.. simply because almost nobody bothers now.

which actually should concern you.

Anybody who differs from the perceived norm, is shouted down, never mind applying any science.

You have fucked the planet and you still think that physics solves the issue.

roughbarked said:

.. simply because almost nobody bothers now.

which actually should concern you.

Anybody who differs from the perceived norm, is shouted down, never mind applying any science.

You have fucked the planet and you still think that physics solves the issue.

They dismiss science yet think science can save humanity.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

.. simply because almost nobody bothers now.

which actually should concern you.

Anybody who differs from the perceived norm, is shouted down, never mind applying any science.

You have fucked the planet and you still think that physics solves the issue.

They dismiss science yet think science can save humanity.

Not exactly in the way you put it. Any elucidation could assist.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

.. simply because almost nobody bothers now.

which actually should concern you.

Anybody who differs from the perceived norm, is shouted down, never mind applying any science.

You have fucked the planet and you still think that physics solves the issue.

They dismiss science yet think science can save humanity.

Not exactly in the way you put it. Any elucidation could assist.

People need to balance their short term needs against the longer term needs of humanity, however, at the moment no one is cable of doing it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

They dismiss science yet think science can save humanity.

Not exactly in the way you put it. Any elucidation could assist.

People need to balance their short term needs against the longer term needs of humanity, however, at the moment no one is cable of doing it.

My dearest friends try to haul me back from thowing myself against the abyss.
it isn’t about me or any of us. It is about what we can pass to our further generations. Our own lives are rather insignificant. I don’t give a shit about which paper you wrote or whethewr anybody recognised it as much as I dont give a rat’s arse about what you think of what I have to say.

There. That wasn’t hard. Was it not?

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Not exactly in the way you put it. Any elucidation could assist.

People need to balance their short term needs against the longer term needs of humanity, however, at the moment no one is cable of doing it.

My dearest friends try to haul me back from thowing myself against the abyss.
it isn’t about me or any of us. It is about what we can pass to our further generations. Our own lives are rather insignificant. I don’t give a shit about which paper you wrote or whethewr anybody recognised it as much as I dont give a rat’s arse about what you think of what I have to say.

Ths isn’t anywhere near enough. I want to unravel some reel science fishermen here.

Lots of people are anti-science blaming it for all the ills of the world, however science is neither good nor bad and it’s humanity that misuses it usually for short term gain at the expense of the future. Those that have the most control to change things don’t and put the onus on the individual to change (which we should but we have limited ability)

Yeah, science is the only way. you see it is because science covers such a wide field that no matter what remedial actions you take science will be involved.

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah, science is the only way. you see it is because science covers such a wide field that no matter what remedial actions you take science will be involved.

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah, science is the only way. you see it is because science covers such a wide field that no matter what remedial actions you take science will be involved.

Exactly, virtually everything is based on some sort of science, even say something you’d thing far removed like art of more specifici painting, its requires the science of mixing colour, making pigments, canvas making and so on.

ChrispenEvan said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah, science is the only way. you see it is because science covers such a wide field that no matter what remedial actions you take science will be involved.

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

True isn’t it, trying to understand how something works only makes it more interesting

roughbarked said:

.. simply because almost nobody bothers now.

which actually should concern you.

Anybody who differs from the perceived norm, is shouted down, never mind applying any science.

You have fucked the planet and you still think that physics solves the issue.

Huh? Is that meant to apply to me?

If so, there are 7 dogmatic statements above, and every single one of them is wrong.

> almost nobody bothers
False

> should actually concern you
It already concerns everybody

> Anybody who differs from the perceived norm, is shouted down
Everybody differs from the perceived norm.

> Never mind applying any science.
Always apply the science.

> You have fucked the planet
Who? Not me.

> you still think that physics solves the issue.
Nobody believes that.

I think roughy was drunk last night.

Does it need to be difficult ?

Things we should be doing?

Note that some things we should be doing do not require any science, only logic and ethics, while other things like climate change do require a high level of scientific understanding.

Reducing world population
Planting more trees
Bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
Growing more underwater plants
Making companies more aware and responsible for the environment
Eliminate river and ocean pollution
Cleaning up plastics in the environment and in the ocean
Breeding more fish
Accepting that humanity has an effect on the environment
Accepting that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
We need to stop species becoming extinct
We need to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
Building houses to a better energy saving standard
Bring manufacturing energy levels down
Bring domestic energy use down
Focusing on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
Reducing domestic waste towards zero
Recycling 100 percent waste
Reducing emissions in the atmosphere
Eliminating non nonrenewable as much as possible
Stop coal mining
We need to electrify out cars more and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.
We need to look at micro managing energy use in the workplace and in the home
We need to design homes and workplaces to be more energy wise.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think roughy was drunk last night.

