Electric Bikes

On Fri, 04 Jun 2021 18:21:30 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:17:16 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:44:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 06:30:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Frank, when you're making your stupid comments it might be wise to actually know what you're talking about. Tell us what American company is presently making solar panels and what type they are?

U.S. solar panel manufacturers: a list of American-made solar panels
https://news.energysage.com/u-s-solar-panel-manufacturers-list-american-made-solar-panels/

DAM- Jeff!!!!! Why do you keep putting out these simple facts to disprove Tom and make him a Liar?

Sorry. That was an accident. I decided that I was wasting too much
time correcting Tom's mistakes and that I have some better things to
do this summer. Unfortunately, I couldn't resist reading a few R.B.T.
articles and landed on Tom's proclamation declaring the US solar panel
manufacturing business to be dead. Before I could stop myself, I
reflexively searched for applicable information and posted what looked
like accurate information contradicting Tom's unsubstantiated
allegation. I would have included a few choice quotes, but didn't
feel that it was necessary because the entire article contradicts
Tom's allegation. Elapsed time, including reading the article twice,
was about 5 minutes. Since Tom's replies were the usual insults and
topic changes, I suspect that the 5 minutes might have exceeded his
attention span.

Mo

"Outsourcing? Not LG - Our Solar Panels are Made by Us"
https://www.lg.com/us/solar/blog/outsourcing-not-lg-our-solar-panels-are-made-by-us

"Top 5 American solar panel manufacturers in 2020"
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/best-american-solar-panel-manufacturers

You might find this video interesting:
"Solar Panel Showdown: Sunpower VS Bifacial VS Used VS Renogy VS Rich
Solar"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-auRHKq2-A (13:46)
https://www.youtube.com/c/WillProwse/videos
Will Prowse runs a few simple tests of various solar panels. Solar
panels don't seem to follow the advertised specs and promises.

The, perhaps horrifying, question then becomes are you, or is Tom the
"typical American"? Or to phrase it another way, "has the U.S. become
a nation where unsupported "tweets" have become the truth"?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 08:33:00 +0700, John B.
wrote:

The, perhaps horrifying, question then becomes are you, or is Tom the
"typical American"? Or to phrase it another way, "has the U.S. become
a nation where unsupported "tweets" have become the truth"?

Well, yes. Twitter, SMS, and texting have become the preferred method
of communicating dissent. It's nothing new. During the Revolutionary
War, the means of discussing politics was in long and tedious papers
such as the Federalist Papers. If one wanted to express disagreement,
it was as an editorial or pamphlet. Move forward to the 19th century,
where improved transportation allowed the political discussions to
morph into long winded political speeches. Disagreement was expressed
as heckling in sentence fragments from the audience. Discussion then
switched to newspapers and printed articles, where dissenting opinions
were cartoons nailed to the nearest telegraph pole. By the 20th
century, political discussions blundered forward into long winded
radio and TV speeches. However, due to limited access to the media by
the GUM (great unwashed masses), it was difficult to express dissent.
This was rectified by the internet and Twitter, which allowed the GUM
to regain their ability to heckle. The length and media might change,
but the basic methods of political engagement have changed very
little.

Whether editorials, pamphlets, heckling, letters to the editor, or
Twitter are considered to be "truth" is dependent on the listener. All
of these have been used to incite riots and should therefore be
considered effective and possibly dangerous. For those who believe,
no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, more propaganda
will usually bring them around towards becoming believers.

Twitter seems to have become the voice of clueless dissent, inspired
by an equally clueless president who uses Twitter as his most
effective means of communications. It takes at least two people to
communicate, which is best done when the two are on the same
intellectual level. If one wanted to communicate with the
intellectuals of the country, one might go back to radio, TV,
speeches, editorials, and essay papers. If one wanted to communicate
with the least educated and minimally informed, Twitter works very
well.

The USA has NOT become a nation of unsupported tweets. We have always
been a nation more inclined to listen to those who expound in short,
badly conceived, and marginally literate brain farts. All Twitter has
done is to make them move visible to a larger audience. The only
saving grace is that tweets are just as easily ignored as they are
created.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

wrote:
On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 12:28:56 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:

https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/e-bike...ould-kill-you/

For a fat-biker, he's honest, and responsible enough not to be armed. Why
is his behavior even considered a threat? When people play the same, and
worse, from their car stereos, it's considered rap music. I smell an
anti-cyclist cager mindset.

