Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could
>>>>>> be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
>>>>>
>>>>> ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
>>>> That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
>>>
>>> Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
>>> bicycles.
>> It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
>> reality.
>
> I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not
> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of
> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?

What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far as
the invisible hand can tell.

> First, as I said, technology or its lack is obviously also
> relevant. (Many people will say they "need" their smart phone, their
> computer, even their ancient land line. Nobody said those things in
> 1850.)

Thoughtful people say they need their smart phone *in order to* do
whatever they do with it.

> But did people "need" bicycles in, say, 1750, when they were
> impossible? I'd say no. Those people had other needs that were great
> enough that they made the need for personal human powered mobility
> (beyond walking) fairly negligible.

But if they had become available, with the roads on which to use them,
people would have "needed" them quickly. Absent lithium ion batteries
and cheap microprocessors no one would "need" a smart phone today.

> And society back then was obviously set up so a person could live
> without a bicycle. Come to think of it, society today is also set up
> that way.

Society back then was obviously set up so that a person could live
without antibiotics ... or not.

On 4/10/2024 9:27 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/9/2024 10:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/9/2024 7:32 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2024 4:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
>>>>>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those
>>>>>>>>>> claiming _such_ things as
>>>>>>>>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
>>>>>>>>>> empty when reminded
>>>>>>>>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally
>>>>>>>>>> written into the original
>>>>>>>>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths
>>>>>>>>>> compromise they say 'oh,
>>>>>>>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about
>>>>>>>>>> giving women the right to
>>>>>>>>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a
>>>>>>>>> racist thing. What it
>>>>>>>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce
>>>>>>>>> the politcal power of
>>>>>>>>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all
>>>>>>>>> the slaves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from The Federalist papers, #54
>>>>>>> "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with
>>>>>>> great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it
>>>>>>> views them in the mixed character of persons and of
>>>>>>> property. This is in fact their true character. It is
>>>>>>> the character bestowed on them by the laws under
>>>>>>> which they live; and it will not be denied, that
>>>>>>> these are the proper criterion; because it is only
>>>>>>> under the pretext that the laws have transformed the
>>>>>>> negroes into subjects of property, that a place is
>>>>>>> disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it
>>>>>>> is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
>>>>>>> rights which have been taken away, the negroes could
>>>>>>> no longer be refused an equal share of representation
>>>>>>> with the other inhabitants."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yeah....that's not about race at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should know better than to follow the lead of a
>>>>>>> willfully ignorant dumbass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not
>>>>>>>> a call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call
>>>>>>>> for mercy and limited reprisal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
>>>>>> years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
>>>>>> generally underappreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
>>>>>> insurmountable barrier to union. Union being
>>>>>> considered of exceptional even existential import,
>>>>>> something was desperately needed to bring resolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
>>>>>> voting in general elections. Note that our
>>>>>> Constitution even precedes William Wilberforce's
>>>>>> eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage
>>>>>> (that reliance only increased after the Founding) but
>>>>>> preferred to count 'all persons' for Congressional
>>>>>> seats.  The Southern leaders had probably never heard
>>>>>> of an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot
>>>>>> off the end at that proposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
>>>>>> states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
>>>>>> formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
>>>>>> Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else
>>>>>> on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the
>>>>>> number of Southern representatives in the Congress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule,
>>>>>> several of the Framers including Jefferson privately
>>>>>> wrote that the practice would necessarily have to end,
>>>>>> albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at
>>>>>> that time was of black slavery, there were black
>>>>>> freemen (including early patriot fatality Crispus
>>>>>> Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
>>>>>> agree with you that this was and is inherently race
>>>>>> tainted to our greater loss, then and now. It is also
>>>>>> critically viewed as a rift between universal liberty
>>>>>> and its selective denial, a fundamental conflict then
>>>>>> and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect but
>>>>>> the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned
>>>>>> to destroy the chattel system well before anyone else
>>>>>> on earth had considered it.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?...As far as I know, international African slave trade
>>>>> and the practice of holding african slaves was
>>>>> generally banned by every nation which had practiced it
>>>>> well before the US did, while the US not only
>>>>> maintained slavery as an institution, but passed at
>>>>> least two laws - fugitive slave acts - as late as 1850
>>>>> that reinforced the institution. Further to that, the
>>>>> Fugitive Slave acts were abused by domestic slave
>>>>> traders such that free blacks - either emancipated or
>>>>> born free - were abducted and sold into slavery in the
>>>>> south.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases
>>>>> in Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were
>>>>> likely thousands of others"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
>>>>>
>>>>> Then there's Solomon Northrup:
>>>>>
>>>>> "born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife
>>>>> in Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup
>>>>> was tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery
>>>>> was legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into
>>>>> slavery, and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12
>>>>> years. One of the very few to regain freedom under such
>>>>> circumstances, he later sued the slave traders involved
>>>>> in Washington, DC. Its law prohibited Northup from
>>>>> testifying against the white men because he was black
>>>>> and so he lost the case."
>>>>>
>>>>> Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
>>>>> experience.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   Then
>>>>>> 2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million
>>>>>> of her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on
>>>>>> earth, but early to the change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that
>>>>>> time than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the
>>>>>> Caliphate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary
>>>> moslems, many were killed, half the survivors were
>>>> castrated. History, ours and everyone's, is full of
>>>> violence injustice and general savagery.  Who could
>>>> dispute that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Was enslavement of american sailors by the Barbary
>>> muslims set up as _legal_ international trade scheme
>>> where governments of nations involved sanctioned and
>>> protect the trade? Were the laws where the slaves were
>>> traded set up to protect the slave owners and sanction
>>> the sale of humans?
>>>
>>> Conflating international piracy with a legally sanctioned
>>> and protected slave trade is a desperate grasp at
>>> rationalizing the practice - an extreme case of
>>> "whataboutism".
>>>
>>> The point is that you claimed the US lead the way via
>>>
>>> "the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to
>>> destroy the chattel system well before anyone else on
>>> earth had considered it."
>>>
>>> which is unequivocally wrong and completely indefensible.
>>> The Europeans - who admittedly started the african slave
>>> trade - banned the trade and ownership of slaves _well_
>>> before the US even considered it as a national policy,
>>> and the US went so far as to protect the domestic slave
>>> trade and ownership _after_ international trade and slave
>>> ownership was banned by passing _federal_ legislation
>>> doing just that including language implicitly sanctioning
>>> slavery in our constitution.
>>>
>>> The US held onto the barbaric practice long after other
>>> nations banned it, and literally fought a civil war over
>>> the issue. And yes, protecting the institution of slavery
>>> and allowing the practice during westward expansion were
>>> the main drivers of the civil war, regardless of how the
>>> magatard "historians" wish to rewrite history and call it
>>> "states rights issues" (I can hear our floriduh dumbass
>>> parroting right wing drivel now).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I noted only, as did Jefferson, that a strong statement of
>> universal natural rights in the Constitution would
>> inherently lead to the dissolution of bondage. As it
>> eventually did.
>
> I've yet to see any evidence that personal abolitionist
> sentiments were reflected in any of the founding documents.
> You're going to have to try much harder than that to
> convince me that "all men are created equal" had even an
> ancillary intent of abolishing slavery.
>
I did not say 'intent', merely noting that the statement and
reality itself were logically in opposition, a situation
which was necessarily resolved.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could
>>>>>>> be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
>>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
>>>>> That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
>>>>
>>>> Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
>>>> bicycles.
>>> It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
>>> reality.
>>
>> I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not
>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of
>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
>
> What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far as
> the invisible hand can tell.