I think the discussion has moved on from that though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think roughy was drunk last night.

I think the discussion has moved on from that though.

Yes

ChrispenEvan said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah, science is the only way. you see it is because science covers such a wide field that no matter what remedial actions you take science will be involved.

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

Thanks for that Richard.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah, science is the only way. you see it is because science covers such a wide field that no matter what remedial actions you take science will be involved.

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

Thanks for that Richard.

Yes.

There is this intimate connection with geometry and chemistry which is not yet fully understood.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah, science is the only way. you see it is because science covers such a wide field that no matter what remedial actions you take science will be involved.

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

Thanks for that Richard.

Yeah, I thought everyone would know that quote. should have referenced it though.

:-)

I think the idea of land ownership needs to change.

Business greed needs to change.

Personal greed needs to change.

Stop building mansions, that is just environmentally criminal (heating and cooling costs).

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

Thanks for that Richard.

Yes.

There is this intimate connection with geometry and chemistry which is not yet fully understood.

Fractals and nature

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think the idea of land ownership needs to change.

Business greed needs to change.

Personal greed needs to change.

Stop building mansions, that is just environmentally criminal (heating and cooling costs).

It’s weird the large mansions for the rich, all show
If I won a large sum of money I’d build a modest environmentally friendly self sufficient house with the ability to grow food via hydroponics with grow lights powered by solar and wind, water tanks for hundreds of thousands of litres, etc.

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah, science is the only way. you see it is because science covers such a wide field that no matter what remedial actions you take science will be involved.

But when we are talking about how human activities affect the wider world, that’s not science, that’s engineering, and engineering isn’t just science.

Engineering is:
the art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man. (Thomas Tredgold)

and if we interpret “man” to mean all of humanity, including future generations, then clearly future costs should be included when making current engineering decisions.

So why doesn’t that happen?

Market economics has the capacity to deal with this level of long term optimisation, but only if long term costs are included in market prices.

The problem is, it is in the interests of politicians to hide long term costs, rather than expose them.

So what can we do about it?

Vote for whichever political party does the least long term cost hiding.

In so far as we have influence with government organisations, encourage them to reveal long term costs, rather than hide them.

Encourage commercial organisations to make “sustainability” part of their “brand”, so they have an incentive to pressure governments to recognise long term costs in the market, rather than hide them.

Take account of long term costs in our own activities.

Support organisations and individuals who have a significant effect on public opinion, and who support the recognition of long term costs.

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah, I thought everyone would know that quote. should have referenced it though.

:-)

It seemed vaguely familiar, but I had to look it up.

Even Bing found it though :)

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think the idea of land ownership needs to change.

Business greed needs to change.

Personal greed needs to change.

Stop building mansions, that is just environmentally criminal (heating and cooling costs).

It’s weird the large mansions for the rich, all show
If I won a large sum of money I’d build a modest environmentally friendly self sufficient house with the ability to grow food via hydroponics with grow lights powered by solar and wind, water tanks for hundreds of thousands of litres, etc.

I disagree.

You aren’t going to change business or individual greed.

The market needs to be controlled such that future costs are included in prices. Then businesses and individuals who act to minimise their own costs will also be minimising long term costs.

As for mansions, they are just a particularly visible example of how long term costs are hidden, but they are far from the worst.

I was referring to science as a method rather than a particular discipline in science.

ChrispenEvan said:

I was referring to science as a method rather than a particular discipline in science.

If that’s in response to what I have recently posted, engineering is not a discipline in science. It is a separate discipline that uses science as one of its tools.

If it wasn’t, what was it in response to?

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I was referring to science as a method rather than a particular discipline in science.

If that’s in response to what I have recently posted, engineering is not a discipline in science. It is a separate discipline that uses science as one of its tools.

If it wasn’t, what was it in response to?

Wouldn’t civil engineering take into account long term costs, whatever they are or is that a relatively new thing including sustainability.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I was referring to science as a method rather than a particular discipline in science.

