. Will they prove it in the future? Personally,
for most, I don't think so. I think that, if it was left up to the masses,
those dead dinos would be burned up as bloody fast as possible and so what
if our choking, pollution-mutated great-great-grandkids are left holding
the bag - the current masses will be dead so they don't see it as being
their problem.

There is a minority, however, of people who do try to think about - and
find solutions for - things like trying to maintain something resembling
*quality* of life, achieving some sort of equilibrium between human
numbers, human needs, human desires, and availability of resources. They
are not the ones who are merely sitting around pissing and moaning that
this or that current technology cannot 100% meet all current and future
demands for energy or food or housing or whatever. The plain fact is that
it is *impossible* to do so, because humans are multiplying geometrically
and because deisres never decrease, tehyonly increase. The harsh reality
is that *eventually*, humans will have to learn to limit their demands.
That's got nothing to do with politics or technology or religion or
anything - it's a matter of biology and sustainability. Humans cannot
maintain a continually expaning economy or population - unless of course
they also figure out how to terraform, or live on, other planets - which of
course nobody wants to spend the money doing...

Eventually, reality is going to bite the human race right in its
collectoive ass. The question is whether the *doers* (maybe, what, 5%-10%
of the population?) will have enough oomph to save the human race from
itself.
zenboom
2005-11-08 16:40:04 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Kris Krieger
Whatever the masses do, is IMO not the point when it coems down to trying
to live one's own life. I personally am not convinced that non-oil-based
energy is useless on a large scale - some states are already using it), but
regardless, nothing wrong with being as off-grid as possible, IMO.
uh, no. the 'masses' will continue on their course til we hit the wall. this
will effect your life. best to prepare for that.
Edgar
2005-11-08 16:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Edgar
The thing about these cars though, is not the fact that they use less
energy (its hard to say with the inherent energy used in making the
batteries, the heavy metals used in those batteries, and the plug in
costs), but rather get us away from being dependent on oil. But I
haven't seen anything about truly lowering energy usage. I think that
will come with a move to more local economies.
I think Edgar is right... instead of larger "infrastructure", we'll move
1) Waste water treatment. Eventually, I think that 80-90% of all waste
water will be treated on site and recycled. This will impact large
municiple waste water treatment plants.
2) Energy. Residential fuel cells, small scale fusion reactors and other
advancements will mean most energy is produced locally, rather than
regionally. This, too, will impact energy companies in ways we can't
imagine. We're still a decade (minimum) off, without a major
breakthrough.
For some.
Others are moving forward right now, me for example.
I mentioned in the past that I'm getting off the grid, I meant it.
Had an extensive conversation with a college prof just yesterday about fuel
cells and the possibility of building them myself and next week my cousin, a
nook-u-ler engineer at Three Mile Island, is gonna give me the basics on
some hi-tek solar stuff he's been playing around with. In a year or 2 or 3 I
expect to be selling those converted natural resources BACK to the grid.
Cool, are we allowed to see some of this stuff. I'm on the 10 year plan :).
--
Edgar
Don
2005-11-08 18:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgar
Cool, are we allowed to see some of this stuff. I'm on the 10 year plan :).
But of course.
I'll gladly pass on any info/discovery's I find.
3D Peruna
2005-11-02 17:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Ever notice that number of offspring is inversely proportional to IQ...?
Meaning?

My wife's family has 7 children, all of which are rather intelligent,
including the youngest in a PhD Chem program.

Or, does that make my in-laws low in IQ?