I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is willing
to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and would have
added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or rather, my wife)
_desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have paid to install one.

>> But did people "need" bicycles in, say, 1750, when they were
>> impossible? I'd say no. Those people had other needs that were great
>> enough that they made the need for personal human powered mobility
>> (beyond walking) fairly negligible.
>
> But if they had become available, with the roads on which to use them,
> people would have "needed" them quickly.

Your "if" points to an extremely hypothetical point. "If" there's a
parallel universe where we can observe that situation, please show me.

Really, even in this universe, most people don't "need" a bicycle at all.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/10/2024 7:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>
> Cheap hub dynamoes have a rolling resistance in the order of 15W to
> generate 3W.  A good hub dynamo can probably get those 12W out of a
> mechanical resistance in the order of 20W.

Wow. I wasn't aware that any hub dynamos were that inefficient. Can you
say which brands those are?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could
>>>>>>>> be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
>>>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
>>>>>> That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
>>>>> bicycles.
>>>> It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
>>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
>>>> reality.
>>>
>>> I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not
>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of
>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
>> What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far
>> as
>> the invisible hand can tell.
>
> I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
> willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and
> would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
> rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
> paid to install one.

That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need to
heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.

On the other hand, back when people didn't need central heat, they
needed fireplaces *in order to* have a place to cook their food.

>>> But did people "need" bicycles in, say, 1750, when they were
>>> impossible? I'd say no. Those people had other needs that were great
>>> enough that they made the need for personal human powered mobility
>>> (beyond walking) fairly negligible.
>> But if they had become available, with the roads on which to use
>> them,
>> people would have "needed" them quickly.
>
> Your "if" points to an extremely hypothetical point. "If" there's a
> parallel universe where we can observe that situation, please show me.
>
> Really, even in this universe, most people don't "need" a bicycle at all.

Some people need a bicycle *in order to* get to and from work. Maybe
not in your neighborhood, but the world is bigger than that.

--

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:

> Am 10.04.2024 um 03:16 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>> On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>    What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light
>>>>>>> that could
>>>>>>> be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
>>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
>>>>> That's just silly.  Do bicycles fill a real need?  If so, why did it
>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
>>>>
>>>> Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
>>>> bicycles.
>>>
>>> It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
>>>
>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires.  They're all real, but some are
>>> more easily deferred than others.  Markets provide solutions for needs
>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
>>> reality.
>> I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit
>> not a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a
>> corollary, of the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
>> First, as I said, technology or its lack is obviously also
>> relevant. (Many people will say they "need" their smart phone, their
>> computer, even their ancient land line. Nobody said those things in
>> 1850.)
>> But did people "need" bicycles in, say, 1750, when they were
>> impossible? I'd say no. Those people had other needs that were great
>> enough that they made the need for personal human powered mobility
>> (beyond walking) fairly negligible.
>
> the "need" for human-powered personal mobility arose in 1816, the
> infamous "Year without summer".
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer>
>
> Famine greatly reduced the availability of animal-powered
> mobility. Supposedly, this led to Mr Drais experimenting about a
> "walking bike", the predecessor of the bicycle, which came to market
> in 1818.

That is an interesting idea, and one I had not heard before. It seems
likely, though, that the mass of ordinary Germans back in 1816 continued
to walk where they needed to go, as they had before. Peasants could
afford to use animals where they were needed, to move heavy goods or do
work such as plowing.

On the other hand, *gentlemen* were accustomed to riding or driving. So
I guess the actual need was to get where they wanted to go in a finer,
faster, and more distinguished way than ordinary people, even if they
had already devoured their mounts.

Years later, the Viet Cong would realize the cargo carrying capacity of
walking bikes.

--

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:13:44 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/9/2024 1:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 08:36:46 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/9/2024 1:57 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
>>>>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
>>>>> dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
>>>>> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.
>>>>
>>>> Good idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
>>>> combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
>>>> possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
>>>> width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
>>>> charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
>>>> load at a time.
>>
>>> I don't think I've ever heard of a PWM multiplexing scheme before. Is
>>> there such a thing?
>>
>> Neither have I. There might actually be such a thing but I'm not
>> going to sift through the patent bone yard looking for one right now.
>> I have the bad habit of contriving solutions that seem likely, but
>> might not exist (yet).
>>
>> In this case, let's pretend you have a power source that delivers
>> something resembling a constant 3 watt power level. The power source
>> needs to operate a 3 watt front light and simultaneously charge a
>> battery that also presents a 3 watt load. Connecting the light and
>> the battery in parallel is going to be a 6 watt load, which the
>> mythical power source (dynamo) can't handle.
>>
>> If the load was only a front light, the usual way to reduce the lights
>> output is with a PWM (pulse width modulation) light dimmer, where the
>> output power is proportional to the duty cycle of the PWM waveform.
>> 100% duty cycle is full brightness (3 watts), 50% duty cycle is half
>> brightness (1.5 watts) and 33% duty cycle would be 1/3 brightness (1.0
>> watts).
>>
>> The nice part of PWM is that there is no load BETWEEN pulses. For
>> example, if the front light was running at 33% (1 watt) duty cycle,
>> there would be the remaining 67% (2 watts) available to power
>> something else, without exceeding the 3 watt limit of the power source
>> (dynamo). Therefore, the "extra" 67% could be used to charge the
>> battery. Just invert the PWM output that powers the front light to
>> produce the PWM output the powers the battery charger. I could
>> probably throw something together using commodity switching power
>> supply IC's.
>>
>> If I wanted to be creative, I could adjust the pulse width using a
>> control knob. At one end, all the power goes to the front lamp. At
>> the other end, all the power goes to charging the battery (as might be
>> the case during daylight hours). However, in both cases, the load on
>> the dynamo doesn't exceed its rated 3 watts, which is the purpose of
>> this exercise.
>>
>> Patent pending (maybe).

Ok. So what did I do wrong now? I'm fairly certain my scheme will
work. I'm not so sure it will sell or be useful. Perhaps it is too
complexicated for the average cyclist to operate. Is there a fatal
flaw that I didn't notice?

>>> Maybe you can build mux a cable tester in there too.
>>
>> You seem to be hallucinating. Were you watching the eclipse without
>> proper eye protection?
>
>I read somewhere once where a cable testing with PWM was a thing, never
>saw any real world applications for it though.

Is there some reason why you would want to raise a dead issue
previously presented by someone might have died by now from Usenet
withdrawal symptoms? By now, you should have noticed that raising the
dead is non-productive and tends to produce unexpected disasters.
Consult your favorite horror story or movie for how it usually works.