If that’s in response to what I have recently posted, engineering is not a discipline in science. It is a separate discipline that uses science as one of its tools.

If it wasn’t, what was it in response to?

it was.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I was referring to science as a method rather than a particular discipline in science.

If that’s in response to what I have recently posted, engineering is not a discipline in science. It is a separate discipline that uses science as one of its tools.

If it wasn’t, what was it in response to?

Wouldn’t civil engineering take into account long term costs, whatever they are or is that a relatively new thing including sustainability.

It does to some extent, and has done for at least 50 years.

But it’s not really done in a “big picture” sort of way.

For instance, when planning a road upgrade, the cost saving from reduced accidents is included, but increased accidents due to transfer from rail to road is not included, and of course costs associated with increased CO2 emissions are ignored.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think the idea of land ownership needs to change.

Business greed needs to change.

Personal greed needs to change.

Stop building mansions, that is just environmentally criminal (heating and cooling costs).

It’s weird the large mansions for the rich, all show
If I won a large sum of money I’d build a modest environmentally friendly self sufficient house with the ability to grow food via hydroponics with grow lights powered by solar and wind, water tanks for hundreds of thousands of litres, etc.

Yes, same here.

The rich, they need to change their culture with the all show thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think the idea of land ownership needs to change.

Business greed needs to change.

Personal greed needs to change.

Stop building mansions, that is just environmentally criminal (heating and cooling costs).

It’s weird the large mansions for the rich, all show
If I won a large sum of money I’d build a modest environmentally friendly self sufficient house with the ability to grow food via hydroponics with grow lights powered by solar and wind, water tanks for hundreds of thousands of litres, etc.

I disagree.

You aren’t going to change business or individual greed.

The market needs to be controlled such that future costs are included in prices. Then businesses and individuals who act to minimise their own costs will also be minimising long term costs.

As for mansions, they are just a particularly visible example of how long term costs are hidden, but they are far from the worst.

Its greed that’s driving humanity to extinction, control greed and most of the problem is solved.

We have to control our greed through education, emotional intelligence, logic, ethics, real costs and other incentives.

>>The market needs to be controlled such that future costs are included in prices.

Yes.

>>As for mansions, they are just a particularly visible example of how long term costs are hidden, but they are far from the worst.

Yes, other examples are industrial sites that are set up and then abandoned rather than planning buildings for the future.

Buildings that are left empty in city areas….

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah, science is the only way. you see it is because science covers such a wide field that no matter what remedial actions you take science will be involved.

But when we are talking about how human activities affect the wider world, that’s not science, that’s engineering, and engineering isn’t just science.

Engineering is:
the art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man. (Thomas Tredgold)

and if we interpret “man” to mean all of humanity, including future generations, then clearly future costs should be included when making current engineering decisions.

So why doesn’t that happen?

Market economics has the capacity to deal with this level of long term optimisation, but only if long term costs are included in market prices.

The problem is, it is in the interests of politicians to hide long term costs, rather than expose them.

So what can we do about it?

Vote for whichever political party does the least long term cost hiding.

In so far as we have influence with government organisations, encourage them to reveal long term costs, rather than hide them.

Encourage commercial organisations to make “sustainability” part of their “brand”, so they have an incentive to pressure governments to recognise long term costs in the market, rather than hide them.

Take account of long term costs in our own activities.

Support organisations and individuals who have a significant effect on public opinion, and who support the recognition of long term costs.

Yes agree with all of that.

People also need to live closer to where they work.

Maybe a toll system for the whole road network.?

but would incentives to get people to live closer to where they work be effective?

Lines of cars on freeways has to stop.

Get more people working from home.

ChrispenEvan said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah, science is the only way. you see it is because science covers such a wide field that no matter what remedial actions you take science will be involved.

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

I can approach the flower with curiosity. I can try to discern whether it has artistic potential. Colour. Saturation. Contrast. Whether it is likable. Whether it comes with baggage. A weed. A treasure. Whether it is a symbol. What it means when I place it with other flowers. Like putting a yellow rose with a protea with a banksia. Or a thistle in the bush. I can see it as time or a representation of time. I can research and find something peculiar to this flower to communicate to the viewer. I can try to see it as a thing in a whole. One piece of a larger environment. I can try to imagine it as design. Simplication. Repetition.

Science and artists get along better than people think.

Some things to save energy can be very simple

and uses engineering to make things more efficient :)

Take the electric air exhaust vents in bathrooms and kitchens as an example.