Or, maybe, you really didn't mean what you said.
Edgar
2005-11-02 18:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Kris Krieger
Ever notice that number of offspring is inversely proportional to IQ...?
Meaning?
My wife's family has 7 children, all of which are rather intelligent,
including the youngest in a PhD Chem program.
Or, does that make my in-laws low in IQ?
Or, maybe, you really didn't mean what you said.
Could it be, someone's been caught generalizing again...no, no way, not
in this group.
--
Edgar
Don
2005-11-02 18:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Kris Krieger
Ever notice that number of offspring is inversely proportional to IQ...?
Meaning?
My wife's family has 7 children, all of which are rather intelligent,
including the youngest in a PhD Chem program.
Or, does that make my in-laws low in IQ?
Or, maybe, you really didn't mean what you said.
Could it be, someone's been caught generalizing again...no, no way, not in
this group.
I get his point though. The tendency is that the more kids you have, the
less time you have to spend with them and thus they end up like eggplants.
The intelligent and caring parent(s) will spend as much time with their kids
as possible to grow them into upstanding human adults.
I'm watching an example of this going on across the street right now. They
have 4 kids from 6 to 11 and the dad almost starts to well up when he tells
me, 'Its all about the kids'. Yet they let the kids run the neighborhood all
day long. I predict that in about 10-12 years the 2 little 6 y.o. twin boys
will be in some serious trouble. You can see it in their eyes. Their 11 y.o.
daughter is already causing them some problems. A kid isn't like a cat or a
begonia, that you can neglect with little consequence. They require
*maintenance* every single day, all day long.
Don
2005-11-02 18:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Ever notice that number of offspring is inversely proportional to IQ...?
Meaning? Or, maybe, you really didn't mean what you said.
I wondered about that sentence too.
I don't think its the quantity but rather the quality of the exchange
between the parents and the kids over a long period of time.
As parents spend less and less time with their kids, packing them off to the
public prisons, then to the after school programs and the day cares, then
disassociating with them at home, no wonder there's millions of people
running around unable to think these days. Expect it to get worse, much,
much worse, before it gets better, if it ever gets better at all.....
Kris Krieger
2005-11-02 19:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Kris Krieger
Ever notice that number of offspring is inversely proportional to IQ...?
Meaning? Or, maybe, you really didn't mean what you said.
I wondered about that sentence too.
I don't think its the quantity but rather the quality of the exchange
between the parents and the kids over a long period of time.
As parents spend less and less time with their kids, packing them off
to the public prisons, then to the after school programs and the day
cares, then disassociating with them at home, no wonder there's
millions of people running around unable to think these days. Expect
it to get worse, much, much worse, before it gets better, if it ever
gets better at all.....
I didn't add the proper disclaimers, but yup, you got that part of it.

The other part is that there are more people focused on procreation, yet
forgetting about the care issue that you mentioned in your other post.
Also, people living on gov.t support tend to receive an increase in that
support every time they have another kid. OTOH, people working for a bank,
a graphics shop, a computer company, a corporation, or, like you, as an
independent small-business person, do NOT automatically receive an income
increase if they have another kid.

((Note that I am not equating wealth with intelligence, because the two do
not seem to correlate.))

And still another part is that, although some people *are* able to really
care for *all* the kids, it's generally the case that at least well-
educated people do tend to have fewer children, but invest more resources
(time, care, attention, money) in each child. That's not something I just
made up, it's a statistic. At the same time, people who are less educated
are more prone to accepting the idea that, in terms of procreation,
quantity is important. That's not something I made up.


