On 4/11/2024 11:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> 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.

I conflated our Declaration with Constitution but
Jefferson's thoughts in the era are clear I think.

in re Constitution and eventual abolition,

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not
be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand
eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed...

Again imperfect but a start, given requirement for a majority.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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.

Oddly enough not needed at least with building such as round huts or halls
and similar, even some later buildings are lacking chimney’s Hampton Court
great hall is one such example.

>
>> 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.
>
>
>
Roger Merriman

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
Does rather depend on the company are (or at least where) some very cheap
MTB lights with improbable claimed specifications! If not impossible.

Roger Merriman

On 4/11/2024 8:29 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> As with the horrendous conditions of sugar
> operations in the Caribbean, a mild natural resistance to malaria made
> buying Africans a better business proposition than Irish slave labor.

I believe that's true. That point was made in Windgard's book _The
Mosquito: A Human History of Our Deadliest Predator_.

The book explained the generally unappreciated role of mosquitoes and
their diseases throughout history. For example, it claimed mosquitos
were a major reason Hannibal did not conquer Rome, and England did not
conquer the revolutionaries of our war of independence.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> 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?

Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm
pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a
larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low,
batteries are heavy and lossy.

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

> 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.

I'm surprised, where was it? I guess the water was turned off and
drained if all were to be away from the house overnight.

Even today in places where it never freezes many houses do not have
heat. That can get pretty chilly.

Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:

> Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Oddly enough not needed at least with building such as round huts or halls
> and similar, even some later buildings are lacking chimney’s Hampton Court
> great hall is one such example.

Not needed if one does not mind breathing smoke. Indoor air pollution
from open cooking fires is still a world problem.

So I agree, they would have needed a hole in the roof in order to
maintain air quality anywhere near the breathing standards of our likely
readers.

>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
> Roger Merriman
>
>

--

On 4/10/2024 11:56 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:44:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>> 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.

I just measured using an IR thermometer. After fast charging (55% to
about 80%) I get 93 degrees Fahrenheit. I think that was about half an
hour charging time. I should have noted the start time, but didn't.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:29:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>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.
>>
>
>+1 with a bunch of detail. As with the horrendous conditions
>of sugar operations in the Caribbean, a mild natural
>resistance to malaria made buying Africans a better business
>proposition than Irish slave labor. And the rest is history.

On 4/11/2024 7:46 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:29:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> +1 with a bunch of detail. As with the horrendous conditions
>> of sugar operations in the Caribbean, a mild natural
>> resistance to malaria made buying Africans a better business
>> proposition than Irish slave labor. And the rest is history.
>
> Added to that the comment about northern states abolishing slavery as
> early as 1700...Usually leaves out the fact that was established as a
> legal institution in each of the Thirteen Colonies, starting from 1619
> onwards with the arrival of "twenty and odd" enslaved Africans in
> Virginia. Although indigenous peoples were also sold into slavery, the
> vast majority of the enslaved population consisted of Africans brought
> to the Americas via the Atlantic slave trade. Due to a lower
> prevalence of tropical diseases and better treatment, the enslaved
> population in the colonies had a higher life expectancy than in the
> West Indies and South America, leading to a rapid increase in
> population in the decades prior to the American Revolution.
>
> By the way, I'm being told about groups who work at jobs in the U.S.
> that are unpalatable to USians and low skilled and at lower salaries
> then usually paid to USians.
>

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:56:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/10/2024 11:56 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:44:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>> 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.
>
>I just measured using an IR thermometer. After fast charging (55% to
>about 80%) I get 93 degrees Fahrenheit. I think that was about half an
>hour charging time. I should have noted the start time, but didn't.

That's far too hot. Google search shows some overheating complains
about the Moto G7 Power. Many indicate that it gets hot during
charging:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=moto+g7+power+overheating>

Motorola's answer is useless:
<https://en-us.support.motorola.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/119739/~/device-gets-hot>

iFixit's suggestions are better, but not much:
<https://www.ifixit.com/Wiki/Motorola_Moto_G7_Troubleshooting#Section_The_Phone_Is_Overheating>
"Phone Overheats While Charging: Sometimes the phone will overheat
while it is charging, this is likely due to using a charging cable
that did not originally come with the phone. This can be solved by
using the original cable again or purchasing a new cable."

That's wrong. A long and high resistance USB cable will often cause
problems when fast charging. However, it's the cable that gets hot,
not the phone.

