Active Users:493 Time:14/11/2024 04:40:25 PM
I'm not above that, but the dictionary definitions I've found are disappointingly self-referential. Joel Send a noteboard - 24/08/2011 02:25:21 AM
My quick and dirty favorite, The Free Dictionary, copies the American Heritage definition:

v.tr.
1. To develop industry in (a country or society, for example).
2. To organize (the production of something) as an industry.
v.intr.
To become industrial.


It doesn't get much more specific unless you trace back to "industry" which CAN be used in any sense from the very narrow one I'm employing to others much broader than the one your employing, and all points in between plus others. The OED is actually WORSE, so in this case dictionaries arguing with dictionaries seems pointless since they don't offer a meaning precise enough to be worth disputing.
I hate to cite wiki as wonderful source but sentence 1 for industrialization is: Industrialisation (or industrialization) is the process of social and economic change that transforms a human group from an agrarian society into an industrial one
And just a reminder it is okay to delete our prior comments in whole or part, when it only happens on my end and I skip a deletion I end up getting these messages back from you that a virtually impossible to reply to with wads and wads of prior comments in them.

Sorry, I don't mind truncating old comments, for precisely the reason you state, but I almost never take the initiative to do it, because I don't want any of those involved in the discussion to lose the train of a complex thought(s) OR anyone thinking I'm trying to edit, conceal or quote out of context their statements. It's a logic and transparency thing; I do pretty much skip right past the parts of the conversation from last week that I've read a half a dozen times. Again, sorry if it's inconvenient, and I can try to make things a bit more compact; I just try to err on the side of caution as a rule, which means never even considering doing things with other peoples comments that I'd barely even notice if they did to mine.

Wikipedia's as good or bad as any other source: To the extent their stats are independently and objectively sourced in turn they're reliable, but the more controversial the subject the more likely ANY source is to be attacked (fairly or not) as biased. I've had people object to US budget statements because they were pulled from Wikipedia, and never mind that Wikipedia linked them directly to the GAO. As to that definition of industrialization versus agriculture, if that's the way we're parsing it the difference is one of scale, since the Medieval town was definitely not agricultural but, by that definition, very industrial, just locally instead of generally. By that metric America became an industrialized nation around 1930.
Were that the case the Hanseatic League would've begun the Industrial Revolution, because the cottage industries of Medieval towns were primarily non-agricultural as well;


Using my own prior definition that's in response to, the Hanseatic League did not go from having the vast majority of their pop doing agri to a small minority doing it. The great cities with their industries of that era were a tiny fraction of the populace... I don't see how this contradicts my point either since the lives, rights, etc of the people in those towns were utterly different than those of serfs living a few miles away, essentially just representing what small pockets of industrialization do, those town and cities had vastly more influence person for person than the average man did.

OK, but then we're back to talking about industrialization as something that began with the Industrial Revolution (which is probably where we should be) and a chicken/egg scenario, because while that may have been POSSIBLE on Earth without fossil fuels, that's not how it actually HAPPENED. Did industrialization lead to machines like the steam engine and widespread use of coal, or was it an effect of those things? Ask James Burke but, once again, while correlation doesn't imply causality, it doesn't preclude it either. All the advantages and incentives to industrialize have always been there, so it's at least a curiosity that the steam engine is older than Christianity but industrialization is about the same age as the US--and widespread (Western) use of coal.

the difference came with mechanization in the form of things like the steam engine you referenced. At that point compact high yield energy sources became vital; yes, wood can run steam engines but, as I said at the outset, if you try to run a car off the amount of wood that will a gas tank you'll be lucky to make it to the nearest gas station.


I don't know what you base that statement off of. There have been plenty of wood burning engines and cars that run off them. It's actually pretty straightforward to convert a car to run off of wood and get around a mile a pound of wood as opposed to about 2-4 miles a pound of gas. The only reason the old wood burning cars tended to have short mileage was because they were all emergency conversions kits developed for pre-existing vehicles in areas and times where long drives weren't common and firewood was, and you could just load extra wood into your trunk, it's not like it need special storage. Like I said, I am not responsible for your lack of familiarity with how engines and other tech actually work. Using a good selection, something like hybrid poplar that can sustainable produce a few tons of wood per acre per year, one can run a wood burning car the usual 10-12,000 miles a year off a couple acres, similar to what's necessary to heat a home. It's not ideal but it is doable, like the $5 and $50 hammers ... for the record you can also make plastics out of wood.