And on top of all of that, poverty levels aren't exactly DEcreasing in the
US. The average (or is it median - I get the 2 confused) income is, last I
read, around $44K/yr, but the poverty level for a family of 4 is now at
about $35K per year. More poverty usually means not only fewer
opportunities for good education, but more significantly, poor nutrition,
which has a direct influence upon brain development. Simultaneously,
parents near or below the poverty level, working is low-paying jobs, which
often tend to be less secure, would be under more stress due to financial
pressures, and probably also work longer hours, leaving less time for
taking care of kids. If that *is* combined with a greater tendency to
beleive that quantity of children is important, well I'll just say that the
scenario is not good. And if the kids also end up in the same lifestyle,
and themselves have a lot of kids, the number of people in that position
increases geometrically.
Don
2005-11-02 21:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
The other part is that there are more people focused on procreation, yet
forgetting about the care issue that you mentioned in your other post.
That right there is one of the strongest negative issues facing society
today, that many people wanna fuck without getting stuck, and if they do get
stuck well, so what? There are doodz running around right now that think
they aren't a *man* unless they've fathered some kids. HA! Even basal
animals have sex, its instinctual, and of no consequence as to someone's
*manliness*. In reality a real man understands the consequences of his
actions and gauges himself accordingly. IF, and thats a big if, the powers
that be took a strict role in holding people accountable for their actions
in this regard you would see, over time, a marked improvement in society
overall. Creating a human being is inarguably the most important thing any
human can do, and if you really think about it it sort of magical that the
whole thing works like it does, yet this has been reduced to mere recreation
through hedonistic desires with no consequence. I have about 46 years of
memories of my dad and my mom and I cannot imagine the void that would exist
in my life right now if my dad, or mom, had taken the attitude with us kids
that so many kids today live with. It is unfathomable to me to not know or
remember my dad. I would be less than 1/2 a person and undoubtedly I would
be more of a hindrance to society than a benefit. Recent history supports
what I am saying.
Kris Krieger
2005-11-02 22:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Kris Krieger
The other part is that there are more people focused on procreation,
yet forgetting about the care issue that you mentioned in your other
post.
That right there is one of the strongest negative issues facing
society today, that many people wanna fuck without getting stuck, and
if they do get stuck well, so what?
Yup.
Post by Don
There are doodz running around
right now that think they aren't a *man* unless they've fathered some
kids. HA! Even basal animals have sex, its instinctual, and of no
consequence as to someone's *manliness*.
Please, that whole blivet is simply disgusting.

Even a bacterium (e.g., cells of E. coli) can stick a tube into another
bacterium and inject genetic material. Well whoopie, these people can
function at the level of an intestinal organism. Well doesn't that make me
want to fall all over myself with awe and respect for them.

I have more respect for a tapeworm.
Post by Don
In reality a real man
understands the consequences of his actions and gauges himself
accordingly.
Precisely. And takes responsibility (ethically, financially, and in all
other ways) for the outcome of those actions/choices.

Everyone makes mistakes, experiences errors in judgement, but it's one
thing to take responsibility for them and at least try to correct them, or
live with them if need be - it's a whole different ball of crap to just
whine that "nobody's perfect" and we're all supposed to love and respect
and cherish a meatblob who exhibits all the humanity of a botfly larva.
Post by Don
IF, and thats a big if, the powers that be took a strict
role in holding people accountable for their actions in this regard
you would see, over time, a marked improvement in society overall.
Creating a human being is inarguably the most important thing any
human can do,
At least one of the most serious...
Post by Don
and if you really think about it it sort of magical that
the whole thing works like it does, yet this has been reduced to mere
recreation through hedonistic desires with no consequence. I have
about 46 years of memories of my dad and my mom and I cannot imagine
the void that would exist in my life right now if my dad, or mom, had
taken the attitude with us kids that so many kids today live with.
Well, I know what it's like to be little more than an unwelcome additional
burden, so I have not even the smallest shred of even tolerance (never mind
respect!) for people who act as tho' children are just *things*, or in the
case of too damn many people, less impotant than their *things*, less
important than their own warped little self-obsessed manipulative egos,
less important than getting drunk or high. If someone doesn't want to rear
the child properly and lovingly, then put him or her up for adoption so
someone who is capable of love, care, and teaching can take care of the
child.