I don't recall reading anything that might suggest the existence of a
cable tester that uses PWM in some unspecified manner, but I'll admit
that it's possible. Perhaps in an alternate universe or dimension.

I did find mention of the use of PWM for testing motor power cables:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cable+test%22+%22PWM%22>
However, in all those, the PWM is part of the motor speed control
circuitry or VFD (variable frequency drive) and not part of the test
equipment.

If Google search (and other searches) can't find it, it doesn't exist.

Give your eyes a rest from watching the eclipse and the PWM cable
tester should magically vanish.

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

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:46:04 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
(chomp)
>I’m told it’s 6 watts at 12 volts which makes sense ie double, but they are
>claiming 12 watts which I’m sure is possible but improbable without
>increasing the drag. Ie power in.

Powering the light from a battery, which is re-charged by a dynamo,
can be viewed as a perpetual motion machine. Each stage has it's
losses. From the rider to the light, the overall efficiency is
something like:
dynamo_efficiency * battery_charge_efficiency *
battery_discharge_efficiency * DC_to_DC_converter_efficiency *
LED_light_efficiency

If I assume that everything listed is 90% efficient, the overall
efficiency is:
0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 59% efficiency
Including additional losses, such as wind resistance, drag, rolling
resistance, battery aging will just make the efficiency worse. Note
that I'm ignoring the caloric conversion efficiency of the rider diet
to pedaling power. Such a charging system is similar to installing a
gasoline generator in a Tesla EV to recharge the Tesla battery while
driving.

>But as Jeff has said hopefully we’ll get some documentation at some point.

Once the company attorneys become involved and inform the marketing
department that the company can be sued for making performance claims
that can't be demonstrated, I would expect to see fewer but better
specifications.

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

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:36:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/10/2024 7:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>
>> Cheap hub dynamoes have a rolling resistance in the order of 15W to
>> generate 3W.  A good hub dynamo can probably get those 12W out of a
>> mechanical resistance in the order of 20W.
>
>Wow. I wasn't aware that any hub dynamos were that inefficient. Can you
>say which brands those are?

Ummm...
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cable+test%22+%22PWM%22>

The efficiencies vary radically. The closer the dynamo resembles a
brushless motor, the more efficient. Dynamos also have a peak in the
efficiency curve, where low RPM operation is very inefficient, mid RPM
are the most efficient, and high RPM shows a drop in efficiency (from
core saturation). The core saturation effect act as a voltage
regulator and is designed into the dynamo so that an additional
voltage regulator is NOT required. You can see some typical
efficiencies and RPM/efficiency curves at:
<https://pedalcell.com/blogs/blog/maximizing-bicycle-charging-efficiency>
"A rider that tries to charge their phone with a common bicycle dynamo
system can lose over 60% of their power."

Drivel: Gone to see if there really is such a thing as a free lunch.

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

On 4/10/2024 12:57 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could
>>>>>>>>> be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
>>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
>>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
>>>>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
>>>>>>> That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
>>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
>>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
>>>>>> bicycles.
>>>>> It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
>>>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
>>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
>>>>> reality.
>>>>
>>>> I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not
>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of
>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
>>> What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far
>>> as
>>> the invisible hand can tell.
>>
>> I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
>> willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and
>> would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
>> rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
>> paid to install one.
>
> That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need to
> heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
> Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
> central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.

OK. We actually did buy a house with indoor plumbing. So according to
you, we did _need_ a furnace. We did not _need_ a fireplace.

> On the other hand, back when people didn't need central heat, they
> needed fireplaces *in order to* have a place to cook their food.

Yep. That was back then. This is now. Heck, if we're going to delve
deeply into history, you could argue as (in)effectively that people
_need_ a place in the middle of their living room to build an open fire
on the floor! That's what predated fireplaces, after all.

And I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or even
_desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed.

>> Really, even in this universe, most people don't "need" a bicycle at all.
>
> Some people need a bicycle *in order to* get to and from work. Maybe
> not in your neighborhood, but the world is bigger than that.

Yes, _some_ people. If you re-read, you'll see I was talking about
_most_ people. Remember, bike commute mode share is well under 1%. I was
part of that tiny clan, but even I didn't _need_ to be. It was something
I desired.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/10/2024 2:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:36:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2024 7:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>
>>> Cheap hub dynamoes have a rolling resistance in the order of 15W to
>>> generate 3W.  A good hub dynamo can probably get those 12W out of a
>>> mechanical resistance in the order of 20W.
>>
>> Wow. I wasn't aware that any hub dynamos were that inefficient. Can you
>> say which brands those are?
>
> Ummm...
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cable+test%22+%22PWM%22>

Oops. That's related to cable PWM instead of hub dynamos.

> You can see some typical
> efficiencies and RPM/efficiency curves at:
> <https://pedalcell.com/blogs/blog/maximizing-bicycle-charging-efficiency>
> "A rider that tries to charge their phone with a common bicycle dynamo
> system can lose over 60% of their power."

Which is still better than the "15W to generate 3W." That's why I asked.

BTW, most of the dynamos in that Efficiency bar graph are bottles or
rollers, not hub dynamos. The hubs are at the top, between 45% and 60%
efficient. Again, that's why I asked.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 4/10/2024 12:57 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered
>>>>>>>>>> light that could
>>>>>>>>>> be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
>>>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
>>>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
>>>>>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
>>>>>>>> That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
>>>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
>>>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
>>>>>>> bicycles.
>>>>>> It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
>>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
>>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
>>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
>>>>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
>>>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
>>>>>> reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not
>>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of
>>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
>>>> What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far
>>>> as
>>>> the invisible hand can tell.
>>>
>>> I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
>>> willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and
>>> would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
>>> rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
>>> paid to install one.
>> That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need
>> to
>> heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
>> Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
>> central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.
>
> OK. We actually did buy a house with indoor plumbing. So according to
> you, we did _need_ a furnace. We did not _need_ a fireplace.
>
>> On the other hand, back when people didn't need central heat, they
>> needed fireplaces *in order to* have a place to cook their food.
>
> Yep. That was back then. This is now. Heck, if we're going to delve
> deeply into history, you could argue as (in)effectively that people
> _need_ a place in the middle of their living room to build an open
> fire on the floor! That's what predated fireplaces, after all.

More importantly, they needed a hole in the roof to let out the smoke.

> And I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or even
> _desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed.

And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't any
difference between "need" and "desire".

>>> Really, even in this universe, most people don't "need" a bicycle at all.
>> Some people need a bicycle *in order to* get to and from work.
>> Maybe
>> not in your neighborhood, but the world is bigger than that.
>
> Yes, _some_ people. If you re-read, you'll see I was talking about
> _most_ people. Remember, bike commute mode share is well under 1%. I
> was part of that tiny clan, but even I didn't _need_ to be. It was
> something I desired.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:21:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/10/2024 2:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:36:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2024 7:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Cheap hub dynamoes have a rolling resistance in the order of 15W to
>>>> generate 3W.  A good hub dynamo can probably get those 12W out of a
>>>> mechanical resistance in the order of 20W.
>>>
>>> Wow. I wasn't aware that any hub dynamos were that inefficient. Can you
>>> say which brands those are?
>>
>> Ummm...
>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cable+test%22+%22PWM%22>
>
>Oops. That's related to cable PWM instead of hub dynamos.