White person!

You mean the fat-biker was "white"?? Considering Meghan Wales-Oldenburg is
considered "black" in America, you must be legally blind.

On 6/4/2021 9:33 PM, John B. wrote:

The, perhaps horrifying, question then becomes are you, or is Tom the
"typical American"? Or to phrase it another way, "has the U.S. become
a nation where unsupported "tweets" have become the truth"?

There's certainly been a devaluing of objective truth. That's occurring
to at least some degree on both sides of the political spectrum, and
probably on various other spectra.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2021 9:33 PM, John B. wrote:

The, perhaps horrifying, question then becomes are you, or is Tom the
"typical American"? Or to phrase it another way, "has the U.S. become
a nation where unsupported "tweets" have become the truth"?

There's certainly been a devaluing of objective truth. That's occurring
to at least some degree on both sides of the political spectrum, and
probably on various other spectra.


Not only that, but social media has allowed those with alternative
viewpoints to disseminate those viewpoints more easily. In the past, if you
wanted to know what Wackjob Bob thought about the alien plot to assassinate
the entire Kennedy family, first you’d have to discover that Bob existed,
then you’d have to send Bob a self addressed stamped envelope so that Bob
could them mail you a mimeographed copy of his latest screed. Now it just
shows up in your Twitter feed.

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 6:18:01 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:47:24 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 7:19:28 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:51:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/3/2021 11:22 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 8:03:51 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/2/2021 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:25:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


One acquaintance of mine has an all-electric car and a very large solar
array on his house. His system is set up to first recharge the car. When
the car is topped up, the system sends electricity back to the power
company, reducing his bill. He's very happy with it.

Out of curiosity has your acquaintance ever calculated the pay back on
the system?
Not as far as I know, and I doubt the payback matters to him. He's
extremely committed to environmental issues. For him, his system is just
The Right Thing To Do.

What is the environmental damage from the construction and then destruction of solar panel arrays? This is not a minor problem. Do you have any idea of the maintenance problem of large dams? ...

Not to mention the environmental damage from mining and burning coal,
drilling for oil, converting huge portions of our corn crop into fuel....

Errr... I believe that the corn turned into fuel is grown in addition
to the normal crop grown for food. In fact I remember the loud shouts
of joy when the farmers found that they could get paid for growing
even more corn to be turn into alchol:-)

Yes. But the over production of corn for fuel leads to lower prices for corn, which might, likely does decrease the net income of said farmers. They are too successful at producing grains that are not really needed. Then the US government has to make higher crop subsidy payments instead of putting the money to pay off the debt. Or offer health insurance to those with none. Or some other wasteful thing. Like new military jet planes. Trump gave many billions of dollars to farmers to buy votes and subsidize them. And growing more corn than we need also introduces more chemicals and fertilizers into the soil which poisons our water. Too much poison in the water is harder to deal with than too little poison.

Have a look at
https://www.macrotrends.net/2532/cor...cal-chart-data
which shows corn prices over the past 60 years and the level seems to
have risen some 560% during that period.

--
Cheers,

John B.

That equals a 11.12% annual return/increase in price. Seed corn, what you need to start with to grow the corn crop, probably also increased a similar expense. Tractor to plant, plus the planter itself, plus the combine and corn head to harvest the corn, plus the wagons to haul the corn from the field to the elevator in town, also have to be paid for to operate as a business. Assuming you bought all this machinery on loans, interest to pay the bank. Then add in personal living expenses like a house and car to drive to the grocery store, and groceries to feed yourself, utilities gas and electric, clothes, Sunday morning church offering, etc. Farm land prices and rents have also increased considerably in the past 60 years. Got to pay for the land to farm.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html
Above is a link to Average and Median USA incomes from 1991 to 2019. Just half the 60 years from your corn price reply. Average/Median in the USA went from 20.9/15 thousand in 1991 to 51.9/34 thousand in 2019. Less annual increase for the whole USA than for corn prices. But still 2.5 or 2.3 increase in less than 30 years. Compared to your corn increase of 5.6 in 60 years. Somewhat close.