Sorry but as much as I have tried to be tolerant and understanding of
peole's plights, one thing I find unforgivable is having children and then
giving them nothing but neglect and abuse and resentment and so on. If
someone wants to foul up their own life, well, that's their business and I
really don't care - but there is no excuse for putting a child through a
meat grinder.
Post by Don
It
is unfathomable to me to not know or remember my dad. I would be less
than 1/2 a person and undoubtedly I would be more of a hindrance to
society than a benefit. Recent history supports what I am saying.
History, psychology, even myths and legends. This is an ancient truth, not
some recent discovery. But a truth that some poeple simply are not capable
of comprehending.
Kris Krieger
2005-11-02 19:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Kris Krieger
Ever notice that number of offspring is inversely proportional to IQ...?
Meaning?
My wife's family has 7 children, all of which are rather intelligent,
including the youngest in a PhD Chem program.
Or, does that make my in-laws low in IQ?
If you want to take it onto a personal plane, well, *I* have a pair of
relatives who are dim bulbs and have something like 12 kids - some of the
kids are OK, some are totally whacked out, none are all that well-off.

But that's not the point. It isn't personally or specifically about
various members of our respective families. It's something that seems to
me to generally be the case. OK, maybe I should have added on a lot of
hedge words and disclaimers, so mea culpa for not being politically correct
- but don't try to lay a guilt trip on me by implying that I'm
intentionally and personally and specifically insulting any specific
person's family.
Post by 3D Peruna
Or, maybe, you really didn't mean what you said.
Merely that, from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to work that way most of
the time. "Most" meaning, technically, anything more than 50%.

But I keep forgetting (being, as I am, PC-impaired) that these days, most
of the time, people are increasingly prone to take even statistical info as
personal insults, rather than looking at whether the statistic is valid
and, if so, how it can be changed for the better - all of which meaning
that one is not to express personal opinions that are PC or, at the least,
are not in keeping with the norm/majority.

Personally, I think that competent, intelligent people *should* have larger
families. So, better to instead ask (1) whether this gloomy-gus impression
is reflected by actual statistics, and (2) if it is, why would that be the
trend and how can it be mitigated.

At the same time, in purely statistical terms, if the average (i.e. 50% of
the population) IQ is between 90 and 100 (it used to be 100 to 110 but it's
dropped), and if 50%+X% of the population is under 130, then simple raw
statistics indicate that there are comparatively few children of, for
example, people with 160+ IQs, simply because relatively few people *have*
160+ IQs.

So, you in-laws are probably part of the minority. Given the statistics
for educational levels, only a minority of people get a 4-yr degree in
science, and an even smaller minority get PhDs in science. So if your in-
law finishes the PhD, that's great but it wouldn't change the statistic
that the vast majority of people do not get PhDs in science, and citing the
statistic would not be intended as an insult to those who do.


And, last but not least - frankly, if someone can contest my gloomy
impression with statistical info to the contrary, hey, that's be GREAT, I'd
actually really like to know that my general cynicism is unfounded.

Additionally, if someone wants to say, well, that is not their own
observation, that's OK, and if someone says they think I'm full of hot air,
fine. But, sorry, the guilt trip doesn't work.
Notan
2005-11-02 19:19:57 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Additionally, if someone wants to say, well, that is not their own
observation, that's OK, and if someone says they think I'm full of hot air,
fine. But, sorry, the guilt trip doesn't work.
While there are exceptions to every rule, my observations have been
similar to yours... The majority of large families, that I've seen,
are *not* society's brightest bulbs.

Notan
Kris Krieger
2005-11-02 19:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Notan
<snip>
Additionally, if someone wants to say, well, that is not their own
observation, that's OK, and if someone says they think I'm full of
hot air, fine. But, sorry, the guilt trip doesn't work.
While there are exceptions to every rule, my observations have been
similar to yours... The majority of large families, that I've seen,
are *not* society's brightest bulbs.
Notan
It's sort of like the fact that most of the kids with whom I went to school
*did* end up working in places like the GM plant and the Exxon refinery.
Which is what, as I've prob. mentioned at some point (can't recall), my HS
"guicance councellor" told me I would end up doing as a "dumb pollak" and
that I therefore shouldn't even think about going to a 2-yr college, never
mind Rutgers, and as a science major to boot. The point being that, yup,
there *are* norms that exist.