Sorry. I cut and pasted the wrong URL. I was in a hurry to attend a
free lunch. This is what I meant to post:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=dynamo+hub+efficiency+graph&udm=2>

More on hub dynamo efficiency:
<https://www.cyclingabout.com/best-dynamo-hub-bicycle-touring-bikepacking/>
Charging Test Averages (Four Different Chargers):
1. SON28 Hub - 57% efficient
2. 3D32 Hub - 44% efficient
3. UR700 Hub - 39% efficient
4. PD-8 Hub - 34% efficient

Lighting Test Averages (Four Different Dynamo Lights):
SON28 Hub - 44% efficient
3D32 Hub - 37% efficient
PD-8 Hub - 31% efficient
UR700 Hub - 30% efficient

>> You can see some typical
>> efficiencies and RPM/efficiency curves at:
>> <https://pedalcell.com/blogs/blog/maximizing-bicycle-charging-efficiency>
>> "A rider that tries to charge their phone with a common bicycle dynamo
>> system can lose over 60% of their power."
>
>Which is still better than the "15W to generate 3W." That's why I asked.

Good point. 3w/15w = 20% efficiency. The numbers I found are bad,
but not as bad as 20%.

>BTW, most of the dynamos in that Efficiency bar graph are bottles or
>rollers, not hub dynamos. The hubs are at the top, between 45% and 60%
>efficient. Again, that's why I asked.

PedalCell looks something like a small bottle dynamo in that it has a
rubber roller that rides on the wheel rim.
<https://pedalcell.com>
<https://pedalcell.com/en-nl/blogs/blog/maximizing-bicycle-charging-efficiency>
The above article claims 70% efficiency.

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

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:13:44 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I read somewhere once where a cable testing with PWM was a thing, never
>saw any real world applications for it though.

As a last resort, it might be useful to ask an expert. In this case,
it's Microsoft CoPilot, which was just installed on my Windoze 10
desktop without my permission.

I asked the AI:
"Is PWM used for testing cables?"

and the AI replied (mercifully edited for brevity by me):

"Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) is a technology primarily used to
control the speed of fans and pumps in computer systems. It works by
modulating the voltage delivered to the device, allowing for precise
control over fan speeds, which results in optimized cooling and
minimized noise."

This is what's meant by fan speed control:
<https://www.onecomputerguy.com/pwm-cable-2/>
No, it's not a cable tester.

"However, PWM can also be used in testing certain circuits. For
instance, to confirm if the Electronic Control Unit (ECU) is
commanding control, you can employ a test light or a noid light. The
test light can be attached in series (between the two terminals) and
the circuit evoked. The light should pulse. If it doesn't, either the
wiring back to the ECU is compromised, or the ECU is not sending a
command."

That's a complicated explanation for a continuity tester that
intermittently beeps when there's a connection. Yes, that might be a
primitive cable tester, but is probably now what Tom designed.

Noid lights are used for testing fuel injectors. I thought it was a
crude abreviation for "No Idea" or for traffic stops, "no
identification" papers:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bROO1zanlRU> (2:04)
Pleeze add "noid" to your speling chequer.

"In terms of cable testing, there are specific devices like the PWM 21
inspection unit that makes real-time encoder diagnosis and automatic
encoder identification possible. But generally, PWM is not commonly
used for testing cables. Standard cable testing often involves
different maintenance and diagnostic techniques."

<https://www.heidenhain.us/products/testing-inspection-devices/testing-of-encoders/pwm-21/>
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01L7ASGIY>
That's not a cable tester but rather an encoder tester. Bottom line
is that Cortana/Bing/CoPilot could not find an example of cable
testing using PWM.

"Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/10/2024"

Someone should tell Microsoft that Bing previously was called Cortana
and is now called CoPilot.

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

On 4/10/2024 4:33 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> ... I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need, or even
>> _desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") has proposed.
>
> And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose, there isn't any
> difference between "need" and "desire".

OK. So back to the topic at hand - a system with a hub dynamo driving a
headlight and charging a smart phone and charging a battery - what's
your verdict?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/10/2024 6:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:21:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2024 2:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:36:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2024 7:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheap hub dynamoes have a rolling resistance in the order of 15W to
>>>>> generate 3W.  A good hub dynamo can probably get those 12W out of a
>>>>> mechanical resistance in the order of 20W.
>>>>
>>>> Wow. I wasn't aware that any hub dynamos were that inefficient. Can you
>>>> say which brands those are?
>>>
>>> Ummm...
>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cable+test%22+%22PWM%22>
>>
>> Oops. That's related to cable PWM instead of hub dynamos.
>
> Sorry. I cut and pasted the wrong URL. I was in a hurry to attend a
> free lunch. This is what I meant to post:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=dynamo+hub+efficiency+graph&udm=2>
>
> More on hub dynamo efficiency:
> <https://www.cyclingabout.com/best-dynamo-hub-bicycle-touring-bikepacking/>
> Charging Test Averages (Four Different Chargers):
> 1. SON28 Hub - 57% efficient
> 2. 3D32 Hub - 44% efficient
> 3. UR700 Hub - 39% efficient
> 4. PD-8 Hub - 34% efficient
>
> Lighting Test Averages (Four Different Dynamo Lights):
> SON28 Hub - 44% efficient
> 3D32 Hub - 37% efficient
> PD-8 Hub - 31% efficient
> UR700 Hub - 30% efficient
>
>>> You can see some typical
>>> efficiencies and RPM/efficiency curves at:
>>> <https://pedalcell.com/blogs/blog/maximizing-bicycle-charging-efficiency>
>>> "A rider that tries to charge their phone with a common bicycle dynamo
>>> system can lose over 60% of their power."
>>
>> Which is still better than the "15W to generate 3W." That's why I asked.
>
> Good point. 3w/15w = 20% efficiency. The numbers I found are bad,
> but not as bad as 20%.

I'll read that page in detail later, but it looks like pretty good
information. BTW, I had no idea the SP hub was so inefficient! IIRC,
that's what Jay Beattie tried and didn't like. I offered to buy it from
him, and now I'm glad he refused to sell it.

>> BTW, most of the dynamos in that Efficiency bar graph are bottles or
>> rollers, not hub dynamos. The hubs are at the top, between 45% and 60%
>> efficient. Again, that's why I asked.
>
> PedalCell looks something like a small bottle dynamo in that it has a
> rubber roller that rides on the wheel rim.
> <https://pedalcell.com>
> <https://pedalcell.com/en-nl/blogs/blog/maximizing-bicycle-charging-efficiency>
> The above article claims 70% efficiency.