Dow Jones average was around 5,662 in May 1960. Its now 34,756 in June 2021. I just found some rough numbers. No precise dates so don't get too exact with me. 5,662 to 34,756 in 61 years (close to your 60 year corn numbers) is an increase of 614%. Fairly comparable to your 560% corn increase over 60 years. So commodity prices like corn have increased at about the same price as financial stocks. Maybe the same applies to commodities like iron, cotton, lumber, silver too.

Now to the point, maybe. Corn is grown by farmers and corn is used to feed people and animals. And the animals that eat the corn are used by people. So corn is a useful commodity. And with lots more people on earth than there were 60 years ago, it should be more valuable today. More people need more corn. But corn has just gone up in value about like everything else. Not more even though its become more important with the world wide growth in population. So corn prices are depressed!!!!

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 11:24:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/4/2021 9:33 PM, John B. wrote:

The, perhaps horrifying, question then becomes are you, or is Tom the
"typical American"? Or to phrase it another way, "has the U.S. become
a nation where unsupported "tweets" have become the truth"?

There's certainly been a devaluing of objective truth. That's occurring
to at least some degree on both sides of the political spectrum, and
probably on various other spectra.

Well, apparently false news has been a factor, certainly as long as
there has been newspapers - justification for attacking Spanish based
on "yellow" journalism by William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal,
and Joseph Pulitzer's New York World - for example. But I'm almost
certain that it wasn't as flagrant as it is today.

For example, I recently read a "proof" that Biden was never elected
president because the airplane he flew in, on a short trip, was not
Air Force One. the writer, it appeared, was not aware that "Air Force
One" is not the name of a specific airplane but simply the radio call
sign for whatever Air Force provided airplane that the president is
flying in that day. Just as "Marine One" is the call sign of any
Marine helicopter carrying the President.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 11:32:41 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 6:18:01 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:47:24 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 7:19:28 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:51:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/3/2021 11:22 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 8:03:51 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/2/2021 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:25:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


One acquaintance of mine has an all-electric car and a very large solar
array on his house. His system is set up to first recharge the car. When
the car is topped up, the system sends electricity back to the power
company, reducing his bill. He's very happy with it.

Out of curiosity has your acquaintance ever calculated the pay back on
the system?
Not as far as I know, and I doubt the payback matters to him. He's
extremely committed to environmental issues. For him, his system is just
The Right Thing To Do.

What is the environmental damage from the construction and then destruction of solar panel arrays? This is not a minor problem. Do you have any idea of the maintenance problem of large dams? ...

Not to mention the environmental damage from mining and burning coal,
drilling for oil, converting huge portions of our corn crop into fuel...

Errr... I believe that the corn turned into fuel is grown in addition
to the normal crop grown for food. In fact I remember the loud shouts
of joy when the farmers found that they could get paid for growing
even more corn to be turn into alchol:-)

Yes. But the over production of corn for fuel leads to lower prices for corn, which might, likely does decrease the net income of said farmers. They are too successful at producing grains that are not really needed. Then the US government has to make higher crop subsidy payments instead of putting the money to pay off the debt. Or offer health insurance to those with none. Or some other wasteful thing. Like new military jet planes. Trump gave many billions of dollars to farmers to buy votes and subsidize them. And growing more corn than we need also introduces more chemicals and fertilizers into the soil which poisons our water. Too much poison in the water is harder to deal with than too little poison.

Have a look at
https://www.macrotrends.net/2532/cor...cal-chart-data
which shows corn prices over the past 60 years and the level seems to
have risen some 560% during that period.

--
Cheers,

John B.

That equals a 11.12% annual return/increase in price. Seed corn, what you need to start with to grow the corn crop, probably also increased a similar expense. Tractor to plant, plus the planter itself, plus the combine and corn head to harvest the corn, plus the wagons to haul the corn from the field to the elevator in town, also have to be paid for to operate as a business. Assuming you bought all this machinery on loans, interest to pay the bank. Then add in personal living expenses like a house and car to drive to the grocery store, and groceries to feed yourself, utilities gas and electric, clothes, Sunday morning church offering, etc. Farm land prices and rents have also increased considerably in the past 60 years. Got to pay for the land to farm.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html
Above is a link to Average and Median USA incomes from 1991 to 2019. Just half the 60 years from your corn price reply. Average/Median in the USA went from 20.9/15 thousand in 1991 to 51.9/34 thousand in 2019. Less annual increase for the whole USA than for corn prices. But still 2.5 or 2.3 increase in less than 30 years. Compared to your corn increase of 5.6 in 60 years. Somewhat close.