Does your phone show any sign of a bulging battery?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY1X8NfJJe8>
If you're not sure, put a straight edge ruler on the glass screen and
see if it is bulging in the middle.

Suggestion: Buy a USB-C 100 watt charging cable that is not too long.
Something like this:
<https://www.anker.com/products/a8552?variant=41920191070358>
Yes, $20 is expensive for just a charging cable. You can safe a few
dollars with a 30, 50 or 60 watt cable. I use a 60 watt cable for
testing charging systems. If this higher power cable works, but the
customers original cable does not work, then the problem is obvious.
If both cables cause phone or cable heating, then the problem is
elsewhere. Also, try a different charger and see if that fixes the
problem. Extra points for buying a USB tester to display
phone/charger negotiated protocol and charging current/power.
<https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=usb+c+tester>

Good luck.

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

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> 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?
>
>Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm
>pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a
>larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low,
>batteries are heavy and lossy.

I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does
not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I
don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging
efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.

If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used
without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
this battery bank:
<https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet
claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4
recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone
charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.

The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.

Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A.
<https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.

If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the
power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
the same time.

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

Am 11.04.2024 um 22:42 schrieb Radey Shouman:
> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm surprised, where was it? I guess the water was turned off and
> drained if all were to be away from the house overnight.

Southern Germany. Once we were away for a week around Christmas with
nights in the low 10s. When coming back, the plumbing across the
courtyard was frozen and damaged but not the water pipes in the house;
3-4ft solid stone walls take a *long* time to cool down (after that, my
dad did drain the outdoor pipes in fall).

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:56:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2024 11:56 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:44:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I just measured using an IR thermometer. After fast charging (55% to
>> about 80%) I get 93 degrees Fahrenheit. I think that was about half an
>> hour charging time. I should have noted the start time, but didn't.
>
> That's far too hot. Google search shows some overheating complains
> about the Moto G7 Power. Many indicate that it gets hot during
> charging:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=moto+g7+power+overheating>

Indeed my iPhone charges via a wireless pad, from a fairly low powered
plug. Ie it’s a fairly slow charge and the phone remains (to touch) at room
temperature.

As I rarely have need to charge things quickly, though do have a power bank
and if it charges my wife’s laptop etc will warm up.
>
> Motorola's answer is useless:
> <https://en-us.support.motorola.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/119739/~/device-gets-hot>
>
> iFixit's suggestions are better, but not much:
> <https://www.ifixit.com/Wiki/Motorola_Moto_G7_Troubleshooting#Section_The_Phone_Is_Overheating>
> "Phone Overheats While Charging: Sometimes the phone will overheat
> while it is charging, this is likely due to using a charging cable
> that did not originally come with the phone. This can be solved by
> using the original cable again or purchasing a new cable."
>
> That's wrong. A long and high resistance USB cable will often cause
> problems when fast charging. However, it's the cable that gets hot,
> not the phone.
>
> Does your phone show any sign of a bulging battery?
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY1X8NfJJe8>
> If you're not sure, put a straight edge ruler on the glass screen and
> see if it is bulging in the middle.
>
> Suggestion: Buy a USB-C 100 watt charging cable that is not too long.
> Something like this:
> <https://www.anker.com/products/a8552?variant=41920191070358>
> Yes, $20 is expensive for just a charging cable. You can safe a few
> dollars with a 30, 50 or 60 watt cable. I use a 60 watt cable for
> testing charging systems. If this higher power cable works, but the
> customers original cable does not work, then the problem is obvious.
> If both cables cause phone or cable heating, then the problem is
> elsewhere. Also, try a different charger and see if that fixes the
> problem. Extra points for buying a USB tester to display
> phone/charger negotiated protocol and charging current/power.
> <https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=usb+c+tester>
>
> Good luck.
>
Roger Merriman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:12:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm
>>pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a
>>larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low,
>>batteries are heavy and lossy.
>
>I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does
>not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I
>don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging
>efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
>of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
>overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.
>
>If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used
>without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
>this battery bank:
><https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
>It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
>phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
>times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet
>claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4
>recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone
>charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.
>
>The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
>Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.
>
>Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A.
><https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
>The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.
>
>If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the
>power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
>a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
>the same time.

I use my phone to play music, but if I was going on a multi-day ride,
I'd simply shut it off when I was riding; maybe turn it on for a few
minutes to check on ...whatever... every couple of hours. As for
using GPS, I think I could remember a couple of hours of directions.