Looks like PedalCell copied my idea of driving via an O-ring running on
the rim!

Also, is it useful for driving a headlight? I don't see where they
mention that. They're concentrating on charging batteries.

Also also: I've wondered briefly about the efficiency of a charging
cycle. If you charge a modern Li-ion (or other) battery by pumping in a
certain number of Joules, how many Joules do you get back out?

I'm sure it varies with both charging details and output details. But
it's interesting to me that my cell phone (~4 year old Moto g(7) Power)
gets quite warm when charging. That's obviously charging energy lost.

Any energy lost in a charge cycle argues for simply driving a headlamp
directly from a dynamo.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:35:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/10/2024 9:27 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 4/9/2024 10:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2024 7:32 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2024 4:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
>>>>>>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those
>>>>>>>>>>> claiming _such_ things as
>>>>>>>>>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
>>>>>>>>>>> empty when reminded
>>>>>>>>>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally
>>>>>>>>>>> written into the original
>>>>>>>>>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths
>>>>>>>>>>> compromise they say 'oh,
>>>>>>>>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about
>>>>>>>>>>> giving women the right to
>>>>>>>>>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a
>>>>>>>>>> racist thing. What it
>>>>>>>>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce
>>>>>>>>>> the politcal power of
>>>>>>>>>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all
>>>>>>>>>> the slaves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> from The Federalist papers, #54
>>>>>>>> "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with
>>>>>>>> great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it
>>>>>>>> views them in the mixed character of persons and of
>>>>>>>> property. This is in fact their true character. It is
>>>>>>>> the character bestowed on them by the laws under
>>>>>>>> which they live; and it will not be denied, that
>>>>>>>> these are the proper criterion; because it is only
>>>>>>>> under the pretext that the laws have transformed the
>>>>>>>> negroes into subjects of property, that a place is
>>>>>>>> disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it
>>>>>>>> is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
>>>>>>>> rights which have been taken away, the negroes could
>>>>>>>> no longer be refused an equal share of representation
>>>>>>>> with the other inhabitants."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yeah....that's not about race at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should know better than to follow the lead of a
>>>>>>>> willfully ignorant dumbass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not
>>>>>>>>> a call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call
>>>>>>>>> for mercy and limited reprisal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
>>>>>>> years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
>>>>>>> generally underappreciated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
>>>>>>> insurmountable barrier to union. Union being
>>>>>>> considered of exceptional even existential import,
>>>>>>> something was desperately needed to bring resolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
>>>>>>> voting in general elections. Note that our
>>>>>>> Constitution even precedes William Wilberforce's
>>>>>>> eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage
>>>>>>> (that reliance only increased after the Founding) but
>>>>>>> preferred to count 'all persons' for Congressional
>>>>>>> seats.  The Southern leaders had probably never heard
>>>>>>> of an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot
>>>>>>> off the end at that proposition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
>>>>>>> states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
>>>>>>> formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
>>>>>>> Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else
>>>>>>> on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the
>>>>>>> number of Southern representatives in the Congress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule,
>>>>>>> several of the Framers including Jefferson privately
>>>>>>> wrote that the practice would necessarily have to end,
>>>>>>> albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at
>>>>>>> that time was of black slavery, there were black
>>>>>>> freemen (including early patriot fatality Crispus
>>>>>>> Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
>>>>>>> agree with you that this was and is inherently race
>>>>>>> tainted to our greater loss, then and now. It is also
>>>>>>> critically viewed as a rift between universal liberty
>>>>>>> and its selective denial, a fundamental conflict then
>>>>>>> and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect but
>>>>>>> the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned
>>>>>>> to destroy the chattel system well before anyone else
>>>>>>> on earth had considered it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?...As far as I know, international African slave trade
>>>>>> and the practice of holding african slaves was
>>>>>> generally banned by every nation which had practiced it
>>>>>> well before the US did, while the US not only
>>>>>> maintained slavery as an institution, but passed at
>>>>>> least two laws - fugitive slave acts - as late as 1850
>>>>>> that reinforced the institution. Further to that, the
>>>>>> Fugitive Slave acts were abused by domestic slave
>>>>>> traders such that free blacks - either emancipated or
>>>>>> born free - were abducted and sold into slavery in the
>>>>>> south.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases
>>>>>> in Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were
>>>>>> likely thousands of others"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then there's Solomon Northrup:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife
>>>>>> in Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup
>>>>>> was tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery
>>>>>> was legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into
>>>>>> slavery, and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12
>>>>>> years. One of the very few to regain freedom under such
>>>>>> circumstances, he later sued the slave traders involved
>>>>>> in Washington, DC. Its law prohibited Northup from
>>>>>> testifying against the white men because he was black
>>>>>> and so he lost the case."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Then
>>>>>>> 2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million
>>>>>>> of her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on
>>>>>>> earth, but early to the change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that
>>>>>>> time than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the
>>>>>>> Caliphate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary
>>>>> moslems, many were killed, half the survivors were
>>>>> castrated. History, ours and everyone's, is full of
>>>>> violence injustice and general savagery.  Who could
>>>>> dispute that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was enslavement of american sailors by the Barbary
>>>> muslims set up as _legal_ international trade scheme
>>>> where governments of nations involved sanctioned and
>>>> protect the trade? Were the laws where the slaves were
>>>> traded set up to protect the slave owners and sanction
>>>> the sale of humans?
>>>>
>>>> Conflating international piracy with a legally sanctioned
>>>> and protected slave trade is a desperate grasp at
>>>> rationalizing the practice - an extreme case of
>>>> "whataboutism".
>>>>
>>>> The point is that you claimed the US lead the way via
>>>>
>>>> "the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to
>>>> destroy the chattel system well before anyone else on
>>>> earth had considered it."
>>>>
>>>> which is unequivocally wrong and completely indefensible.
>>>> The Europeans - who admittedly started the african slave
>>>> trade - banned the trade and ownership of slaves _well_
>>>> before the US even considered it as a national policy,
>>>> and the US went so far as to protect the domestic slave
>>>> trade and ownership _after_ international trade and slave
>>>> ownership was banned by passing _federal_ legislation
>>>> doing just that including language implicitly sanctioning
>>>> slavery in our constitution.
>>>>
>>>> The US held onto the barbaric practice long after other
>>>> nations banned it, and literally fought a civil war over
>>>> the issue. And yes, protecting the institution of slavery
>>>> and allowing the practice during westward expansion were
>>>> the main drivers of the civil war, regardless of how the
>>>> magatard "historians" wish to rewrite history and call it
>>>> "states rights issues" (I can hear our floriduh dumbass
>>>> parroting right wing drivel now).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I noted only, as did Jefferson, that a strong statement of
>>> universal natural rights in the Constitution would
>>> inherently lead to the dissolution of bondage. As it
>>> eventually did.
>>
>> I've yet to see any evidence that personal abolitionist
>> sentiments were reflected in any of the founding documents.
>> You're going to have to try much harder than that to
>> convince me that "all men are created equal" had even an
>> ancillary intent of abolishing slavery.
>>
>I did not say 'intent', merely noting that the statement and
>reality itself were logically in opposition, a situation
>which was necessarily resolved.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:44:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/10/2024 6:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>> More on hub dynamo efficiency:
>> <https://www.cyclingabout.com/best-dynamo-hub-bicycle-touring-bikepacking/>
>> Charging Test Averages (Four Different Chargers):
>> 1. SON28 Hub - 57% efficient
>> 2. 3D32 Hub - 44% efficient
>> 3. UR700 Hub - 39% efficient
>> 4. PD-8 Hub - 34% efficient
>>
>> Lighting Test Averages (Four Different Dynamo Lights):
>> SON28 Hub - 44% efficient
>> 3D32 Hub - 37% efficient
>> PD-8 Hub - 31% efficient
>> UR700 Hub - 30% efficient

>BTW, I had no idea the SP hub was so inefficient! IIRC,
>that's what Jay Beattie tried and didn't like. I offered to buy it from
>him, and now I'm glad he refused to sell it.