For the record, the "you'll be lucky to get to the nearest gas station" comment was hyperbole; it was meant to illustrate that the difference between energy contents in gasoline and wood makes an equal mass of gas yield 3-5 times as much energy, depending on the type of wood and gasoline mixes as well as their combustion efficiency, so to get the same mileage out of a "tank" of wood a sedan will need about a 50 gallon tank (which incidentally means carrying around about 300 pounds of wood instead of 100 pounds of gas, though the net effect of that is probably negligible). If cost were the only or even primary factor we'd never have domesticated the horse, TN moonshiners would've never have run booze in octane burning cars and the most profitable company in history would be Jack Daniel Distillery instead of Exxon Mobil. Likewise, I suppose you COULD make plastics out of wood; you could make it out of any mass(es) of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, but some forms require less energy than others to convert to plastics.

If all you want to do on your island is mill enough of the grain you grow to feed yourself and your family a tidal mill is obviously a superior return for your effort than mining coal you don't need to run that mill. If you want to fly the chopper that brought you there back to the mainland, you better start prospecting and building a refracting tower, because if you try to load it up with enough wood to do the job you won't get off the ground. MAYBE you could do it with ethanol (ironically, the first cars were DESIGNED to burn ethanol as well as octane), but I rather doubt it; fighting gravity is a constant battle in which your fuels weight makes it a mixed blessing.


You could run a helicopter off firewood too, it just wouldn't be as good, though handy if you're surveying forested land perhaps. You know that ALICE rocket fuel is actually made out of aluminum and ice right? And that most of our rockets run off hydrogen and oxygen, not crude oil? If it burns, it can do the job, ultimately the best fuel for rockets is the one that produces the most thrust per pound, not the cheapest, oil is cheap, it is not a super-fuel. Most model rockets run off sugar and potassium nitrate (or niter) not coal or oil.

I wasn't aware of ALICE, but was aware of military grade rockets using oxygen and hydrogen (I alluded to that further down, but maybe you were replying as you read and hadn't gotten to that point yet). That's kind of a special case though; you also know as well as I that, despite the impressive energy yield of a Saturn V, the energy CONSUMED by producing that fuel (not to mention compressing it to a compact liquid form) is greater, because there's no way around the Second Law of Thermodynamics (unless maybe we try making rocket fuel with branes, but that's a rant for another thread.... ) With rockets we have the luxury of spending extra energy slowly over a long period to get a fuel that will deliver a less (but still a lot of) energy in a very short period, and the added impetus of having to provide it to a vehicle we can't refuel; whatever it's got when launched is all it will ever have. If it burns it can do the job--in principle. In practice, replacing the 20-30 gallon (i.e. 120-180 pound) gas tanks on these choppers with 360-900 pounds of logs for a steam boiler, since running out of fuel (or burning it too slowly) has consequences a bit more serious than coasting to a gentle stop on the roadside.

I should've been a bit less vague and a bit more specific since I know you know the technical distinction: I said, "energy" but when I was talking about high yield compact energy I meant "power". Yeah, burning hydrogen delivers more than burning octane, but you don't have to do electrolysis to get octane by the barrel. You're the scientist, so you tell me: If you burn 20 pounds of wood (the equivalent of a gallon of octane under ideal conditions) in half an hour (the rate at which a car getting 30 mpg at 60 mph would use it) will more of the energy go to your wheels, or your radiator?
Geothermal seems a lot more plausible than nuclear to me, but you can't take it with you (that's always the rub with geothermal).


You can always 'take it with you' if you have to, you spin the energy into fly wheels or charge batteries with it.

And fight the Second Law every step of the way. I remember having this discussion years ago when my uncle was the first person to sing the praises of hydrogen fuel cells soon to hit the market and wondering how in the hell running cars with electrolysis could possibly be efficent, before finally deciding it MIGHT work if you could use some form of solar or an equivalent that could be exploited NO other way so that you weren't wasting energy to get your hydrogen. Near as I can tell that's basically what they are doing, but ultimately you have the same problem electric cars have always had: It may be cleaner if you're getting the juice from clean energy, but generating electricity at the local hydroplant and storing it in a battery for a car is automatically less efficient than simply hooking the car up to the power plant; it just has the advantage of actually being possible. Again, we BOTH know the reason geothermal hasn't caught on as a main stream power source is because it quickly becomes impractical the farther you get from a fault line.

All the issues about compact high yield energy sources increase significantly when we start talking about space travel;


Yes, so significantly that travel between even close stars in under a century is only possible if you either have and absurdly high energy to mass fuel (fusion or antimatter) or you don't carry fuel (laser sails), it doesn't matter if you're using coal, ethanol, or firewood to drive your economy they are all orders of magnitude to small to do the job.

No argument, but it seems slightly implausible to expect a civilization to jump straight from firewood to antimatter without any stops along the way at coal, petroleum or fission. If they lack any or all of those options that's still the only way it can happen, but I can't help thinking that will reduce the chance of it happening to a vanishingly small probability (although the expected value in a large unbounded universe of unknown extent is debatable). My point is simply that if they have little to no experience with seeking and finding compact high yield energy sources they'll be hard pressed to build a wood burning star destroyer.
first you have to get out of the planetary gravity well, and for interstellar travel you then have to get out of the stellar gravity well.