I love my electronics, but I can live without them.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:

> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm
>>pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a
>>larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low,
>>batteries are heavy and lossy.
>
> I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does
> not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I
> don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging
> efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
> of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
> overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.

By "available power" I meant the human power available to charge.
Doubling or tripling the energy used by a dynamo is likely to make
riders unhappy. By "lossy" I mean that charging and discharging a
battery involves non-trivial losses of energy -- any transformation from
mechanical to electrical or back incurs losses in whatever electronics
are used.

> If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used
> without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
> this battery bank:
> <https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
> It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
> phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
> times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet
> claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4
> recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone
> charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.
>
> The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
> Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.
>
> Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A.
> <https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
> The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.
>
> If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the
> power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
> a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
> the same time.

I agree that for short to moderate trips a battery charged from the grid
probably makes more sense than trying to use a dynamo. Solar cells are
another option if one will be stopping for longer periods during
daylight.

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:

> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:12:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
>><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm
>>>pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a
>>>larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low,
>>>batteries are heavy and lossy.
>>
>>I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does
>>not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I
>>don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging
>>efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
>>of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
>>overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.
>>
>>If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used
>>without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
>>this battery bank:
>><https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
>>It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
>>phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
>>times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet
>>claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4
>>recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone
>>charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.
>>
>>The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
>>Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.
>>
>>Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A.
>><https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
>>The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.
>>
>>If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the
>>power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
>>a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
>>the same time.
>
>
> I use my phone to play music, but if I was going on a multi-day ride,
> I'd simply shut it off when I was riding; maybe turn it on for a few
> minutes to check on ...whatever... every couple of hours. As for
> using GPS, I think I could remember a couple of hours of directions.

I get lost easily. Although I normally carry paper maps in unfamiliar
territory it can be challenging to figure out where I am. The New
England practice of saving money by not signing major roads does not
help. I find GPS really nice for locating myself on the map, although
not so great for actually planning a route.

> I love my electronics, but I can live without them.

--

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

> Am 11.04.2024 um 22:42 schrieb Radey Shouman:
>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>> I'm surprised, where was it? I guess the water was turned off and
>> drained if all were to be away from the house overnight.
>
> Southern Germany. Once we were away for a week around Christmas with
> nights in the low 10s. When coming back, the plumbing across the
> courtyard was frozen and damaged but not the water pipes in the house;
> 3-4ft solid stone walls take a *long* time to cool down (after that,
> my dad did drain the outdoor pipes in fall).

As you probably know, typical US houses are of light wooden frame
construction, without a great deal of thermal mass. Even with stone
walls I would not have wanted to take a chance on the plumbing.

On one occasion during cold weather in my house (in Massachusetts) the
water in the boiler dropped too low and the heat went off, I was
fortunate not to come home to ruptured plumbing. After that I turned
the water off and drained the plumbing. Nowadays we have cats in the
house, so someone has to look in to it fairly often and I leave the
water on.

At any rate, non-central heat is still heat. Houses in the US before
indoor plumbing often had no heat of any kind in most rooms, which
really would not work over a long winter with plumbing in the walls.

Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:12:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm
>>>> pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a
>>>> larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low,
>>>> batteries are heavy and lossy.
>>>
>>> I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does
>>> not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I
>>> don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging
>>> efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
>>> of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
>>> overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.
>>>
>>> If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used
>>> without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
>>> this battery bank:
>>> <https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
>>> It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
>>> phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
>>> times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet
>>> claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4
>>> recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone
>>> charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.
>>>
>>> The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
>>> Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.
>>>
>>> Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A.
>>> <https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
>>> The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.
>>>
>>> If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the
>>> power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
>>> a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
>>> the same time.
>>
>>
>> I use my phone to play music, but if I was going on a multi-day ride,
>> I'd simply shut it off when I was riding; maybe turn it on for a few
>> minutes to check on ...whatever... every couple of hours. As for
>> using GPS, I think I could remember a couple of hours of directions.
>
> I get lost easily. Although I normally carry paper maps in unfamiliar
> territory it can be challenging to figure out where I am. The New
> England practice of saving money by not signing major roads does not
> help. I find GPS really nice for locating myself on the map, although
> not so great for actually planning a route.

I found they are okay for point to point and on road, ie for diversion as
bridge has been demolished no really!

