https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Zawy 2026-04-22T00:22:21Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.39.13 https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Factor_E_Farm_Plantings&diff=35576 2011-08-06T16:03:25Z

<p>Zawy: /* Lentils */</p> <hr /> <div>==Lentils==<br /> Lentils have 4 times as much protein/calorie as wheat (2x as much as other legumes), fixates nitrogen for other future crops, and can go straight from picking in hardened form to long term storage (seeds active for 5 years, food storage for 10 years without special packing). A lot more efficient (and better tasting) than chicken. They require less cook time than other legumes. Avoid planting with onions or garlic. Rotate crop annually to avoid pests. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 19:51, 4 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> <br /> Lentils are certainly yummy, especially in soups, but ever try to bake bread from it? Personally I like a diversity of crops, including grains and legumes. We planted peas and four kinds of beans this year one of which is soy, a legume with a lot of uses, if perhaps not quite as nutritious as lentils. [[User:Mjn|Mjn]] 03:49, 5 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> when i was at wall mart i did a little price check on protien/dollar. lentils definitely win. im going to make a spreadsheet for other nutritional per dollar stuff. --[[User:Dorkmo|Dorkmo]] 19:36, 5 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> I didn't realize soybeans were lentils. Soybeans have the same amount of protein per calorie as lentils, but 1/3 the calories have been shifted from carbs to fats (good for health, bad for storage). Oats have a little bit better protein profile than wheat, and store about half as long in air (5 years instead of 10) due to nearly double fat content. Maybe OSE could store in CO2 from fire. In the right conditions, legumes and wheat can store forever (as will any dry carbs and protein that do not contain much fat). 30 years with almost no change in taste. Canned goods can also last forever, despite the water. New palm production methods (tropical only) can achieve 1,200 gallons per acre, but I think the biodiesel conversion methods for it are immature, so it's mostly a food oil. Peanuts are another legume with oil (half the protein/calorie ratio) and maybe easier than soybeans and lentils. Muscadines are an easy-to-grow thick-skinned grape with a lot more nutrition than grapes and a lot more resistance to pests, but I don't know if it's possible to dry them like raisins (not enough sugars to keep itself preserved). Bing cherries and plums are sugary enough to dry without preservatives. Gotta have chickens for eggs for protein, sulfur, and lecithin for the brain. Insects were probably a major source of protein and fat for paleolithic people, so there should be some web sites out there that teach how to raise a few tasty types. Should be a more efficient converter of plant matter than goats. The Foxfire books might have good pointers along these lines, along with visiting India. For basic carbs and some nutrition when considering ease of growth and range, it's hard to beat corn.[[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 17:09, 6 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Factor_E_Farm_Plantings&diff=35574 2011-08-06T15:11:18Z

<p>Zawy: /* Lentils */</p> <hr /> <div>==Lentils==<br /> Lentils have 4 times as much protein/calorie as wheat (2x as much as other legumes), fixates nitrogen for other future crops, and can go straight from picking in hardened form to long term storage (seeds active for 5 years, food storage for 10 years without special packing). A lot more efficient (and better tasting) than chicken. They require less cook time than other legumes. Avoid planting with onions or garlic. Rotate crop annually to avoid pests. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 19:51, 4 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> <br /> Lentils are certainly yummy, especially in soups, but ever try to bake bread from it? Personally I like a diversity of crops, including grains and legumes. We planted peas and four kinds of beans this year one of which is soy, a legume with a lot of uses, if perhaps not quite as nutritious as lentils. [[User:Mjn|Mjn]] 03:49, 5 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> when i was at wall mart i did a little price check on protien/dollar. lentils definitely win. im going to make a spreadsheet for other nutritional per dollar stuff. --[[User:Dorkmo|Dorkmo]] 19:36, 5 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> I didn't realize soybeans were lentils. Soybeans have the same amount of protein per calorie as lentils, but 1/3 the calories have been shifted from carbs to fats (good for health, bad for storage). Oats have a little bit better protein profile than wheat, and store about half as long in air (5 years instead of 10) due to nearly double fat content. Maybe OSE could store in CO2 from fire. In the right conditions, legumes and wheat can store forever (as will any dry carbs and protein that do not contain much fat). 30 years with almost no change in taste. Canned goods can also last forever, despite the water. New palm production methods (tropical only) can achieve 1,200 gallons per acre, but I think the biodiesel conversion methods for it are immature, so it's mostly a food oil. Peanuts are another legume with oil (half the protein/calorie ratio) and maybe easier than soybeans and lentils. Muscadines are an easy-to-grow thick-skinned grape with a lot more nutrition than grapes and a lot more resistance to pests, but I don't know if it's possible to dry them like raisins (not enough sugars to keep itself preserved). Bing cherries and plums are sugary enough to dry without preservatives. Gotta have chickens for eggs for protein, sulfur, and lecithin for the brain. Insects were probably a major source of protein and fat for paleolithic people, so there should be some web sites out there that teach how to raise a few tasty types. Should be a more efficient converter of plant matter than goats. The Foxfire books might have good pointers along these lines, along with visiting India. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 17:09, 6 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Factor_E_Farm_Plantings&diff=35573 2011-08-06T15:10:44Z

<p>Zawy: /* Lentils */</p> <hr /> <div>==Lentils==<br /> Lentils have 4 times as much protein/calorie as wheat (2x as much as other legumes), fixates nitrogen for other future crops, and can go straight from picking in hardened form to long term storage (seeds active for 5 years, food storage for 10 years without special packing). A lot more efficient (and better tasting) than chicken. They require less cook time than other legumes. Avoid planting with onions or garlic. Rotate crop annually to avoid pests. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 19:51, 4 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> <br /> Lentils are certainly yummy, especially in soups, but ever try to bake bread from it? Personally I like a diversity of crops, including grains and legumes. We planted peas and four kinds of beans this year one of which is soy, a legume with a lot of uses, if perhaps not quite as nutritious as lentils. [[User:Mjn|Mjn]] 03:49, 5 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> when i was at wall mart i did a little price check on protien/dollar. lentils definitely win. im going to make a spreadsheet for other nutritional per dollar stuff. --[[User:Dorkmo|Dorkmo]] 19:36, 5 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> I didn't realize soybeans were lentils. Soybeans have the same amount of protein per calorie as lentils, but 1/3 the calories have been shifted from carbs to fats (good for health, bad for storage). Oats have a little bit better protein profile than wheat, and store about half as long in air (5 years instead of 10) due to nearly double fat content. Maybe OSE could store in CO2 from fire. In the right conditions, legumes and wheat can store forever (or dry carbs and protein that donot contain much fat). 