I guess you mean the PD-8 Hub:
<https://www.sp-dynamo.com/series8-pd8>
No electrical specs except the usual 6V / 3 Watts. Lack of a real
spec sheet is often an indication that they're hiding something.

>> PedalCell looks something like a small bottle dynamo in that it has a
>> rubber roller that rides on the wheel rim.
>> <https://pedalcell.com>
>> <https://pedalcell.com/en-nl/blogs/blog/maximizing-bicycle-charging-efficiency>
>> The above article claims 70% efficiency.
>
>Looks like PedalCell copied my idea of driving via an O-ring running on
>the rim!

PedalCell is otto business as of Jan 1, 2024.
<https://pedalcell.com/blogs/blog/company-shut-down>

>Also, is it useful for driving a headlight? I don't see where they
>mention that. They're concentrating on charging batteries.

I don't know, and there's probably nobody to ask.

>Also also: I've wondered briefly about the efficiency of a charging
>cycle. If you charge a modern Li-ion (or other) battery by pumping in a
>certain number of Joules, how many Joules do you get back out?

I seem to recall going through this a few years ago. Yep. Oct 2021:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/RXCaz31pZ3M/m/GE76mzyYAgAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/RXCaz31pZ3M/m/GiETDRJ1AwAJ>
The dynamo probably can deliver the power to run a headlight, but your
legs still have work very hard dealing with the poor efficiency.

More comments on PedalCell:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/DhZq8myb0Z8/m/qkyZaAErAgAJ>

>I'm sure it varies with both charging details and output details. But
>it's interesting to me that my cell phone (~4 year old Moto g(7) Power)
>gets quite warm when charging. That's obviously charging energy lost.

Maybe. If your cell phone gets hot, all it means is that the thermal
design did not include a proper heat spreader. Heat (calories),
spread over a wide area, is much colder than the same amount of heat
concentrated on a smaller spot. I have a Moto G Power 2020.
(Actually, I have two of them).
<https://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_moto_g_power-10076.php>
I rarely fast charge the phone. I'm not certain, but I don't recall
it ever getting "quite warm" during charging.

>Any energy lost in a charge cycle argues for simply driving a headlamp
>directly from a dynamo.

Nope. Just mount your phone vertically and turn on the "flash" light.
The LED isn't very light but might be usable during an emergency:

"Lights Out? Make A Smartphone Bike Light - GCN's Roadside Maintenance
Series"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDyYkcGe2Gc> (1:53)

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

Am 10.04.2024 um 18:57 schrieb Radey Shouman:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 4/10/2024 10:55 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/9/2024 4:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/8/2024 2:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could
>>>>>>>>> be charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from
>>>>>>>>> the dynamo, but there is no such animal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
>>>>>>>> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
>>>>>>>> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.
>>>>>>> That's just silly. Do bicycles fill a real need? If so, why did it
>>>>>>> take millennia for the market to produce them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you serious? The answer is blatantly obvious: Because the science
>>>>>> and the technology were not yet present to allow manufacture of
>>>>>> bicycles.
>>>>> It's funny how needs become "real" only when they can be satisfied.
>>>>> I'm not sure what the alternative to "real" is, maybe "fake" needs?
>>>>> Maslow claimed there was a hierarchy of needs, from basic food and
>>>>> shelter on up to less pressing desires. They're all real, but some are
>>>>> more easily deferred than others. Markets provide solutions for needs
>>>>> when money can be made by selling them; that seems an odd way to define
>>>>> reality.
>>>>
>>>> I think the market can be a useful tool to evaluate needs, albeit not
>>>> a perfect one. This is part of the concept, or maybe a corollary, of
>>>> the "Invisible Hand," is it not?
>>> What is the difference between a need and a desire? Nothing, as far
>>> as
>>> the invisible hand can tell.
>>
>> I'd say the Invisible Hand could tell based on what a person is
>> willing to pay. We _needed_ to have a heating system in my house, and
>> would have added one if the house somehow did not have one. We (or
>> rather, my wife) _desired_ a fireplace as well; but we'd never have
>> paid to install one.
>
> That's a great example, because, of course, human beings didn't need to
> heat most of the rooms of their houses until very recently, as
> Mr. Slocomb can attest. When they added indoor plumbing, they needed
> central heat *in order to* prevent their pipes from freezing.

The 200 year-old house my parents bought when I was a child had indoor
plumbing but no central heat. There was a gas fire in most rooms, which
had to be enough (for safety reasons, those were never running during
the night). Good enough to prevent frozen plumbing.

On 4/10/2024 8:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/10/2024 4:33 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> ... I'm still not seeing evidence that many people need,
>>> or even
>>> _desire_ the lighting system that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms")
>>> has proposed.
>>
>> And I'm arguing that, if you don't specify the purpose,
>> there isn't any
>> difference between "need" and "desire".
>
> OK. So back to the topic at hand - a system with a hub
> dynamo driving a headlight and charging a smart phone and
> charging a battery - what's your verdict?
>