Dow Jones average was around 5,662 in May 1960. Its now 34,756 in June 2021. I just found some rough numbers. No precise dates so don't get too exact with me. 5,662 to 34,756 in 61 years (close to your 60 year corn numbers) is an increase of 614%. Fairly comparable to your 560% corn increase over 60 years. So commodity prices like corn have increased at about the same price as financial stocks. Maybe the same applies to commodities like iron, cotton, lumber, silver too.

Now to the point, maybe. Corn is grown by farmers and corn is used to feed people and animals. And the animals that eat the corn are used by people. So corn is a useful commodity. And with lots more people on earth than there were 60 years ago, it should be more valuable today. More people need more corn. But corn has just gone up in value about like everything else. Not more even though its become more important with the world wide growth in population. So corn prices are depressed!!!!

I see your rationalization but I'm not sure that it is accurate as a
very large proportion of the world's population do not eat corn nor do
they feed animals on corn. In fact, growing up on a small farm in New
Hampshire I don't remember feeding corn to anything but chickens...
and people, or course.


--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2021-06-01, Joerg wrote:
snip


The game changer, of course, is the Li ion technology since if was so easy
for uninformed users to kill off their lead acid battery pack.


Li-Ion also has its issues. For example, even top brand manufacturers do
not seem to understand that it is not a good idea to top off a Li-Ion
battery at close to 100% charge and then leave the bike in the garage
that way. This results in premature aging and loss of capacity. The
smarter way is to offer 80% or so which is plenty for a short ride into
town. Then let users top it off in the morning when they expect to go on
a very long ride. In the same way, don't ride it all the way down to
where the low-batt cutoff turns it off, at least not often.

"Smart" battery chargers would seem to be in order. Push the button if you
need more than an 80% charge this time for some reason.



NiMH would be more robust, but that chemistry never seemed to catch on
before Lithium came on the scene.


NiMH doesn't have an adequate energy density. A NiHM-battery that can
last 40-50mi would be unreasonably large and heavy.

[...]

pH in Aptos


Is the old stranded concrete ship still there?


Use..the SS Palo Alto.
About two years ago the winter storms broke the last 1/4 of the stern off
and it twisted about 80 degrees from level.

When I was a tad one could actually walk out to the bow. Then it was
fenced off at half way. Then when I came back from college and other things
it was closed off entirely and you can only walk out to the end of the pier
the ship abutts.

Sigh. Things change.

pH

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 10:34:18 PM UTC-7, pH wrote:
On 2021-06-01, Joerg wrote:
snip


The game changer, of course, is the Li ion technology since if was so easy
for uninformed users to kill off their lead acid battery pack.


Li-Ion also has its issues. For example, even top brand manufacturers do
not seem to understand that it is not a good idea to top off a Li-Ion
battery at close to 100% charge and then leave the bike in the garage
that way. This results in premature aging and loss of capacity. The
smarter way is to offer 80% or so which is plenty for a short ride into
town. Then let users top it off in the morning when they expect to go on
a very long ride. In the same way, don't ride it all the way down to
where the low-batt cutoff turns it off, at least not often.

"Smart" battery chargers would seem to be in order. Push the button if you
need more than an 80% charge this time for some reason.



NiMH would be more robust, but that chemistry never seemed to catch on
before Lithium came on the scene.


NiMH doesn't have an adequate energy density. A NiHM-battery that can
last 40-50mi would be unreasonably large and heavy.

[...]

pH in Aptos


Is the old stranded concrete ship still there?


Use..the SS Palo Alto.
About two years ago the winter storms broke the last 1/4 of the stern off
and it twisted about 80 degrees from level.

When I was a tad one could actually walk out to the bow. Then it was
fenced off at half way. Then when I came back from college and other things
it was closed off entirely and you can only walk out to the end of the pier
the ship abutts.

Sigh. Things change.
Concrete exposed to water saturation degrades surprisingly rapidly. One of the instruments I was working on detected leaks from degrading concrete is swimming pools. I would imagine that you could make a pool thick enough to delay this for a long time as those concrete barges showed. But degrade they will. The concrete turns back to almost a mush consistency.