But woefully for own routes, doesn’t help that I mostly MTB/Gravel ride so
I want to control which route and don’t want it to recalculate etc, as some
trails maybe just fire roads and dull on the MTB or equally leave the
Gravel bike feeling rather underbiked!
>
>> I love my electronics, but I can live without them.
>

Roger Merriman

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:35:51 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:

>Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:12:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:30:15 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>Charging the smartphone could be useful especially if camping, and I'm
>>>>pretty sure there are products that already do that. I doubt charging a
>>>>larger internal battery would be worthwhile -- available power is low,
>>>>batteries are heavy and lossy.
>>>
>>>I beg to differ. Available power is adequate as long as the ride does
>>>not degenerate into an expedition. LiPo batteries are quite light. I
>>>don't know what you mean by "lossy" available power. Is that charging
>>>efficiency? If so, a LiPo battery will typically deliver 85% to 95%
>>>of the power used to charge it. However, low temperatures,
>>>overcharging and fast charging, will reduce the efficiency.
>>>
>>>If the ride is only a few days long, then a battery bank could be used
>>>without recharging the battery bank. I have several early models of
>>>this battery bank:
>>><https://www.anker.com/products/a1268?variant=37438338695318>
>>>It's rated at 20,000 milliamp-hrs capacity. The battery in my cell
>>>phone is rated at 5,000 milliamp-hrs. I could recharge my phone 4
>>>times before the battery bank needs a recharge. (The above data sheet
>>>claims 5 charges, but that won't happen as the battery bank ages). 4
>>>recharges plus the initial phone charge is a 5 day ride without phone
>>>charging. If you want 9 days total, bring a 2nd battery bank.
>>>
>>>The data sheet doesn't give the weight, so I just weight mine. 0.35
>>>Kg (0.77 lbs) including 2 cables.
>>>
>>>Oops, I just noticed that mine is an Aukey PB-N93A.
>>><https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey-pb-n93a-usb-c-power-bank-20000mah-pd-ultra-slim-power-bank-with-18w-pd>
>>>The specs and claims are identical but mine is obsolete.
>>>
>>>If you decide to go with the power bank solution, make sure that the
>>>power bank can deliver power *AND* be charged simultaneously. I have
>>>a early power banks that can either charge or be charged, but not at
>>>the same time.
>>
>>
>> I use my phone to play music, but if I was going on a multi-day ride,
>> I'd simply shut it off when I was riding; maybe turn it on for a few
>> minutes to check on ...whatever... every couple of hours. As for
>> using GPS, I think I could remember a couple of hours of directions.
>
>I get lost easily. Although I normally carry paper maps in unfamiliar
>territory it can be challenging to figure out where I am. The New
>England practice of saving money by not signing major roads does not
>help. I find GPS really nice for locating myself on the map, although
>not so great for actually planning a route.
>
>> I love my electronics, but I can live without them.

These days, I can't ride far enough in "a couple of hours" to get
lost."

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:43:49 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:

>Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
>
>> Am 11.04.2024 um 22:42 schrieb Radey Shouman:
>>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> I'm surprised, where was it? I guess the water was turned off and
>>> drained if all were to be away from the house overnight.
>>
>> Southern Germany. Once we were away for a week around Christmas with
>> nights in the low 10s. When coming back, the plumbing across the
>> courtyard was frozen and damaged but not the water pipes in the house;
>> 3-4ft solid stone walls take a *long* time to cool down (after that,
>> my dad did drain the outdoor pipes in fall).
>
>As you probably know, typical US houses are of light wooden frame
>construction, without a great deal of thermal mass. Even with stone
>walls I would not have wanted to take a chance on the plumbing.
>
>On one occasion during cold weather in my house (in Massachusetts) the
>water in the boiler dropped too low and the heat went off, I was
>fortunate not to come home to ruptured plumbing. After that I turned
>the water off and drained the plumbing. Nowadays we have cats in the
>house, so someone has to look in to it fairly often and I leave the
>water on.
>
>At any rate, non-central heat is still heat. Houses in the US before
>indoor plumbing often had no heat of any kind in most rooms, which
>really would not work over a long winter with plumbing in the walls.

My grandfather's house (1700-something) had only one room heated on a
daily basis -the kitchen - heated by the wood burning cook stove. The
"Front Room" had a fireplace which normally not used.
Plumbing was 6 ft underground from the well to the kitchen.
Originally there had been no bathroom - probably an "Out House" but
someone had added an inside room off the kitchen.