Sounds dippy to me but I have serviced bicycles with exactly
that setup (including annoyingly complex internal wiring to
a USB fork top cap). Some riders find that interesting or
desirable despite extreme expense, complexity, impediments
to service operations, inefficiency and poor reliability.
YMMV as it always does because, humans.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/10/2024 9:37 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:35:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2024 9:27 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2024 10:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2024 7:32 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>> On 4/8/2024 4:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/8/2024 10:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 3:35 PM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:25:03 -0400, zen cycle
>>>>>>>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. Constitutional originalists  - those
>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming _such_ things as
>>>>>>>>>>>> "original Constitution had a better ethos" come up
>>>>>>>>>>>> empty when reminded
>>>>>>>>>>>> that racism and misogyny were quite literally
>>>>>>>>>>>> written into the original
>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Sure, when asked about the 3/5ths
>>>>>>>>>>>> compromise they say 'oh,
>>>>>>>>>>>> yeah, except for that', then when asked about
>>>>>>>>>>>> giving women the right to
>>>>>>>>>>>> vote they say 'oh, yeah, except for that'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Only fools believe the 3/5th compromise was a
>>>>>>>>>>> racist thing. What it
>>>>>>>>>>> was an attempt by the non-slave states to reduce
>>>>>>>>>>> the politcal power of
>>>>>>>>>>> the slave holding states, who wanted to count all
>>>>>>>>>>> the slaves.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, the slave states wanted to count them all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, as anyone who has read in the period knows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try reading in the period then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from The Federalist papers, #54
>>>>>>>>> "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with
>>>>>>>>> great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it
>>>>>>>>> views them in the mixed character of persons and of
>>>>>>>>> property. This is in fact their true character. It is
>>>>>>>>> the character bestowed on them by the laws under
>>>>>>>>> which they live; and it will not be denied, that
>>>>>>>>> these are the proper criterion; because it is only
>>>>>>>>> under the pretext that the laws have transformed the
>>>>>>>>> negroes into subjects of property, that a place is
>>>>>>>>> disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it
>>>>>>>>> is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
>>>>>>>>> rights which have been taken away, the negroes could
>>>>>>>>> no longer be refused an equal share of representation
>>>>>>>>> with the other inhabitants."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yeah....that's not about race at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You should know better than to follow the lead of a
>>>>>>>>> willfully ignorant dumbass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ditto Hammurabi's 'An eye for an eye'. That was not
>>>>>>>>>> a call to mayhem but rather a groundbreaking call
>>>>>>>>>> for mercy and limited reprisal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you , yes I've read The Federalist a few times,
>>>>>>>> years apart. It's always a good read and I must say
>>>>>>>> generally underappreciated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Avoiding presentism, the issue at hand was a seemingly
>>>>>>>> insurmountable barrier to union. Union being
>>>>>>>> considered of exceptional even existential import,
>>>>>>>> something was desperately needed to bring resolution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nowhere on earth were slaves*, at that time or before,
>>>>>>>> voting in general elections. Note that our
>>>>>>>> Constitution even precedes William Wilberforce's
>>>>>>>> eventually successful campaign in the British Empire.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The distorted Southern economies relied on bondage
>>>>>>>> (that reliance only increased after the Founding) but
>>>>>>>> preferred to count 'all persons' for Congressional
>>>>>>>> seats.  The Southern leaders had probably never heard
>>>>>>>> of an irony meter but if there was one it would shoot
>>>>>>>> off the end at that proposition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For both economic but also moral reasons the northern
>>>>>>>> states did not generally allow bondage (Pennsylvania
>>>>>>>> formally outlawed it in 1780, well before our
>>>>>>>> Constitution, before Wilberforce, before anywhere else
>>>>>>>> on earth AFAIK.) and were firm on not bumping the
>>>>>>>> number of Southern representatives in the Congress.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even before the now mostly misunderstood 3/5 rule,
>>>>>>>> several of the Framers including Jefferson privately
>>>>>>>> wrote that the practice would necessarily have to end,
>>>>>>>> albeit as St. Augustine pleaded, "not yet".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> p.s. Although the general practice in the Americas at
>>>>>>>> that time was of black slavery, there were black
>>>>>>>> freemen (including early patriot fatality Crispus
>>>>>>>> Attucks) and there were not-black slaves. Still, I
>>>>>>>> agree with you that this was and is inherently race
>>>>>>>> tainted to our greater loss, then and now. It is also
>>>>>>>> critically viewed as a rift between universal liberty
>>>>>>>> and its selective denial, a fundamental conflict then
>>>>>>>> and now, here and everywhere. Humans are imperfect but
>>>>>>>> the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned
>>>>>>>> to destroy the chattel system well before anyone else
>>>>>>>> on earth had considered it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?...As far as I know, international African slave trade
>>>>>>> and the practice of holding african slaves was
>>>>>>> generally banned by every nation which had practiced it
>>>>>>> well before the US did, while the US not only
>>>>>>> maintained slavery as an institution, but passed at
>>>>>>> least two laws - fugitive slave acts - as late as 1850
>>>>>>> that reinforced the institution. Further to that, the
>>>>>>> Fugitive Slave acts were abused by domestic slave
>>>>>>> traders such that free blacks - either emancipated or
>>>>>>> born free - were abducted and sold into slavery in the
>>>>>>> south.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The historian Carol Wilson documented 300 such cases
>>>>>>> in Freedom at Risk (1994) and estimated there were
>>>>>>> likely thousands of others"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Risk-Kidnapping-America-1780-1865/dp/0813192978
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then there's Solomon Northrup:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "born free around 1808 to Mintus Northup and his wife
>>>>>>> in Essex County, New York state.....In 1841, Northup
>>>>>>> was tricked into going to Washington, DC, where slavery
>>>>>>> was legal. He was drugged, kidnapped, and sold into
>>>>>>> slavery, and he was held as a slave in Louisiana for 12
>>>>>>> years. One of the very few to regain freedom under such
>>>>>>> circumstances, he later sued the slave traders involved
>>>>>>> in Washington, DC. Its law prohibited Northup from
>>>>>>> testifying against the white men because he was black
>>>>>>> and so he lost the case."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Northrup published his Memoir "12 Years a Slave"on the
>>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Then
>>>>>>>> 2 generations later the nation sacrificed 3/4 million
>>>>>>>> of her citizens to end it. Not the first instance on
>>>>>>>> earth, but early to the change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Of all descriptions, none in greater numbers at that
>>>>>>>> time than the mostly Balkan/Slavic slaves within the
>>>>>>>> Caliphate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of the American sailors enslaved by the Barbary
>>>>>> moslems, many were killed, half the survivors were
>>>>>> castrated. History, ours and everyone's, is full of
>>>>>> violence injustice and general savagery.  Who could
>>>>>> dispute that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Was enslavement of american sailors by the Barbary
>>>>> muslims set up as _legal_ international trade scheme
>>>>> where governments of nations involved sanctioned and
>>>>> protect the trade? Were the laws where the slaves were
>>>>> traded set up to protect the slave owners and sanction
>>>>> the sale of humans?
>>>>>
>>>>> Conflating international piracy with a legally sanctioned
>>>>> and protected slave trade is a desperate grasp at
>>>>> rationalizing the practice - an extreme case of
>>>>> "whataboutism".
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that you claimed the US lead the way via
>>>>>
>>>>> "the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to
>>>>> destroy the chattel system well before anyone else on
>>>>> earth had considered it."
>>>>>
>>>>> which is unequivocally wrong and completely indefensible.
>>>>> The Europeans - who admittedly started the african slave
>>>>> trade - banned the trade and ownership of slaves _well_
>>>>> before the US even considered it as a national policy,
>>>>> and the US went so far as to protect the domestic slave
>>>>> trade and ownership _after_ international trade and slave
>>>>> ownership was banned by passing _federal_ legislation
>>>>> doing just that including language implicitly sanctioning
>>>>> slavery in our constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> The US held onto the barbaric practice long after other
>>>>> nations banned it, and literally fought a civil war over
>>>>> the issue. And yes, protecting the institution of slavery
>>>>> and allowing the practice during westward expansion were
>>>>> the main drivers of the civil war, regardless of how the
>>>>> magatard "historians" wish to rewrite history and call it
>>>>> "states rights issues" (I can hear our floriduh dumbass
>>>>> parroting right wing drivel now).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I noted only, as did Jefferson, that a strong statement of
>>>> universal natural rights in the Constitution would
>>>> inherently lead to the dissolution of bondage. As it
>>>> eventually did.
>>>
>>> I've yet to see any evidence that personal abolitionist
>>> sentiments were reflected in any of the founding documents.
>>> You're going to have to try much harder than that to
>>> convince me that "all men are created equal" had even an
>>> ancillary intent of abolishing slavery.
>>>
>> I did not say 'intent', merely noting that the statement and
>> reality itself were logically in opposition, a situation
>> which was necessarily resolved.
>
> Before one gets all wound d up about slavery in the south do a bit of
> research. Prior to the Civil war the cotton trade was far and away the
> largest part of U.S. trade ' King Cotton". And cotton processing and
> growing prior to the development of mechanized farming was largely
> dependent on people.
>
> Not that this justifies anything buy does explain, a bit, the South's
> dependence on slave labor.
>