A minor issue, as fast as the escape velocity of a star tends to be, it's a pitifully tiny amount compared to the speeds necessary to carry out space travel on anything not resembling a geological timescale.

Minor by comparison only; it's an issue we've only recently licked ourselves and nothing like a large scale. People (often including, I admit, me ) tend to think that once you get out of Earth orbit you can just keep going forever unless you get sucked in by some other massive objects gravity, but that just isn't so, it it? Unless you're move VERY fast initially you better have a remaining power source or the suns constant pull will slowly but inexorably slow you down until it pulls you back again, and the suns gravity technically has no more limit than that of any piece of matter. That's a pretty big hurdle to overcome, though it's nothing to the energy necessary to quickly traverse interstellar distances, and the same old issue of generating a LOT of energy in a VERY short time rears its head again. A species addressing that problem for the first time would likely envy our familiarity with it. Again, if they address it through some compact high yield energy source other than fossil fuels, no problem, but it's hard to imagine how they'd develop safe efficient nuclear or antimatter energy sources with nothing more than wood, water wheels and mirrors combined with lenses. Maybe if they've got an Olmpus Mons or two lying around, but frankly it's hard to think of many options, even if that's only because I'm an Earthling.

Unless you plan on using a gravity whip at the end,


Decelerating isn't a big issue, the matter around an alien star all moves fairly close to it's own speed, if you've got a big sail of dumb cheap material you just spread it and allow micro collisions with all the local gas to slow you, that's how theoretical light sail ships work, you shove them with lasers until you get the right speed, they retract their sails, then reopen them near their destination to brake. Seeing as most of the local material will tend to already be doing a nice orbit around the star, you can still use gravitational assist or slingshot pretty effectively too. The sail would also get significant braking force from the solar illumination coming from the approaching star. Even a more conventional 'fueled' ship would probably use this.


That makes sense; I certainly see how it would help, but are you saying a ship moving at the rate necessary for interstellar travel at any decent speed would be able to dissipate all that energy just by bouncing rarefied random gas molecules off its sails? Seems like they'd have to start doing it as soon as they hit the edge of a system and hope they were going all the way down the well anyway.

you'll probably want to keep enough fuel to brake with when you get wherever you're going (though several forms of propulsion do offer the option of letting you use scoops on the nearest gas giant, but then you need a way to carry those scoops out of the well along with your crew, life support and engine).


If you're using fusion, as fueling off gas giants implies, the energy needed to remove hydrogen from the gravity well is pretty tiny compared to what it will produce and is expended during topping off your tanks so you'll already have paid your energy bill. If you're running of methane and straight chemical burn of it, you'd probably want to go for a very high orbit, using a hollow tether to pump fuel up, with your height limited by the tensile strength of the cord, same as a space elevator.


I'm thinking more in terms of the bigger you make the scoops to get more fuel, the more fuel you need to move that mass out of the planetary and stellar wells, then through the cosmos. We needed a whole Saturn V just to put an RV on the Moon and drop a subcompact back on Earth; once again, stellar gravity is much stronger and farther reaching than the Earth or Moons, so tacking on matter retreival devices big enough to do any good and still being able to haul them out of a gas giants gravity PLUS exit a star system means they better be grabbing a LOT of fresh fuel. Of course, the more they snag, the bigger they have to be; I'm not saying a decent engineer couldn't find the optimal size and shape, but the power needed just to get it off its home planet would necessarily shoot well above even what it took to launch a crew, ship and engine.

If a civilization can reach that point without fossil fuels they can probably find a non-fossil fuel alternative (after all, we've never used fossil fuels for space travel, and the fuel we DO use isn't ultimately energy efficient, it's just that the energy cost of electrolysis in FL doesn't directly impact fuel consumption on the shuttle), but it's hard to imagine many scenarios where they COULD reach that point without fossil fuels. That may just be a limitation of my imagination, but either way it's started me thinking, belatedly or not.


Well, as I've said, I can't see a civilization choosing not to use fossils fuels if they had them available, they're handy in the same way a bunch of half rotted furniture inside a castle in the forest is handier as firewood than all those trees but not necessary. Theoretically a culture might develop that viewed black rock or fluid as 'evil', buried by the gods in Hades where it occasionally seeps up to ooze into men's hearts, in which case even when they know it's handy they might avoid using it for the same reason we get queasy about using insects or fecal matter as food sources or all the queasiness that used to be and to some degree still does surround organ transplants. Our first useful medical nanotech is likely to use viruses in some fashion, it will take some selling to get a lot of people comfortable with their docs come in and saying "I'm going to inject you with this big hypodermic full of viral material to cure you" if vaccines are any guide. One doesn't necessarily overcome such things, if the chemical model of a specific hydrocarbon happened to coincidentally look identical to their symbol for the Evil God of Fire and Greed, for instance, their own green zealots would probably have a pretty easily sale convincing people not to use it. Absent those factors, or maybe if the had good computers before a fossil fuel economy got going and had discovered AGW and it was, or they thought it was, just as bad as we tend to assume, I can't really see anyone bypassing a fossil fuel economy if they're available to be used.