30 years with almost no change in taste. Canned goods can also last forever, despite the water. New palm production methods (tropical only) can achieve 1,200 gallons per acre, but I think the biodiesel conversion methods for it are immature, so it's mostly a food oil. Peanuts are another legume with oil (half the protein/calorie ratio) and maybe easier than soybeans and lentils. Muscadines are an easy-to-grow thick-skinned grape with a lot more nutrition than grapes and a lot more resistance to pests, but I don't know if it's possible to dry them like raisins (not enough sugars to keep itself preserved). Bing cherries and plums are sugary enough to dry without preservatives. Gotta have chickens for eggs for protein, sulfur, and lecithin for the brain. Insects were probably a major source of protein and fat for paleolithic people, so there should be some web sites out there that teach how to raise a few tasty types. Should be a more efficient converter of plant matter than goats. The Foxfire books might have good pointers along these lines, along with visiting India. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 17:09, 6 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Factor_E_Farm_Plantings&diff=35572 2011-08-06T15:09:39Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>==Lentils==<br /> Lentils have 4 times as much protein/calorie as wheat (2x as much as other legumes), fixates nitrogen for other future crops, and can go straight from picking in hardened form to long term storage (seeds active for 5 years, food storage for 10 years without special packing). A lot more efficient (and better tasting) than chicken. They require less cook time than other legumes. Avoid planting with onions or garlic. Rotate crop annually to avoid pests. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 19:51, 4 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> <br /> Lentils are certainly yummy, especially in soups, but ever try to bake bread from it? Personally I like a diversity of crops, including grains and legumes. We planted peas and four kinds of beans this year one of which is soy, a legume with a lot of uses, if perhaps not quite as nutritious as lentils. [[User:Mjn|Mjn]] 03:49, 5 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> when i was at wall mart i did a little price check on protien/dollar. lentils definitely win. im going to make a spreadsheet for other nutritional per dollar stuff. --[[User:Dorkmo|Dorkmo]] 19:36, 5 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> I didn't realize soybeans were lentils. Soybeans have the same amount of protein per calorie as lentils, but 1/3 the calories have been shifted from carbs to fats. Oats have a little bit better protein profile than wheat, and store about half as long in air (5 years instead of 10) due to nearly double fat content. Maybe OSE could store in CO2 from fire. In the right conditions, legumes and wheat can store forever (or dry carbs and protein that donot contain much fat). 30 years with almost no change in taste. Canned goods can also last forever, despite the water. New palm production methods (tropical only) can achieve 1,200 gallons per acre, but I think the biodiesel conversion methods for it are immature, so it's mostly a food oil. Peanuts are another legume with oil (half the protein/calorie ratio) and maybe easier than soybeans and lentils. Muscadines are an easy-to-grow thick-skinned grape with a lot more nutrition than grapes and a lot more resistance to pests, but I don't know if it's possible to dry them like raisins (not enough sugars to keep itself preserved). Bing cherries and plums are sugary enough to dry without preservatives. Gotta have chickens for eggs for protein, sulfur, and lecithin for the brain. Insects were probably a major source of protein and fat for paleolithic people, so there should be some web sites out there that teach how to raise a few tasty types. Should be a more efficient converter of plant matter than goats. The Foxfire books might have good pointers along these lines, along with visiting India. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 17:09, 6 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Factor_E_Farm_Plantings&diff=35539 2011-08-04T17:51:28Z

<p>Zawy: Created page with &quot;==Lentils== Lentils have 4 times as much protein/calorie as wheat (2x as much as other legumes), fixates nitrogen for other future crops, and can go straight from picking in hard...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Lentils==<br /> Lentils have 4 times as much protein/calorie as wheat (2x as much as other legumes), fixates nitrogen for other future crops, and can go straight from picking in hardened form to long term storage (seeds active for 5 years, food storage for 10 years without special packing). A lot more efficient (and better tasting) than chicken. They require less cook time than other legumes. Avoid planting with onions or garlic. Rotate crop annually to avoid pests. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 19:51, 4 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_Power_Generator_Distillation_Transcript&diff=35454 2011-08-03T00:17:39Z

<p>Zawy: Created page with &quot;Although the current thinking is to go with Solar Fire&#039;s flat version of a parabolic dish, this flat version of a trough idea would have been a lot better if the slats were simpl...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Although the current thinking is to go with Solar Fire's flat version of a parabolic dish, this flat version of a trough idea would have been a lot better if the slats were simply placed in a parabolic alignment (standard trough) so that only 1 accurate motor and controller would have been needed. This idea is still potentially important for a hybrid system. A trough would be a pre-heater to a dish (Solar Fire is basically a dish design that is not optimal for the same reason the flat slats without a trough is not optimal: leaving parabolic shape causes a lot of angle control problems). Dish has more concentration and smaller area for heat loss. Large receiver area is why trough is not optimal for high temp steam. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 02:17, 3 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_Fire&diff=35453 2011-08-02T23:26:06Z

<p>Zawy: Created page with &quot;I&#039;m concerned that Solar Fire is a design that makes tracking too difficult. It appears to be a modified parabolic dish. The only reason I can think that it is not shaped like a...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>I'm concerned that Solar Fire is a design that makes tracking too difficult. It appears to be a modified parabolic dish. The only reason I can think that it is not shaped like a dish is so that they could make it flatter. Making it flat appears to be why they needed 6 different angle adjustments (4 quarter sections, and it appears to still need azimuth and altitude). If it was in a standard parabolic shape, you could get tracking down to 1 axis based on a 24 hour clock (no electronic calculation needed) by putting the light receiver bucket on a '''equatorial axis''' (like tracking telescopes) that is adjusted once every few days. Supports would come from this axis to support the dish, so that the focus does not move, except for maybe when adjusting the tilt. This would be a lot taller at times, but allows more light capture in morning and afternoon.<br /> <br /> If the flat design is a construction advantage, a '''equatorial axis tilt''' could still be employed, reducing an enormous amount of complexity.