The other point, tho', is that on eought to question the extent to which
they exist merely as a function of, so to speak, "brainwashing". IOW, your
kid goes to public school - well, if it's a low-quality school in an
industrial or poor area, the chances are that most of the teachers are
either burned out, or couldn't get better positions, so it's therefore also
likely that the children will receive a less vigorous education, a lower
quality education, and be more subject to the expectation that they will
never leave that industrial or poor environment.

What would happen if, all other things (ethnicity, class, economics) being
equal, the kids instead had, right from the start, an energetic, high-
quality education and expectations of, or at least encouragement to,
achieve, develop their abilities to the fullest? Even more radical, what
if they also received a quality, nourishing breakfast before class? And I
don't mean the junk that gets passed off as school food.


The whole point is that statistics do not have to be static. If they do
remain static, much of that is because most people prefer stability to the
uncertainties of change, even if the situation is bad or untenable. It
seems to be that most of the time, people in situation X are mostly
interested in (1) blaming someone because the situation is X (rather than
taking responsibility for trying to change X, since that takes effort), and
(2) having their kids follow in their footsteps because if the kids
achieved more, it'd make the parents look bad. Sometimes, "tradition" ends
up being just another word for "stagnation". I've seen families and
neighborhoods like that, where the kids are DIS-couraged from "fantasizing"
about being scientists, or architects, or whatever, by families and peers
and the public 'school' as well. And usually, from what I've seen, having
as many kids as possible seems to go along with the rest of the
brainwashing that occurs. It's a vicious cycle.
Don
2005-11-02 20:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Notan
While there are exceptions to every rule, my observations have been
similar to yours... The majority of large families, that I've seen,
are *not* society's brightest bulbs.
About 10 years ago the Wall Street Journal had an article that stated it
cost $180k to raise a kid from conception to college graduation and its even
more now I suppose. Prior to that, about 1986, understanding the cost in
money, time and effort, I realized that we just couldn't afford anymore kids
so I went under the knife.
So in my observation Kris's statement was a generalization thats not too far
from accurate. Don't believe me? Go sit in a WalMart / KMart parking lot and
keep your eyes peeled, you'll see. LOL
P Fritz
2005-11-02 21:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Notan
While there are exceptions to every rule, my observations have been
similar to yours... The majority of large families, that I've seen,
are *not* society's brightest bulbs.
About 10 years ago the Wall Street Journal had an article that stated it
cost $180k to raise a kid from conception to college graduation and its even
more now I suppose.
Those are piss poor stats when you start to analize them and look at the
agenda behind them.
Post by Don
Prior to that, about 1986, understanding the cost in
money, time and effort, I realized that we just couldn't afford anymore kids
so I went under the knife.
So in my observation Kris's statement was a generalization thats not too far
from accurate. Don't believe me? Go sit in a WalMart / KMart parking lot and
keep your eyes peeled, you'll see. LOL
Don
2005-11-03 01:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by P Fritz
Post by Don
About 10 years ago the Wall Street Journal had an article that stated it
cost $180k to raise a kid from conception to college graduation and its
even
Post by Don
more now I suppose.
Those are piss poor stats when you start to analize them and look at the
agenda behind them.
There's lots of factors in that $180k.
For example, everytime we've moved I've given 100's of dollars worth of my
sons old toys and books and stuff to the neighbors kids.
Them toys cost $$$ and when you have an only child the parents tend to
splurge.
Just yesterday I gave the little boys across the street my sons old He Man -
Castle Greyskull from back about 1985, they loved it.
The next time we move some lucky kids will get the enormous Teenage Mutant
Ninja turtle collection.
Kidz ain't cheap, unless you treat em that way.......
3D Peruna
2005-11-02 20:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by 3D Peruna
Or, maybe, you really didn't mean what you said.
Merely that, from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to work that way most of
the time. "Most" meaning, technically, anything more than 50%.
But I keep forgetting (being, as I am, PC-impaired) that these days, most
of the time, people are increasingly prone to take even statistical info as
personal insults, rather than looking at whether the statistic is valid
and, if so, how it can be changed for the better - all of which meaning
that one is not to express personal opinions that are PC or, at the least,
are not in keeping with the norm/majority.
It's not about being PC... I've seen examples like yours...12 kids and not
particuarly bright parents (almost as if they didn't realize there was a
connection to sex and pregnancy). I also have some relatives who've adopted
many kids (too many, if you ask me), and they're screwed up, too--and it's
obviously not genetic, but environmental.