Most don’t have shutters that close when the electric air exhaust vents are not in use.

Heat rises so an open vent in the ceiling will cause some heat to escape over a 24 hour period, which can be measured.

An air exhaust with automatic shutters stops that heat from escaping, saving some energy.

> People also need to live closer to where they work.

Yes. But without job security, that means people need to move house more often, which is a pain.

> Maybe a toll system for the whole road network.?

Aagh! No. Better to have … well, there are more than a dozen good strategies that are in the forefront of my mind.

> But would incentives to get people to live closer to where they work be effective?

Apart from lack of job security, the only other problem is land prices. Make land free.

> Lines of cars on freeways has to stop.

Yes. Move them onto minor roads. I’m serious, the traffic capacity of an average suburban street could be up to half that of the Hume Highway. With proper planning.

> Get more people working from home.

I was telecommuting back in 1986. But face to face matters, and so many distractions at home. Better to sleep at work.

mollwollfumble said:

> People also need to live closer to where they work.

Yes. But without job security, that means people need to move house more often, which is a pain.

> Maybe a toll system for the whole road network.?

Aagh! No. Better to have … well, there are more than a dozen good strategies that are in the forefront of my mind.

> But would incentives to get people to live closer to where they work be effective?

Apart from lack of job security, the only other problem is land prices. Make land free.

> Lines of cars on freeways has to stop.

Yes. Move them onto minor roads. I’m serious, the traffic capacity of an average suburban street could be up to half that of the Hume Highway. With proper planning.

> Get more people working from home.

I was telecommuting back in 1986. But face to face matters, and so many distractions at home. Better to sleep at work.

Using public transport to and from work is a tax deduction

There other ways to save energy using temperature sensors inside and outside fitted to heaters and air conditioners.

As the sun tracks over the sky, temperatures can fluctuate, but mostly temperatures rises in the afternoon.

A temp sensor fitted to a heater or aircon can monitor outside temperatures going up and reduce the heating inside keeping the set temp the same.

A system like that can work all year .

There might be smart heating and cooling systems that already do this, but most dont.

Smart aircons in summer could read outside temps and reduce the cooling in unison as the outside temp drops

for people with no aircons, temp sensors could turn on ceiling exhaust fans in summer as the outside temp drops and turn off when a set temp is reached .

We know heat rises so every room in buildings with no aircons could be fitted with exhaust vents in ceiling with auto shutters.

Most dont so the heat collects under the ceiling and builds up over the day.

Engineering can fix that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Smart aircons in summer could read outside temps and reduce the cooling in unison as the outside temp drops

for people with no aircons, temp sensors could turn on ceiling exhaust fans in summer as the outside temp drops and turn off when a set temp is reached .

We know heat rises so every room in buildings with no aircons could be fitted with exhaust vents in ceiling with auto shutters.

Most dont so the heat collects under the ceiling and builds up over the day.

Engineering can fix that.

It would be preferable to have design rules so that air cons aren’t needed. I live in central Victoria and with some intelligent design the house stays cool in summer. I think all new homes should have insulation design elements and a rain water system for the laundry, shower and loo.

Tau.Neutrino said:

There other ways to save energy using temperature sensors inside and outside fitted to heaters and air conditioners.

As the sun tracks over the sky, temperatures can fluctuate, but mostly temperatures rises in the afternoon.

A temp sensor fitted to a heater or aircon can monitor outside temperatures going up and reduce the heating inside keeping the set temp the same.

A system like that can work all year .

There might be smart heating and cooling systems that already do this, but most dont.

errrr you mean a thermostat?

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

There other ways to save energy using temperature sensors inside and outside fitted to heaters and air conditioners.

As the sun tracks over the sky, temperatures can fluctuate, but mostly temperatures rises in the afternoon.

A temp sensor fitted to a heater or aircon can monitor outside temperatures going up and reduce the heating inside keeping the set temp the same.

A system like that can work all year .

There might be smart heating and cooling systems that already do this, but most dont.

errrr you mean a thermostat?

That is never allowed to be altered even one degree up or down as TV dads will know and yell at you

AwesomeO said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Smart aircons in summer could read outside temps and reduce the cooling in unison as the outside temp drops

for people with no aircons, temp sensors could turn on ceiling exhaust fans in summer as the outside temp drops and turn off when a set temp is reached .

We know heat rises so every room in buildings with no aircons could be fitted with exhaust vents in ceiling with auto shutters.