<br /> <br /> This link shows how to build more advanced receivers, turning copper pipe inside a bowl with an opening. The smaller opening with insulation around the rest means less heat loss. Has no one at OSE contacted Dr Reddy in Bombay (IIT Madras) on this? Dr Reddy's designs look more technologically advanced and polished. He's producing steam, hydrogen, methane, ammonia, <br /> http://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/activities/solarpower/iitmadras.pdf (very slow loading, 3 MB)<br /> [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 01:26, 3 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Solar_Designs_Compared&diff=35452 2011-08-02T21:15:10Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Solar Power]]<br /> <br /> This page is for contributors to point out the pros and cons of various solar designs for various needs. This is a '''suggested template''' for early collaborative discussion on competing designs. The index is lengthy because breaking things up allows for constant modification by many people without worrying about context. &quot;Opinion&quot; sections are for individually signed sections, to be changed or deleted if their opinion changes, instead of back-and-forth direct debate. Discussions should occur on the discussions page. Other sections are open for factual comment with or without a signature. ' I plan on doing a lot of work to fill in the blanks. Concentrated articles like this increase the number of incoming links, improving Google ranking. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:32, 2 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> =Currently Winning Designs for Different Needs (signed Opinions)=<br /> <br /> ==Steam Generation==<br /> ==Electricity Generation==<br /> ==Cooking==<br /> ==House Heating==<br /> ==Hot Water==<br /> ==Brick Kiln?==<br /> ==Steel Furnace?==<br /> <br /> =Constants, Equations, Useful Software=<br /> <br /> =Miscellaneous Topics=<br /> ==Tracking==<br /> ==Passive Solar for House==<br /> ==Hot Water==<br /> ==Greenhouse Ideas==<br /> ==Aluminized Mylar==<br /> ==Aluminum Mirrors==<br /> ==Thermal Storage==<br /> <br /> =Summary Table of Designs=<br /> ==Five columns: Pros,Cons,Uses,OSE rank, links==<br /> <br /> =Heliostats with &quot;Tower&quot;=<br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Solar Cell=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Air Box=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Water, Black Pipe=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Water, Trickle-Down=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Parabolic Trough=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Parabolic Dish (includes Solar Fire)=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Plastic Fresnel Lenses=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Biodiesel&diff=35451 2011-08-02T20:55:58Z

<p>Zawy: Created page with &quot;Palm oil is the highest energy per acre crop. New technology is getting 1,000 gallons per acre per yer. Pressing small batches is being done in some locations, but medium size ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Palm oil is the highest energy per acre crop. New technology is getting 1,000 gallons per acre per yer. Pressing small batches is being done in some locations, but medium size groups on the OSE scale are forming co-ops and spending about $500,000 on a processor with a single manager to process for 100 to 200 families sustained by the palm farms. Converting to biodiesel has problems (cloudy, and higher melt point) and is not mature technology. Possibly the 3rd world's most common source of fat in the diet, so it's a serious food source.[[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 22:55, 2 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Solar_Designs_Compared&diff=35439 2011-08-02T16:15:03Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>This page is for contributors to point out the pros and cons of various solar designs for various needs. This is a '''suggested template''' for early collaborative discussion on competing designs. The index is lengthy because breaking things up allows for constant modification by many people without worrying about context. &quot;Opinion&quot; sections are for individually signed sections, to be changed or deleted if their opinion changes, instead of back-and-forth direct debate. Discussions should occur on the discussions page. Other sections are open for factual comment with or without a signature. ' I plan on doing a lot of work to fill in the blanks. Concentrated articles like this increase the number of incoming links, improving Google ranking. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:32, 2 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> =Currently Winning Designs for Different Needs (signed Opinions)=<br /> <br /> ==Steam Generation==<br /> ==Electricity Generation==<br /> ==Cooking==<br /> ==House Heating==<br /> ==Hot Water==<br /> ==Brick Kiln?==<br /> ==Steel Furnace?==<br /> <br /> =Constants, Equations, Useful Software=<br /> <br /> =Miscellaneous Topics=<br /> ==Tracking==<br /> ==Passive Solar for House==<br /> ==Hot Water==<br /> ==Greenhouse Ideas==<br /> ==Aluminized Mylar==<br /> ==Aluminum Mirrors==<br /> ==Thermal Storage==<br /> <br /> =Summary Table of Designs=<br /> ==Five columns: Pros,Cons,Uses,OSE rank, links==<br /> <br /> =Heliostats with &quot;Tower&quot;=<br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Solar Cell=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Air Box=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Water, Black Pipe=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Water, Trickle-Down=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Parabolic Trough=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Parabolic Dish (includes Solar Fire)=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Plastic Fresnel Lenses=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> *Level of Need: <br /> *Modularity:<br /> *Lifespan:<br /> *Ease of Construction:<br /> *Scalability:<br /> *3rd Party Available:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Solar_Designs_Compared&diff=35436 2011-08-02T14:52:55Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>This page is for contributors to point out the pros and cons of various solar designs for various needs. This is a '''suggested template''' for early collaborative discussion on competing designs. The index is lengthy because breaking things up allows for constant modification by many people without worrying about context. &quot;Opinion&quot; sections are for individually signed sections, to be changed or deleted if their opinion changes, instead of back-and-forth direct debate. Discussions should occur on the discussions page. Other sections are open for factual comment with or without a signature. '''OSE compatibility''' (as I currently understand it) should discuss level of need, modularity (double duty opportunities), lifespan, ease of construction, scalable, and design availability by 3rd party. I plan on doing a lot of work to fill in the blanks. Concentrated articles like this increase the number of incoming links, improving Google ranking. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:32, 2 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> =Currently Winning Designs for Different Needs (signed Opinions)=<br /> <br /> ==Steam Generation==<br /> ==Electricity Generation==<br /> ==Cooking==<br /> ==House Heating==<br /> ==Hot Water==<br /> ==Brick Kiln?==<br /> ==Steel Furnace?==<br /> <br /> =Constants, Equations, Useful Software=<br /> <br /> =Miscellaneous Topics=<br /> ==Tracking==<br /> ==Passive Solar for House==<br /> ==Hot Water==<br /> ==Greenhouse Ideas==<br /> ==Aluminized Mylar==<br /> ==Aluminum Mirrors==<br /> ==Thermal Storage==<br /> <br /> =Summary Table of Designs=<br /> ==Five columns: Pros,Cons,Uses,OSE rank, links==<br /> <br /> =Heliostats with &quot;Tower&quot;=<br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Solar Cell=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Air Box=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Water, Black Pipe=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Water, Trickle-Down=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Parabolic Trough=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Parabolic Dish (includes Solar Fire)=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Plastic Fresnel Lenses=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Solar_Designs_Compared&diff=35435 2011-08-02T14:34:58Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>This page is for contributors to point out the pros and cons of various solar designs for various needs. This is a '''suggested template''' for early collaborative discussion on competing designs. The index is lengthy because breaking things up allows for constant modification by many people without worrying about context. &quot;Opinion&quot; sections are for individually signed sections, to be changed or deleted if their opinion changes, instead of back-and-forth direct debate. Discussions should occur on the discussions page. Other sections are open for factual comment with or without a signature. '''OSE compatibility''' (as I currently understand it) should discuss level of need, modularity (double duty opportunities), lifespan, ease of construction, scalable, and design availability by 3rd party. I plan on doing a lot of work to fill in the blanks. Concentrated articles like this increase the number of incoming links, improving Google ranking. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:32, 2 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> =Currently Winning Designs for Different Needs (signed Opinions)=<br /> <br /> ==Steam Generation==<br /> ==Electricity Generation==<br /> ==Cooking==<br /> ==House Heating==<br /> ==Hot Water==<br /> ==Brick Kiln?==<br /> ==Steel Furnace?==<br /> <br /> =Constants, Equations, Useful Software=<br /> <br /> =Miscellaneous Topics=<br /> ==Tracking==<br /> ==Passive Solar for House==<br /> ==Hot Water==<br /> ==Greenhouse Ideas==<br /> ==Aluminized Mylar==<br /> ==Aluminum Mirrors==<br /> <br /> =Summary Table of Designs=<br /> ==Five columns: Pros,Cons,Uses,OSE rank, links==<br /> <br /> =Heliostats with &quot;Tower&quot;=<br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Solar Cell=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Air Box=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Water, Black Pipe=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Water, Trickle-Down=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Parabolic Trough=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Parabolic Dish=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Plastic Fresnel Lenses=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Solar_Designs_Compared&diff=35434 2011-08-02T14:32:12Z

<p>Zawy: Created page with &quot;This page is for contributors to point out the pros and cons of various solar designs for various needs. This is a &#039;&#039;&#039;suggested template&#039;&#039;&#039; for early collaborative discussion on...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>This page is for contributors to point out the pros and cons of various solar designs for various needs. This is a '''suggested template''' for early collaborative discussion on competing designs. The index is lengthy because breaking things up allows for constant modification by many people without worrying about context. &quot;Opinion&quot; sections are for individually signed sections, to be changed or deleted if their opinion changes, instead of back-and-forth direct debate. Discussions should occur on the discussions page. Other sections are open for factual comment with or without a signature. '''OSE compatibility''' (as I currently understand it) should discuss level of need, modularity (double duty opportunities), lifespan, ease of construction, and design availability by 3rd party. I plan on doing a lot of work to fill in the blanks. Concentrated articles like this increase the number of incoming links, improving Google ranking. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:32, 2 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> =Currently Winning Designs for Different Needs (signed Opinions)=<br /> <br /> ==Steam Generation==<br /> ==Electricity Generation==<br /> ==Cooking==<br /> ==House Heating==<br /> ==Hot Water==<br /> ==Brick Kiln?==<br /> ==Steel Furnace?==<br /> <br /> =Constants, Equations, Useful Software=<br /> <br /> =Miscellaneous Topics=<br /> ==Tracking==<br /> ==Passive Solar for House==<br /> ==Hot Water==<br /> ==Greenhouse Ideas==<br /> ==Aluminized Mylar==<br /> ==Aluminum Mirrors==<br /> <br /> =Summary Table of Designs=<br /> ==Five columns: Pros,Cons,Uses,OSE rank, links==<br /> <br /> =Heliostats with &quot;Tower&quot;=<br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Solar Cell=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Air Box=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Water, Black Pipe=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Hot Water, Trickle-Down=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Parabolic Trough=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Parabolic Dish=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==<br /> <br /> =Plastic Fresnel Lenses=<br /> <br /> ==Pros==<br /> <br /> ==Cons==<br /> <br /> ==Uses==<br /> <br /> ==OSE Compatibility==<br /> <br /> ==Examples/Links/Pictures==<br /> <br /> ==Opinions==</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Distributive_Economics&diff=35396 2011-08-02T00:31:50Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>Let me first summarize my response to this article:<br /> OSE is a tool for small groups of people. There's no reason to believe it will be used any wiser than hunter-gatherers (would have) used steel. OSE provides the perfect start for making weapons. We will still need government at local, national, and world levels, which includes economics (reliable and stable money and transaction law). Our political and economic systems are largely broken as evidence by our use of 50 times more energy and technology per person since 1900 and only marginal improvement in life. OSE does not fix politics and economics. It only enables them to be more wasteful if voters do not regain control and vote more intelligently. OSE can level the existing playing field between corporations and individuals, but that is not the source of the big problems. Marcin has a 1960's style 20-something feeling for community that is based on the genetic programming that exists in many individuals, but OSE is not the solution to bringing that sense to people who lost that sense as society got too big for our communal programming. The internet itself is the solution, by making it possible for distant peoples to seem very close and no longer strangers. <br /> <br /> Below I'll discuss the items in the article to show they are not very relevant to OSE.<br /> <br /> *Item 1, design repository, is achieved by the internet, bypassing defunct I.P. law that only occasionally acts in the best interest of society.<br /> *Item 2, Appropriate scale, does not give any actionable information, except for suggesting an interesting read from 1973.<br /> <br /> *Item 3, Flexible fabrication, is apparently about digital fabrication and is meant to point out that &quot;3D printing&quot; flattens access to the produced goods. This, along with item 1, seem to be the core of this article, as described by the intro: &quot;promotes the equitable distribution of wealth through a combination [of these things] towards replicability [without regard to the larger political structure]&quot;<br /> <br /> *Item 4, Lifetime design, ignores advances in technology by stating that if it lasts 10 times longer it is worth 10 times more. However, this may be (or is being) used as a guide for OSE: already the majority of things being constructed have not changed much in the past 50 to 150 years. This may be very relevant to OSE as it may define a constraint as to what things need to be worked on.