I suppose my point is that perceived anectodal experiences do not make for a
statistical analysis (this is the kind of crap that gets thrown around to
"prove" human caused global warming -- and if you want an eye opener into
how bad that field is screwed up, spend some time on
http://www.climateaudit.org - start with "McKitrick: What is the Hockey
Stick debate about?)

Observations can be useful -- and stereotypes exist for a reason, too. But
in this case, I'm not sure there's enough to hang your hat on. It didn't
offend me, either. Personally, I think the current social life in this
country promotes stupidity. I've worked with enough kids to see that in the
general population "being smart" is not cool. Some of them go out of their
way to be stupid...and this is true regardless of family size.
Don
2005-11-02 21:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
It's not about being PC... I've seen examples like yours...12 kids and
not particuarly bright parents (almost as if they didn't realize there was
a connection to sex and pregnancy).
Saw something on the toob one time that said it took man a long, long time
to realize the connection between having sex and the birth of a child.
This was further enhanced by the fact that the mother couldn't conceive
while nursing a prior one.
Its amazing that we have come as far as we have.
Kris Krieger
2005-11-02 21:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3D Peruna
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by 3D Peruna
Or, maybe, you really didn't mean what you said.
Merely that, from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to work that way
most of the time. "Most" meaning, technically, anything more than
50%.
But I keep forgetting (being, as I am, PC-impaired) that these days,
most of the time, people are increasingly prone to take even
statistical info as
personal insults, rather than looking at whether the statistic is
valid and, if so, how it can be changed for the better - all of which
meaning that one is not to express personal opinions that are PC or,
at the least, are not in keeping with the norm/majority.
It's not about being PC... I've seen examples like yours...12 kids
and not particuarly bright parents (almost as if they didn't realize
there was a connection to sex and pregnancy).
One factor.
Post by 3D Peruna
I also have some
relatives who've adopted many kids (too many, if you ask me), and
they're screwed up, too--and it's obviously not genetic, but
environmental.
Right.
Post by 3D Peruna
I suppose my point is that perceived anectodal experiences do not make
for a statistical analysis
And a coment made in a cynical moment also is not statistical analysis.
I'll say it once more, mea culpa for not addin in the appropriate
disclaimers. But I haven't seen anything that proves it to be completely
100% bogus. Again, it'd be *nice* to see some stats that prove the comment
is just a blivet. Until then, it's my casual observation that it's more
often true than not. Which doesn't in itself deny that your observation
might be different.
Post by 3D Peruna
(this is the kind of crap that gets thrown
around to "prove" human caused global warming -- and if you want an
eye opener into how bad that field is screwed up, spend some time on
http://www.climateaudit.org - start with "McKitrick: What is the
Hockey Stick debate about?)
I'm not sure it's a good analogy, because there is some science behind the
warnings. And I have no patience whatsoever for the opposing notion of "we
didn't cause it all, so we can pollute and multiply and screw the
environment up however much we want".