Most dont so the heat collects under the ceiling and builds up over the day.

Engineering can fix that.

It would be preferable to have design rules so that air cons aren’t needed. I live in central Victoria and with some intelligent design the house stays cool in summer. I think all new homes should have insulation design elements and a rain water system for the laundry, shower and loo.

Yes, and a solar powered ceiling fan would be ideal in that arrangement.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

There other ways to save energy using temperature sensors inside and outside fitted to heaters and air conditioners.

As the sun tracks over the sky, temperatures can fluctuate, but mostly temperatures rises in the afternoon.

A temp sensor fitted to a heater or aircon can monitor outside temperatures going up and reduce the heating inside keeping the set temp the same.

A system like that can work all year .

There might be smart heating and cooling systems that already do this, but most dont.

errrr you mean a thermostat?

Yes one of those .

I’m a creative thinker not an engineer.

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

There other ways to save energy using temperature sensors inside and outside fitted to heaters and air conditioners.

As the sun tracks over the sky, temperatures can fluctuate, but mostly temperatures rises in the afternoon.

A temp sensor fitted to a heater or aircon can monitor outside temperatures going up and reduce the heating inside keeping the set temp the same.

A system like that can work all year .

There might be smart heating and cooling systems that already do this, but most dont.

errrr you mean a thermostat?

That is never allowed to be altered even one degree up or down as TV dads will know and yell at you

A system like that does not alter the set temp.

so no yelling is needed.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I’m a creative thinker not an engineer.

That’s like saying, I’m a creator of thought provoking images, not an artist. :)

Re power all of our devices are getting more and more energy efficient, but against that we are building acres upon acres of poorly insulated McMansions which require cooling in summer and with huge roof surfaces that can harvest water. A few simple design rules at the building stage wouldn’t cost much more relatively and have a huge cumulative benefit.

AwesomeO said:

Re power all of our devices are getting more and more energy efficient, but against that we are building acres upon acres of poorly insulated McMansions which require cooling in summer and with huge roof surfaces that can harvest water. A few simple design rules at the building stage wouldn’t cost much more relatively and have a huge cumulative benefit.

even a simple solution of when designing subdivision do it so that the houses built will be oriented correctly re the sun.

We really need to find a way humans can be recharged via sunlight and store the energy over night and do away with eating

Those ideas I put up would be great for micro grids.

and a well designed micro grid would have a loop system to throttle power back when max load is reached.

otherwise back out.

and much yelling.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Those ideas I put up would be great for micro grids.

and a well designed micro grid would have a loop system to throttle power back when max load is reached.

otherwise back out.

and much yelling.

opps

otherwise black out.

Cymek said:

We really need to find a way humans can be recharged via sunlight and store the energy over night and do away with eating

Or we could use sunlight to grow plants which people then store and eat as required.

And been raining today which for me is a waste as all the tanks are full. Apart from infrastructure costs my water bills are measured in a few dollars and that is because some of the taps use town water. There is a sense of satisfaction in having tanks and monitoring them and using only the water that lands on you.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

We really need to find a way humans can be recharged via sunlight and store the energy over night and do away with eating

Or we could use sunlight to grow plants which people then store and eat as required.

Or humanity could all evolve into living on a single IC chip in a VR environment and save much energy.

Imagine placing 7 billion identities onto “one chip” and you can do everything just like in the real world.

With extinction a possibility, that one chip may eventuate.

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

We really need to find a way humans can be recharged via sunlight and store the energy over night and do away with eating

Or we could use sunlight to grow plants which people then store and eat as required.

Or humanity could all evolve into living on a single IC chip in a VR environment and save much energy.

Imagine placing 7 billion identities onto “one chip” and you can do everything just like in the real world.

With extinction a possibility, that one chip may eventuate.

We wouldn’t want someone like Trump in control of such a chip.

ChrispenEvan said:

AwesomeO said:

Re power all of our devices are getting more and more energy efficient, but against that we are building acres upon acres of poorly insulated McMansions which require cooling in summer and with huge roof surfaces that can harvest water. A few simple design rules at the building stage wouldn’t cost much more relatively and have a huge cumulative benefit.

even a simple solution of when designing subdivision do it so that the houses built will be oriented correctly re the sun.

Bill Mollison designed suburbs this way.