<br /> <br /> *Item 5, Free enterprise, points out that 1 and 3 have the ability to prevent monopolies. It seems to blame monopolies on the welfare state and Keynesian thought, which is a drastic misunderstanding of economics. Preventing monopolies can be viewed as welfare for the poor at the expense of the rich who broke no law in obtaining the monopoly (through fair, honest, mutually-agreed upon, free trade). I recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hudson_(economist) and http://michael-hudson.com to learn the basics of advanced classical economics (he just coincidentally happens to live in Kansas City). Marx took classical economics to its logical conclusion, which paved the way for a better understanding of economics which has not occured anywhere except in Michael Hudson's articles and video appearances. &quot;Political economy&quot; in 1800's America meant efficient use of energy for the movement of matter. This practical political thinking led to forced balance of trade and incubation of industry through tariffs in order to leave colony status behind (to go from a mere resource producer for the benefit of Europe to a self-sufficient industrial state). Michael Hudson explains the steam engine and steel of politics and economics. Incorrect neoliberal economic ideas are flooding the world's mind-space, largely for the benefit of interest-charging banks that no longer loan capital for the purpose of increasing efficiency of production. <br /> <br /> *Item 6, Responsibility, means locally experiencing the consequences of your actions, largely the result of 3.<br /> <br /> *Item 7, Radical cost reduction, is again the result of 1 and 3. (modularity and lifespan are the result or partial goals of item 1). <br /> <br /> OK, so we have 1 and 3 as the essence of the article and the others as elaboration or food for thought. Let me explain how this ties into a larger political and economic structure. <br /> <br /> &lt;B&gt;Going into government, markets, evolution, and intelligence:&lt;/b&gt;<br /> Marcin has said elsewhere that politics and economics will follow the OSE technology. This is not true. OSE provides a foundation upon which a larger structure (society) can be built. OSE solves local problems and achieves local goals. As such, it is merely a tool for larger scales to utilize. Without coordination through economics and government at higher and higher levels, OSE communities (OSEs) can ban together, or act independently, to adversely affect other OSEs and others in general. Spreading OSE technology is no different than spreading steel technology. Intelligence for the whole system (let's say the human species) is not an emergent behavior of independent intelligent agents such as OSE-like communities. Intelligence does not automatically emerge except through processes like evolution which form a higher structure of laws. For example, cells obeying the laws of their programming act in the best interest of the the body carrying them. Cells also act, with less concern, for the species, because copies of similar sets of genes (similar cells) are elsewhere in the species. We have that concern for species given to us through our cellular programming, so sometimes we are more intelligent than governments. But this does not mean that governments do not sometimes need to control people and OSEs that have gone against society's best interest in pursuit of their personal goals. Cells in our body are really and sincerely programmed to act right or die. Minor changes can destroy all surrounding cells (cancer). &lt;B&gt;This kind of self-enforced programming to act in the best interest of the larger society is not an option for OSE&lt;/B&gt;, or any other human technology (so far). So humans developed government at higher and higher levels in the same way the brain is organized to exhibit intelligence for the whole body (see Palm founder Jeff Hawkings's book &quot;On Intelligence&quot; for how the brain works through &quot;HTM&quot;). To explain how the brain and governments work differently from cells, let me describe the process in the simplest example, large corporate structure. Corporations have engineers, marketers, accountants, and lawyers to work out details at '''small intervals of space and time''' (sensation and motor control) while CEOs, CFOs, and CTOs work at much larger space and time intervals with only a vague consciousness of the details below. The managers are not any smarter, they just have a different skill set (i.e. their pattern recognition and predictive power is being used for larger space and time intervals). In the brain, the managers are the parallel to our consciousness, as we have no knowledge of the computations going on in the first layers of neurons tied to sensation and motor control. So there needs to be &quot;management&quot; (feedback) over larger and larger scales in the brain and in society (city, state, fed, world). Individual marketplace transactions can be free and fair, but without government to guide things at a higher level, those transactions do not act in the best interests of society. Cells are different because they are hard-wired with a lot of wise technology. They have no choice but to follow the programming. People and OSEs have to be guided not only by the marketplace, but by rules the government enforces on top of the marketplace. To summarize, it is wrong to think that OSE tools can act in a way that is beneficial to the whole of society. This is how cells operate. This is similar to faith in a free market place with zero or minimal governmental &quot;overhead&quot; (see the Mises and Hayak economic &quot;religion&quot;). It works in cells, but it does not work in markets or any other human institutions because only cells have internally-enforced, wise programming (although things like core linux and TCP/IP may qualify). Even in the body, cells were found to be in-effective for fast changing-environments so they organized themselves into brains which could reprogram behavior.<br /> <br /> A completely free market where government only enforces honesty and fairness for each and every transaction does not exhibit intelligence at a higher level. The market is only a mathematical process that seeks the optimum solution for a given set of conditions, similar to Bayesian and neural networks. These are not really &quot;intelligent&quot; as they fixate on an solution after being trained. Advanced &quot;intelligence&quot; for survival and replication occurs when networks incorporate feedback connections (not merely feedback signals for seeking optimum settings on training data) that work across *groups* of nodes (think OSEs), capable of more general algorithmic behavior (UTM-like ability to modify themselves in response to new inputs). Giving system-wide feedback is the purpose of voting to keep check and balance on market forces. Votes flatten various forms of societal and monetary wealth through laws and progressive taxation while the marketplace seeks to create disparity for the purpose of motivation. Instead of welfare &quot;gifts&quot;, the laws and taxes should be used like they were in the 1800's: to increase the efficiency of production by building infrastructure that also happens to further flatten wealth (equal roads, police, and education for all) and to stop monopolies (including sub-contracting utility work) and fixing other issues market forces can't address (e.g., &quot;externalities&quot; to market transactions such as pollution). This type of feedback can't be an inherent internal part (i.e. programmed) of the independent economic agents (people, NN nodes, or OSEs). &quot;Governing&quot; requires purposeful, intelligent design, or it's going to left up to anarchistic evolution (intelligent design by death of the least aggressive). We have different laws at different levels (cells, person, OSE, society) in order to exhibit intelligence at higher and higher levels for greatest benefit to society. A basic rule of law enabling a free and fair marketplace solves the prisoner's dilemma for &quot;cooperate&quot; at the transaction level, but higher levels of governing (truly intelligent guidance) are required to maximize productivity towards total or average happiness (which can be approximated by the median purchasing power parity GDP/person with financial and asset price (non-production) GDP removed). <br /> <br /> OSE &quot;codes of conduct&quot; are the beginning of law for the OSE community. It's not needed any more than at any other &quot;company&quot; because we already have governments enforcing basic law. I would more seriously treat OSE as a repository for technological innovation that can solve food and shelter problems at the smallest possible level without getting philosophical or trying to venture into politics and economics. This will provide appeal to a wide variety: survivalists, DIYs, farmers, and 3rd world towns. I would also 1st seek production of profitable units rather than asking for charity. Reinvest profits in the next module. You'll only make profit where the module is needed and not available elsewhere. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 14:06, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Distributive_Economics&diff=35394 2011-08-02T00:26:33Z