Very few things are either-or situations; most are interactions between two
or more phemomena. That being said, if something *can* be mitigated, it
seems silly to simply let things continue getting worse.
Post by 3D Peruna
Observations can be useful -- and stereotypes exist for a reason, too.
But in this case, I'm not sure there's enough to hang your hat on.
It didn't offend me, either. Personally, I think the current social
life in this country promotes stupidity. I've worked with enough kids
to see that in the general population "being smart" is not cool. Some
of them go out of their way to be stupid...and this is true regardless
of family size.
Granted on all of the above. But it still seems to me that people who are
more thoughtful are generally not very inclined to have more children than
they can effectively rear and support.
3D Peruna
2005-11-02 22:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by 3D Peruna
I suppose my point is that perceived anectodal experiences do not make
for a statistical analysis
And a coment made in a cynical moment also is not statistical analysis.
I'll say it once more, mea culpa for not addin in the appropriate
disclaimers. But I haven't seen anything that proves it to be completely
100% bogus. Again, it'd be *nice* to see some stats that prove the comment
is just a blivet. Until then, it's my casual observation that it's more
often true than not. Which doesn't in itself deny that your observation
might be different.
Post by 3D Peruna
(this is the kind of crap that gets thrown
around to "prove" human caused global warming -- and if you want an
eye opener into how bad that field is screwed up, spend some time on
http://www.climateaudit.org - start with "McKitrick: What is the
Hockey Stick debate about?)
I'm not sure it's a good analogy, because there is some science behind the
warnings. And I have no patience whatsoever for the opposing notion of "we
didn't cause it all, so we can pollute and multiply and screw the
environment up however much we want".
Very few things are either-or situations; most are interactions between two
or more phemomena. That being said, if something *can* be mitigated, it
seems silly to simply let things continue getting worse.
Didn't say that...only that the current state of climate science is very
sad... The thing I've learned in the past couple of months regarding
climate is that we know so little that we don't even know if any of the
things we might do would actually mitigate any potential "problems" the
climate might be having.

I'm against pollution, dirty water, etc... I have no problem saying that
indivudals (and individuals running companies) should limit the negative
impact on the environment. And, to that end, less government, rather than
more, will eventually be more effective.

(PS - spend some time at climate audit...seriously. You'll be amazed...,
even if the math ends up being above your head)
zenboom
2005-11-02 23:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Kris Krieger
Ever notice that number of offspring is inversely proportional to IQ...?
<snip>
Post by Kris Krieger
At the same time, in purely statistical terms, if the average (i.e. 50% of
the population) IQ is between 90 and 100 (it used to be 100 to 110 but it's
dropped), and if 50%+X% of the population is under 130, then simple raw
statistics indicate that there are comparatively few children of, for
example, people with 160+ IQs, simply because relatively few people *have*
160+ IQs.
So, you in-laws are probably part of the minority. Given the statistics
for educational levels, only a minority of people get a 4-yr degree in
science, and an even smaller minority get PhDs in science. So if your in-
law finishes the PhD, that's great but it wouldn't change the statistic
that the vast majority of people do not get PhDs in science, and citing the
statistic would not be intended as an insult to those who do.
surely it's clear that 'IQ' is a limited evaluation ? Nor does it correspond
to Education. And that good character is more effective than both??

one should say "there, but for Grace..." since each one gets what they
didn't ask for. it's the blessed few that realize it's up to themselves to
move on up...the great thing thing is that anyone can do this for themselves
whenever they take stock and accept the possibility. so beware defining
persons, yourself especially - this thing was made to change!