On 4/10/2024 11:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly
> aligned to destroy the chattel system

You claim that "the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to
destroy the chattel system" wasn't intentional?

--
Add xx to reply

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:25:58 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/10/2024 11:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly
>> aligned to destroy the chattel system
>
>You claim that "the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly aligned to
>destroy the chattel system" wasn't intentional?

One of the problems with the slave system was that it was very
difficult to compete with it.

On 4/10/2024 1:58 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:13:44 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/9/2024 1:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 08:36:46 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/9/2024 1:57 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:36:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
>>>>>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
>>>>>> dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
>>>>>> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good idea, but the dynamo might need to be enlarged to handle the
>>>>> combined load of charging the battery and powering the light. It is
>>>>> possible to do both with the existing 3 watt dynamos using PWM (pulse
>>>>> width modulation), where the waveforms for powering the light and
>>>>> charging the battery are interlaced so that the dynamo sees only one
>>>>> load at a time.
>>>
>>>> I don't think I've ever heard of a PWM multiplexing scheme before. Is
>>>> there such a thing?
>>>
>>> Neither have I. There might actually be such a thing but I'm not
>>> going to sift through the patent bone yard looking for one right now.
>>> I have the bad habit of contriving solutions that seem likely, but
>>> might not exist (yet).
>>>
>>> In this case, let's pretend you have a power source that delivers
>>> something resembling a constant 3 watt power level. The power source
>>> needs to operate a 3 watt front light and simultaneously charge a
>>> battery that also presents a 3 watt load. Connecting the light and
>>> the battery in parallel is going to be a 6 watt load, which the
>>> mythical power source (dynamo) can't handle.
>>>
>>> If the load was only a front light, the usual way to reduce the lights
>>> output is with a PWM (pulse width modulation) light dimmer, where the
>>> output power is proportional to the duty cycle of the PWM waveform.
>>> 100% duty cycle is full brightness (3 watts), 50% duty cycle is half
>>> brightness (1.5 watts) and 33% duty cycle would be 1/3 brightness (1.0
>>> watts).
>>>
>>> The nice part of PWM is that there is no load BETWEEN pulses. For
>>> example, if the front light was running at 33% (1 watt) duty cycle,
>>> there would be the remaining 67% (2 watts) available to power
>>> something else, without exceeding the 3 watt limit of the power source
>>> (dynamo). Therefore, the "extra" 67% could be used to charge the
>>> battery. Just invert the PWM output that powers the front light to
>>> produce the PWM output the powers the battery charger. I could
>>> probably throw something together using commodity switching power
>>> supply IC's.
>>>
>>> If I wanted to be creative, I could adjust the pulse width using a
>>> control knob. At one end, all the power goes to the front lamp. At
>>> the other end, all the power goes to charging the battery (as might be
>>> the case during daylight hours). However, in both cases, the load on
>>> the dynamo doesn't exceed its rated 3 watts, which is the purpose of
>>> this exercise.
>>>
>>> Patent pending (maybe).
>
> Ok. So what did I do wrong now?

I made no comment one way or the other.

> I'm fairly certain my scheme will
> work. I'm not so sure it will sell or be useful. Perhaps it is too
> complexicated for the average cyclist to operate. Is there a fatal
> flaw that I didn't notice?

First I'll say that such a system would be necessarily transparent to
the user except that they'd need to be cognizant that running the lamp
at full brightness would limit the ability to charge the battery.

Second, you aren't describing a multiplexing scheme. You mentioned
interlacing the load earlier, but the description simply balances the
load to a desired level - a purely analog function. ISTM 'interlacing'
requires some multiplexing scheme.

>
>>>> Maybe you can build mux a cable tester in there too.
>>>
>>> You seem to be hallucinating. Were you watching the eclipse without
>>> proper eye protection?
>>
>> I read somewhere once where a cable testing with PWM was a thing, never
>> saw any real world applications for it though.
>
> Is there some reason why you would want to raise a dead issue
> previously presented by someone might have died by now from Usenet
> withdrawal symptoms?

Yes, snarkiness.

> By now, you should have noticed that raising the
> dead is non-productive and tends to produce unexpected disasters.

I've been checking the san leandro obits. No hits yet.

> Consult your favorite horror story or movie for how it usually works.
>
> I don't recall reading anything that might suggest the existence of a
> cable tester that uses PWM in some unspecified manner, but I'll admit
> that it's possible. > Perhaps in an alternate universe or dimension.

You don't recall reading how PWM is a commonly used method for testing
cables? Is your memory slipping? (loaded question duly noted)

>
> I did find mention of the use of PWM for testing motor power cables:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cable+test%22+%22PWM%22>
> However, in all those, the PWM is part of the motor speed control
> circuitry or VFD (variable frequency drive) and not part of the test
> equipment.
>
> If Google search (and other searches) can't find it, it doesn't exist.
>
> Give your eyes a rest from watching the eclipse and the PWM cable
> tester should magically vanish.

It never existed to begin with

On 4/11/2024 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/10/2024 11:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> Humans are imperfect but the Framers set up a system
>> incontrovertibly aligned to destroy the chattel system
>
> You claim that "the Framers set up a system incontrovertibly
> aligned to destroy the chattel system" wasn't intentional?
>

Jefferson in particular (I suspect we know this mostly
because of his voluminous writings and correspondence;
others maybe, but undocumented) knew the conflict was
inherent. Note that he penned Virginia's Constitution before
the Federal piece and his initial draft of our Constitution
included a significant section mandating abolition:

https://www.history.com/news/declaration-of-independence-deleted-anti-slavery-clause-jefferson

which failed passage in the Congress of the time.

We're discussion both the logical contradiction and also the
very human process of herding cats of multiple interests and
opinions into composition of a document with majority
support. Ideal? No. But that's what happened.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971