Apparently acceptable to their residents as I've seen houses built
,more then 170 years later using then same tactics except the fuel
changed to kerosene,

--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:43:49 -0400, Radey Shouman
> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
>>
>>> Am 11.04.2024 um 22:42 schrieb Radey Shouman:
>>>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> I'm surprised, where was it? I guess the water was turned off and
>>>> drained if all were to be away from the house overnight.
>>>
>>> Southern Germany. Once we were away for a week around Christmas with
>>> nights in the low 10s. When coming back, the plumbing across the
>>> courtyard was frozen and damaged but not the water pipes in the house;
>>> 3-4ft solid stone walls take a *long* time to cool down (after that,
>>> my dad did drain the outdoor pipes in fall).
>>
>> As you probably know, typical US houses are of light wooden frame
>> construction, without a great deal of thermal mass. Even with stone
>> walls I would not have wanted to take a chance on the plumbing.
>>
>> On one occasion during cold weather in my house (in Massachusetts) the
>> water in the boiler dropped too low and the heat went off, I was
>> fortunate not to come home to ruptured plumbing. After that I turned
>> the water off and drained the plumbing. Nowadays we have cats in the
>> house, so someone has to look in to it fairly often and I leave the
>> water on.
>>
>> At any rate, non-central heat is still heat. Houses in the US before
>> indoor plumbing often had no heat of any kind in most rooms, which
>> really would not work over a long winter with plumbing in the walls.
>
> My grandfather's house (1700-something) had only one room heated on a
> daily basis -the kitchen - heated by the wood burning cook stove. The
> "Front Room" had a fireplace which normally not used.
> Plumbing was 6 ft underground from the well to the kitchen.
> Originally there had been no bathroom - probably an "Out House" but
> someone had added an inside room off the kitchen.
>
> Apparently acceptable to their residents as I've seen houses built
> ,more then 170 years later using then same tactics except the fuel
> changed to kerosene,
>

My folks house is probably built around that time it’s difficult to know
really probably related to the industry revolution, like most it has a
number of open fires, though how many where regularly used is another
thing.

I think my folks installed its first central heating in the early 1970’s
certainly where kids at school that didn’t have central heating though most
would be in the villages proper by then, most of the places like my folks
out on the hills proper had installed central heating.

Roger Merriman

Am 12.04.2024 um 19:43 schrieb Radey Shouman:
> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
>
>> Am 11.04.2024 um 22:42 schrieb Radey Shouman:
>>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> I'm surprised, where was it? I guess the water was turned off and
>>> drained if all were to be away from the house overnight.
>>
>> Southern Germany. Once we were away for a week around Christmas with
>> nights in the low 10s. When coming back, the plumbing across the
>> courtyard was frozen and damaged but not the water pipes in the house;
>> 3-4ft solid stone walls take a *long* time to cool down (after that,
>> my dad did drain the outdoor pipes in fall).
>
> As you probably know, typical US houses are of light wooden frame
> construction, without a great deal of thermal mass. Even with stone
> walls I would not have wanted to take a chance on the plumbing.

Yes, and most of the USA have a more continental climate where winter is
signifcantly colder and summer significantly warmer than in Germany.

In western Germany (fun fact: in Germany, summer temperatures are
determined by latitude but winter temperatures are mostly determined by
longitude), the average January temperature is around freezing, which
allows for one or two nights in the 10's in a normal winter and a week
of those temperatures once every 20 years (or possibly not at all in the
future).

Rolf

On 4/11/2024 10:32 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:56:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> I just measured using an IR thermometer. After fast charging (55% to
>> about 80%) I get 93 degrees Fahrenheit. I think that was about half an
>> hour charging time. I should have noted the start time, but didn't.
>
> That's far too hot. Google search shows some overheating complains
> about the Moto G7 Power. Many indicate that it gets hot during
> charging:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=moto+g7+power+overheating>

IIRC, this phone's behaved this way since new, over four years ago. No
bulging, no other notable problems.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/12/2024 1:32 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> I agree that for short to moderate trips a battery charged from the grid
> probably makes more sense than trying to use a dynamo. Solar cells are
> another option if one will be stopping for longer periods during
> daylight.

I think if I were to do another long tour into remote areas, I'd take
along a solar charger. And I'd keep in mind that I rode for decades with
no cell phone or GPS.

--
- Frank Krygowski