<p>Zawy: mich</p> <hr /> <div>Let me first summarize my response to this article:<br /> OSE is a tool for small groups of people. There's no reason to believe it will be used any wiser than hunter-gatherers (would have) used steel. OSE provides the perfect start for making weapons. We will still need government at local, national, and world levels, which includes economics (reliable and stable money and transaction law). Our political and economic systems are largely broken as evidence by our use of 50 times more energy and technology per person since 1900 and only marginal improvement in life. OSE does not fix politics and economics. It only enables them to be more wasteful if voters do not regain control and vote more intelligently. OSE can level the existing playing field between corporations and individuals, but that is not the source of the big problems. Marcin has a 1960's style 20-something feeling for community that is based on the genetic programming that exists in many individuals, but OSE is not the solution to bringing that sense to people who lost that sense as society got too big for our communal programming. The internet itself is the solution, by making it possible for distant peoples to seem very close and no longer strangers. <br /> <br /> Below I'll discuss the items in the article to show they are not very relevant to OSE.<br /> <br /> *Item 1, design repository, is achieved by the internet, bypassing defunct I.P. law that only occasionally acts in the best interest of society.<br /> *Item 2, Appropriate scale, does not give any actionable information, except for suggesting an interesting read from 1973.<br /> <br /> *Item 3, Flexible fabrication, is apparently about digital fabrication and is meant to point out that &quot;3D printing&quot; flattens access to the produced goods. This, along with item 1, seem to be the core of this article, as described by the intro: &quot;promotes the equitable distribution of wealth through a combination [of these things] towards replicability [without regard to the larger political structure]&quot;<br /> <br /> *Item 4, Lifetime design, ignores advances in technology by stating that if it lasts 10 times longer it is worth 10 times more. However, this may be (or is being) used as a guide for OSE: already the majority of things being constructed have not changed much in the past 50 to 150 years. This may be very relevant to OSE as it may define a constraint as to what things need to be worked on.<br /> <br /> *Item 5, Free enterprise, points out that 1 and 3 have the ability to prevent monopolies. It seems to blame monopolies on the welfare state and Keynesian thought, which is a drastic misunderstanding of economics. Preventing monopolies can be viewed as welfare for the poor at the expense of the rich who broke no law in obtaining the monopoly (through fair, honest, mutually-agreed upon, free trade). I recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hudson_(economist) and http://michael-hudson.com to learn the basics of advanced classical economics. Marx took classical economics to its logical conclusion, which paved the way for a better understanding of economics which has not occured anywhere except in Michael Hudson's articles and video appearances. &quot;Political economy&quot; in 1800's America meant efficient use of energy for the movement of matter. This practical political thinking led to forced balance of trade and incubation of industry through tariffs in order to leave colony status behind (to go from a mere resource producer for the benefit of Europe to a self-sufficient industrial state). Michael Hudson explains the steam engine and steel of politics and economics. Incorrect neoliberal economic ideas are flooding the world's mind-space, largely for the benefit of interest-charging banks that no longer loan capital for the purpose of increasing efficiency of production. <br /> <br /> *Item 6, Responsibility, means locally experiencing the consequences of your actions, largely the result of 3.<br /> <br /> *Item 7, Radical cost reduction, is again the result of 1 and 3. (modularity and lifespan are the result or partial goals of item 1). <br /> <br /> OK, so we have 1 and 3 as the essence of the article and the others as elaboration or food for thought. Let me explain how this ties into a larger political and economic structure. <br /> <br /> &lt;B&gt;Going into government, markets, evolution, and intelligence:&lt;/b&gt;<br /> Marcin has said elsewhere that politics and economics will follow the OSE technology. This is not true. OSE provides a foundation upon which a larger structure (society) can be built. OSE solves local problems and achieves local goals. As such, it is merely a tool for larger scales to utilize. Without coordination through economics and government at higher and higher levels, OSE communities (OSEs) can ban together, or act independently, to adversely affect other OSEs and others in general. Spreading OSE technology is no different than spreading steel technology. Intelligence for the whole system (let's say the human species) is not an emergent behavior of independent intelligent agents such as OSE-like communities. Intelligence does not automatically emerge except through processes like evolution which form a higher structure of laws. For example, cells obeying the laws of their programming act in the best interest of the the body carrying them. Cells also act, with less concern, for the species, because copies of similar sets of genes (similar cells) are elsewhere in the species. We have that concern for species given to us through our cellular programming, so sometimes we are more intelligent than governments. But this does not mean that governments do not sometimes need to control people and OSEs that have gone against society's best interest in pursuit of their personal goals. Cells in our body are really and sincerely programmed to act right or die. Minor changes can destroy all surrounding cells (cancer). &lt;B&gt;This kind of self-enforced programming to act in the best interest of the larger society is not an option for OSE&lt;/B&gt;, or any other human technology (so far). So humans developed government at higher and higher levels in the same way the brain is organized to exhibit intelligence for the whole body (see Palm founder Jeff Hawkings's book &quot;On Intelligence&quot; for how the brain works through &quot;HTM&quot;). To explain how the brain and governments work differently from cells, let me describe the process in the simplest example, large corporate structure. Corporations have engineers, marketers, accountants, and lawyers to work out details at '''small intervals of space and time''' (sensation and motor control) while CEOs, CFOs, and CTOs work at much larger space and time intervals with only a vague consciousness of the details below. The managers are not any smarter, they just have a different skill set (i.e. their pattern recognition and predictive power is being used for larger space and time intervals). In the brain, the managers are the parallel to our consciousness, as we have no knowledge of the computations going on in the first layers of neurons tied to sensation and motor control. So there needs to be &quot;management&quot; (feedback) over larger and larger scales in the brain and in society (city, state, fed, world). Individual marketplace transactions can be free and fair, but without government to guide things at a higher level, those transactions do not act in the best interests of society. Cells are different because they are hard-wired with a lot of wise technology. They have no choice but to follow the programming. People and OSEs have to be guided not only by the marketplace, but by rules the government enforces on top of the marketplace. To summarize, it is wrong to think that OSE tools can act in a way that is beneficial to the whole of society. This is how cells operate. This is similar to faith in a free market place with zero or minimal governmental &quot;overhead&quot; (see the Mises and Hayak economic &quot;religion&quot;). It works in cells, but it does not work in markets or any other human institutions because only cells have internally-enforced, wise programming (although things like core linux and TCP/IP may qualify). Even in the body, cells were found to be in-effective for fast changing-environments so they organized themselves into brains which could reprogram behavior.