adios
zenboom
2005-11-02 22:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kris Krieger
Post by Don
Post by Cato
Haven't you ever noticed the bumps on the steering wheel and the the
gear pattern indentions on the shifter? I hope you didn't think
those were for your comfort and aesthetic appeal? ;-)
My truck has a 5 speed stick.
Over the years the knob has slowly turned, and keeps on turning, right
now it is almost upside down but in a month it will be upright again.
Anyway, awhile back I was getting the brakes done and the lady behind
the counter went out to move my truck into the bay.
I saw her get in but she never moved it.
Finally she came in and asked me to move it because she couldn't get
it into reverse.
(reverse is to the right and down,
Isn't that consistent across *all* passenger vehicles...??
I've never driven a panel truck or larger so I don't know about them, but
it's weird IMO that anyone would really *need* to look at the knob...
Post by Don
but the knob was showing to the
left and up - even though the R was upside down)
ah, sadly, no. the makers esp like to move the reverse around... maybe you
have to push the stick down, or pull a lever up... [ i'm thinking just
German makes, for instance ] ... and then theres reversing the turn and
wiper positions! :7
Kris Krieger
2005-11-02 22:53:20 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by zenboom
Post by Kris Krieger
Isn't that consistent across *all* passenger vehicles...??
I've never driven a panel truck or larger so I don't know about them,
but it's weird IMO that anyone would really *need* to look at the
knob...
Post by Don
but the knob was showing to the
left and up - even though the R was upside down)
ah, sadly, no. the makers esp like to move the reverse around... maybe
you have to push the stick down, or pull a lever up... [ i'm thinking
just German makes, for instance ] ... and then theres reversing the
turn and wiper positions! :7
Oh... Well ya learn something every day ;)
Don
2005-11-02 01:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Notan
Why do drive-up ATMs have braille instruction/buttons?
For the blind customers that pull up on their motorized tricyles, silly.
Pablo
2005-11-02 02:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Notan
Why do drive-up ATMs have braille instruction/buttons?
Notan
I would imagine that the manufacturer only makes one set of buttons,
which end up being used on walk-up ATMs as well as drive-thru ATMs.

That's always been my thought when hearing this question, anyway.

-Pablo
Don
2005-11-02 02:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Notan
Why do drive-up ATMs have braille instruction/buttons?
I would imagine that the manufacturer only makes one set of buttons, which
end up being used on walk-up ATMs as well as drive-thru ATMs.
That's always been my thought when hearing this question, anyway.
One of these days I'm gonna walk up to an ATM with a punch and a hammer and
change some of the words around.....
(how does a blind person know the diff between bills?)
Lanze
2005-11-02 16:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
One of these days I'm gonna walk up to an ATM with a punch and a hammer
and change some of the words around.....
(how does a blind person know the diff between bills?)
Only in Canada you say. pity...........ours bills do have Braille imprints.
SORRY!
eds
2005-11-02 16:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Blind friend of mine says the bill texture is different, but he is a great
joker. He also really sails boats, skis, rides a bike, and has appeared on
TV fencing. His favorite comment is "are you blind or something?"
EDS
Post by Don
One of these days I'm gonna walk up to an ATM with a punch and a hammer
and change some of the words around.....
(how does a blind person know the diff between bills?)
Only in Canada you say. pity...........ours bills do have Braille
imprints. SORRY!
Don
2005-11-02 18:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
(how does a blind person know the diff between bills?)
Only in Canada you say. pity...........ours bills do have Braille
imprints. SORRY!
really?
Won't the dots go flat over time?
Lanze
2005-11-02 19:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Only if you take a hammer to them Don.......................one of these
days lol..
Post by Don
Won't the dots go flat over time?
Pablo
2005-11-03 04:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Notan
Why do drive-up ATMs have braille instruction/buttons?
I would imagine that the manufacturer only makes one set of buttons, which
end up being used on walk-up ATMs as well as drive-thru ATMs.
That's always been my thought when hearing this question, anyway.
One of these days I'm gonna walk up to an ATM with a punch and a hammer and
change some of the words around.....
(how does a blind person know the diff between bills?)
Well, haven't they been trying to change the size of the different
denominations of bills so that a blind person could tell the difference?
I thought that's one of the reasons for different size bills (obviously
not with USD).

This reminded me when someone told me that they had a blind friend who
ran a cash register (or...something?), and the friend could tell the
exact amount of change based on the weight he felt in his hand.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...