The problem I keep having, and maybe it is just Earthcentrism, is that all our large scale alternative energy sources have been products of an industrial era that almost literally exploded through the use of fossil fuels. How do you get silicon solar cells or gas centrifuges to run your manufacturing if you need manufacturing to get them? You can do a lot of things with a Franklin stove, but I doubt those are among them. Geothermal, maybe, if you can harness a big enough source (I guess you don't HAVE to have carbon to coke steel, but you're going to need something a little more heat resistant than wood to build a geothermal generator, and if you're going to make a wood turbine you better lubricate it VERY well.... )

EDIT: To include an all important negator.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 25/08/2011 at 10:29:28 PM
Reply to message
If ever there was a reason to cut greenhouse gas emissions - 19/08/2011 10:14:00 AM 862 Views
I've seen Start Trek, I know the real threat is you killing whales. - 19/08/2011 10:34:08 AM 520 Views
I know - 19/08/2011 10:36:22 AM 469 Views
You make a fair point - 19/08/2011 11:22:53 AM 444 Views
Re: You make a fair point - 19/08/2011 02:06:05 PM 420 Views
Re: You make a fair point - 19/08/2011 02:10:43 PM 418 Views
It's the other other white meat. - 19/08/2011 07:13:19 PM 473 Views
There's so much wrong with that - 19/08/2011 01:08:57 PM 500 Views
"They don't recycle; kill them all. " - 19/08/2011 07:11:15 PM 496 Views
Very Space Hippy - 19/08/2011 10:39:10 PM 513 Views
It's still debatable whether we've abandoned the evolutionary ladder. - 19/08/2011 11:16:58 PM 589 Views
we should abdon the myth of the evolutionary ladder - 20/08/2011 11:49:35 PM 383 Views
Well, for this context I think the use is okay - 21/08/2011 11:59:19 AM 462 Views
That's an interesting point about the NEED for fossil fuels as a stepping stone to advanced culture. - 21/08/2011 12:33:59 PM 561 Views
Not a need, just an edge - 21/08/2011 02:06:23 PM 377 Views
There's industrialization and then there's industrialization. - 22/08/2011 12:53:35 AM 739 Views
If you were more familiar with engineering you'd not say something like that - 22/08/2011 01:53:33 AM 735 Views
I dispute that industrialization is primarily about non-agricultural production. - 22/08/2011 03:10:19 PM 641 Views
Well you can argue that with a dictionary I suppose - 23/08/2011 03:50:52 AM 499 Views
I'm not above that, but the dictionary definitions I've found are disappointingly self-referential. - 24/08/2011 02:25:21 AM 428 Views
That tends to be the case, it is a kinda vague term outside of specific context - 24/08/2011 09:12:19 AM 587 Views
Tends to moot that part of the debate though. - 26/08/2011 12:31:21 AM 600 Views
Re: Tends to moot that part of the debate though. - 26/08/2011 05:52:59 PM 758 Views
Re: Tends to moot that part of the debate though. - 28/08/2011 09:44:52 AM 543 Views
yes I was just jumping into the middle of the discussion. - 22/08/2011 03:03:49 PM 422 Views
and we wonder why so many people ignore "scientist" - 19/08/2011 01:17:38 PM 518 Views
Think it's better to ignore "reporters on a slow news day," to be honest *NM* - 19/08/2011 02:38:23 PM 191 Views
Or even acquire a sense of humour. *NM* - 19/08/2011 08:36:07 PM 213 Views
That was the City of Pearl series by Karen Traviss - 19/08/2011 02:04:51 PM 485 Views
Re: That was the City of Pearl series by Karen Traviss - 19/08/2011 02:06:27 PM 443 Views
Hypothetical aliens are perfectly wise - 19/08/2011 06:24:13 PM 432 Views
You may be confusing aliens with God. - 19/08/2011 07:08:01 PM 457 Views
Not confused - 19/08/2011 11:41:56 PM 475 Views
It's a an amusing disconnect to watch. - 20/08/2011 12:25:00 AM 471 Views
Naturally. - 19/08/2011 08:36:28 PM 559 Views
So, basically, we're the poor white trash of the universe. - 19/08/2011 07:06:23 PM 518 Views

Reply to Message