<br /> <br /> A completely free market where government only enforces honesty and fairness for each and every transaction does not exhibit intelligence at a higher level. The market is only a mathematical process that seeks the optimum solution for a given set of conditions, similar to Bayesian and neural networks. These are not really &quot;intelligent&quot; as they fixate on an solution after being trained. Advanced &quot;intelligence&quot; for survival and replication occurs when networks incorporate feedback connections (not merely feedback signals for seeking optimum settings on training data) that work across *groups* of nodes (think OSEs), capable of more general algorithmic behavior (UTM-like ability to modify themselves in response to new inputs). Giving system-wide feedback is the purpose of voting to keep check and balance on market forces. Votes flatten various forms of societal and monetary wealth through laws and progressive taxation while the marketplace seeks to create disparity for the purpose of motivation. Instead of welfare &quot;gifts&quot;, the laws and taxes should be used like they were in the 1800's: to increase the efficiency of production by building infrastructure that also happens to further flatten wealth (equal roads, police, and education for all) and to stop monopolies (including sub-contracting utility work) and fixing other issues market forces can't address (e.g., &quot;externalities&quot; to market transactions such as pollution). This type of feedback can't be an inherent internal part (i.e. programmed) of the independent economic agents (people, NN nodes, or OSEs). &quot;Governing&quot; requires purposeful, intelligent design, or it's going to left up to anarchistic evolution (intelligent design by death of the least aggressive). We have different laws at different levels (cells, person, OSE, society) in order to exhibit intelligence at higher and higher levels for greatest benefit to society. A basic rule of law enabling a free and fair marketplace solves the prisoner's dilemma for &quot;cooperate&quot; at the transaction level, but higher levels of governing (truly intelligent guidance) are required to maximize productivity towards total or average happiness (which can be approximated by the median purchasing power parity GDP/person with financial and asset price (non-production) GDP removed). <br /> <br /> OSE &quot;codes of conduct&quot; are the beginning of law for the OSE community. It's not needed any more than at any other &quot;company&quot; because we already have governments enforcing basic law. I would more seriously treat OSE as a repository for technological innovation that can solve food and shelter problems at the smallest possible level without getting philosophical or trying to venture into politics and economics. This will provide appeal to a wide variety: survivalists, DIYs, farmers, and 3rd world towns. I would also 1st seek production of profitable units rather than asking for charity. Reinvest profits in the next module. You'll only make profit where the module is needed and not available elsewhere. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 14:06, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Solar_Concentrator_Links&diff=35391 2011-08-01T20:43:09Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>Elianto in Italy and Ausra in Australia are using a very smart-looking design that is basically a parabolic trough with fresnel effect, but the receiver is kept stationary like a tower. Only 1 axis needs to be turned to control all mirrors and they can be geared together so that only 1 motor is required. Allows mirrors to stay close to ground. Serious drawback: long focal length requires very accurate parabolic mirrors. At 0:40, Elianto shows a detail of the receiver.<br /> *http://www.ausramediaroom.com/<br /> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkucHl4GgN8<br /> <br /> Saracon Parabolic Trough: low-temp steam for cooking for 15 to 30 people. <br /> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJYeQHAvgTM#t=240<br /> <br /> PRACTICA Foundation &quot;Smart Tech Against Poverty&quot; has a parabolic dish and parabolic trough design for producing steam to drive micro steam engines for pumping water:<br /> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wwdEwHzGTA<br /> *http://www.practica.org/services/r-d/thermal-solar-pumps/<br /> <br /> Alterner Solar with a large steam solar collector:<br /> *http://www.youtube.com/altenersolar#p/a/u/1/u42TFg2g4r4<br /> <br /> Dr Reddy at IIT Madras with 2 Solar steam designs and has worked on optimizing the receivers:<br /> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGNFKKsPxoo<br /> *http://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/activities/solarpower/iitmadras.pdf<br /> <br /> Concentrated Solar Power Open Source Initiative (CSPOSI):<br /> *http://www.csposi.org/<br /> <br /> The solar cooking wikia:<br /> *http://solarcooking.wikia.com/<br /> <br /> DIY solar Site:<br /> *http://www.builditsolar.com/index.htm<br /> <br /> [[Category:Solar Turbine]]</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sun-tracking&diff=35386 2011-08-01T19:02:27Z

<p>Zawy: /* Sun concentrator for water heat storage */</p> <hr /> <div>I would also recommend including content about passive solar tracking, as this eliminates both electronics and motors from the equation, and makes solar tracking possible with relatively basic materials. See the zomeworks tracker for details on this method: http://zomeworks.com/products/pv-trackers. Electronic solar trackers can often provide a 100% increase in photovoltaic efficiency, and passive trackers provide between 45% and 85%, depending on a number of environmental factors, foremost being wind. <br /> <br /> However, since they have very few moving parts, and rely on gravity + evaporation to track the sun, they require almost no upkeep. Compared to electronic/motorized trackers, these guys are the epitome of lifetime engineering.<br /> <br /> == Combo Tracker? ==<br /> <br /> Could you do both, calculate where the sun should approximately be and then use feedback to accurately place it? [[User:Catprog|Catprog]] 15:16, 28 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> == Parabolic dish allows for very simple sun tracking ==<br /> Instead of the Solar Fire's P32 method, I would use a parabolic dish which will be more powerful in early morning and late afternoon, capturing a lot more area. For 32 kW (peak) the support point would need to be 3 meters above the ground and strong enough for winds as the top edge of the dish would be 6 meters above the ground. Use an equatorial axis that is adjusted once every few days and you only need 1 axis of solar tracking instead of the P32's 5 different adjustments every 10 minutes or so. Physically aim it in the morning at say 9 am, and it remains perfect to within the accuracy of the clock. This assumes equatorial axis that is adjust every week. Receiver &quot;bucket&quot; of water will be 1.5 meters from dish's center support point.