AwesomeO said:

And been raining today which for me is a waste as all the tanks are full. Apart from infrastructure costs my water bills are measured in a few dollars and that is because some of the taps use town water. There is a sense of satisfaction in having tanks and monitoring them and using only the water that lands on you.

Yes.

mollwollfumble said:

> Lines of cars on freeways has to stop.

Yes. Move them onto minor roads. I’m serious, the traffic capacity of an average suburban street could be up to half that of the Hume Highway. With proper planning.
.

safety of residents has to be considered.. if you increase traffic in residential areas you also increase dangers… noise pollution, car emissions.. no thank you… I like that highways exist to make suburban streets quieter and safer

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Lines of cars on freeways has to stop.

Yes. Move them onto minor roads. I’m serious, the traffic capacity of an average suburban street could be up to half that of the Hume Highway. With proper planning.
.

safety of residents has to be considered.. if you increase traffic in residential areas you also increase dangers… noise pollution, car emissions.. no thank you… I like that highways exist to make suburban streets quieter and safer

Also mollwoll sometimes comes up with some good out of the box ideas, but this isn’t one of them.

The only way you could increase the capacity of an average suburban street to half a Hume Highway would be by converting it into something that was half a Hume Highway, rather than a suburban street.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Lines of cars on freeways has to stop.

Yes. Move them onto minor roads. I’m serious, the traffic capacity of an average suburban street could be up to half that of the Hume Highway. With proper planning.
.

safety of residents has to be considered.. if you increase traffic in residential areas you also increase dangers… noise pollution, car emissions.. no thank you… I like that highways exist to make suburban streets quieter and safer

Also mollwoll sometimes comes up with some good out of the box ideas, but this isn’t one of them.

The only way you could increase the capacity of an average suburban street to half a Hume Highway would be by converting it into something that was half a Hume Highway, rather than a suburban street.

Surely people on here could teach the greater population how to drive properly and it would work

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

safety of residents has to be considered.. if you increase traffic in residential areas you also increase dangers… noise pollution, car emissions.. no thank you… I like that highways exist to make suburban streets quieter and safer

Also mollwoll sometimes comes up with some good out of the box ideas, but this isn’t one of them.

The only way you could increase the capacity of an average suburban street to half a Hume Highway would be by converting it into something that was half a Hume Highway, rather than a suburban street.

Surely people on here could teach the greater population how to drive properly and it would work

if nothing else there would be far fewer drivers on the road.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

safety of residents has to be considered.. if you increase traffic in residential areas you also increase dangers… noise pollution, car emissions.. no thank you… I like that highways exist to make suburban streets quieter and safer

Also mollwoll sometimes comes up with some good out of the box ideas, but this isn’t one of them.

The only way you could increase the capacity of an average suburban street to half a Hume Highway would be by converting it into something that was half a Hume Highway, rather than a suburban street.

Surely people on here could teach the greater population how to drive properly and it would work

OK I didn’t think of that.

That’ll work for sure :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Also mollwoll sometimes comes up with some good out of the box ideas, but this isn’t one of them.

The only way you could increase the capacity of an average suburban street to half a Hume Highway would be by converting it into something that was half a Hume Highway, rather than a suburban street.

Surely people on here could teach the greater population how to drive properly and it would work

OK I didn’t think of that.

That’ll work for sure :)

need to watch a few russian dashcam videos to see what an uphill battle it would be.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Also mollwoll sometimes comes up with some good out of the box ideas, but this isn’t one of them.

The only way you could increase the capacity of an average suburban street to half a Hume Highway would be by converting it into something that was half a Hume Highway, rather than a suburban street.

Noted.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think roughy was drunk last night.

bugger orf . everything I do here is sober science.
it is the others who are drunk at the times.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

.. simply because almost nobody bothers now.

which actually should concern you.

Anybody who differs from the perceived norm, is shouted down, never mind applying any science.

You have fucked the planet and you still think that physics solves the issue.

Huh? Is that meant to apply to me?

If so, there are 7 dogmatic statements above, and every single one of them is wrong.

> almost nobody bothers
False

> should actually concern you
It already concerns everybody

> Anybody who differs from the perceived norm, is shouted down
Everybody differs from the perceived norm.

> Never mind applying any science.
Always apply the science.

> You have fucked the planet
Who? Not me.

> you still think that physics solves the issue.
Nobody believes that.

relativity?

ChrispenEvan said:

I was referring to science as a method rather than a particular discipline in science.

Good.