<br /> <br /> ==Parabolic Trough for Serious Power==<br /> For serious steam (300 kW) parabolic trough is needed. This is better than heliostats because heliostats require 2-axis tracking for every mirror. The drawback is that it requires glass-enclosed light receiver pipes, and parabolic mirrors (curved special-surface aluminum, mirror slats, or aluminized mylar (very light)). The biggest advantage will be that only a timer is need to control altitude, which needs to be only 1/3 as accurate as azimuth axis since the change in angle is only about 50 usable degrees on most days. Since you can't do equatorial axis with trough, the timer may need three potentiometer adjustments (morning start, mid-day peak, and stop point) to be change once every few days in spring and fall (less sensitive in summer and winter). Trough may also be optimal and serve double-duty for brick firing as I mentioned elsewhere on a CEB discussion page. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:16, 31 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> ==Sun concentrator for water heat storage==<br /> If living areas are not properly designed, or if more heating for night is needed for living or greenhouse, heating of water provides ideal heat storage. Water storage &quot;tank&quot; would be a plastic-lined hole (insulation not really needed), buried under the attached greenhouse if not the center of the house. A large car-type radiator could be movable to provide heat anywhere. The storage tank can serve as double-duty for water storage. 300 gallons at 120 F (34 kWhr starting from 70 F) are needed to keep a typical R-15 1,000 sq ft house warm overnight, so 3,000 gallons for 10 cloudy days is not overkill (three 4x8 areas, 5 feet deep). Each 100 gallons requires one 4x8 sun collection area to bring it up to temp, so 3,000 gallons is 30 4x8 apertures areas of parabolic trough. 8 feet high is reasonable, so that's 2 rows 60 feet long, covering as much land area as the 1,000 sq ft house it is warming. 100 kW of sun exposure in summer for the steam engine. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 20:57, 1 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> ==Parabolic trough needs to be parallel to ground==<br /> I've seen several DIY parabolic trough designs that are not parallel to the ground. This defeats 2 main reasons for the trough: 1) you don't waste land or get shadows side-to-side and 2) altitude adjustment is much smaller that azimuth adjustment (60 degrees over the course of a day instead of 160). This lessens accuracy requirements. There is waste on the ends from this benefit, so longer troughs are better. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 17:28, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sun-tracking&diff=35385 2011-08-01T18:57:48Z

<p>Zawy: /* Parabolic dish is best for steam because it allows for simple tracking solution */</p> <hr /> <div>I would also recommend including content about passive solar tracking, as this eliminates both electronics and motors from the equation, and makes solar tracking possible with relatively basic materials. See the zomeworks tracker for details on this method: http://zomeworks.com/products/pv-trackers. Electronic solar trackers can often provide a 100% increase in photovoltaic efficiency, and passive trackers provide between 45% and 85%, depending on a number of environmental factors, foremost being wind. <br /> <br /> However, since they have very few moving parts, and rely on gravity + evaporation to track the sun, they require almost no upkeep. Compared to electronic/motorized trackers, these guys are the epitome of lifetime engineering.<br /> <br /> == Combo Tracker? ==<br /> <br /> Could you do both, calculate where the sun should approximately be and then use feedback to accurately place it? [[User:Catprog|Catprog]] 15:16, 28 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> == Parabolic dish allows for very simple sun tracking ==<br /> Instead of the Solar Fire's P32 method, I would use a parabolic dish which will be more powerful in early morning and late afternoon, capturing a lot more area. For 32 kW (peak) the support point would need to be 3 meters above the ground and strong enough for winds as the top edge of the dish would be 6 meters above the ground. Use an equatorial axis that is adjusted once every few days and you only need 1 axis of solar tracking instead of the P32's 5 different adjustments every 10 minutes or so. Physically aim it in the morning at say 9 am, and it remains perfect to within the accuracy of the clock. This assumes equatorial axis that is adjust every week. Receiver &quot;bucket&quot; of water will be 1.5 meters from dish's center support point.<br /> <br /> ==Parabolic Trough for Serious Power==<br /> For serious steam (300 kW) parabolic trough is needed. This is better than heliostats because heliostats require 2-axis tracking for every mirror. The drawback is that it requires glass-enclosed light receiver pipes, and parabolic mirrors (curved special-surface aluminum, mirror slats, or aluminized mylar (very light)). The biggest advantage will be that only a timer is need to control altitude, which needs to be only 1/3 as accurate as azimuth axis since the change in angle is only about 50 usable degrees on most days. Since you can't do equatorial axis with trough, the timer may need three potentiometer adjustments (morning start, mid-day peak, and stop point) to be change once every few days in spring and fall (less sensitive in summer and winter). Trough may also be optimal and serve double-duty for brick firing as I mentioned elsewhere on a CEB discussion page. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:16, 31 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> ==Sun concentrator for water heat storage==<br /> If living areas are not properly designed, or if more heating for night is needed for living or greenhouse, heating of water provides ideal heat storage. Water storage &quot;tank&quot; would be a plastic-lined hole, buried under the greenhouse. A radiator could be movable to provide heat anywhere. The storage tank can serve as double-duty for water storage. 300 gallons at 120 F (34 kWhr starting from 70 F) are needed to keep a typical R-15 1,000 sq ft house warm overnight, so 3,000 gallons for 10 cloudy days is not overkill (three 4x8 areas, 5 feet deep). Each 100 gallons requires one 4x8 sun collection area to bring it up to temp, so 3,000 gallons is 30 4x8 apertures areas of parabolic trough. 8 feet high is reasonable, so that's 2 rows 60 feet long, covering as much land area as the 1,000 sq ft house. 100 kW of sun exposure in summer. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 20:57, 1 August 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> ==Parabolic trough needs to be parallel to ground==<br /> I've seen several DIY parabolic trough designs that are not parallel to the ground. This defeats 2 main reasons for the trough: 1) you don't waste land or get shadows side-to-side and 2) altitude adjustment is much smaller that azimuth adjustment (60 degrees over the course of a day instead of 160). This lessens accuracy requirements. There is waste on the ends from this benefit, so longer troughs are better. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 17:28, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Compressed_Earth_Blocks&diff=35374 2011-08-01T16:24:58Z

<p>Zawy: /* Where&#039;s the straw? Firing is more conducive to OSE principles. */</p> <hr /> <div>Aren't they Compressed Earth Bricks? [[User:Ryan Lutz|Ryan Lutz]] 23:54, 29 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> ==Where's the straw? Firing is more conducive to OSE principles ==<br /> Don't people the world all over usually mix in straw when making clay bricks? It's equivalent to rebar in cement. Hollow and firing also have great advantages. Firing allows greater strength for higher construction and easier water-proofing, not to mention shingles. Solar concentration can serve double-duty for the firing. I imagine a slow conveyor of bricks in front of a long parabolic mirror. So firing supports the modularity and 100 year lifespan goals. I think it would be wise for those who are making the big-picture decisions for OSE to become very familiar with what the 3rd world is doing to solve various problems. Travel is a business and .org expense. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 18:19, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Compressed_Earth_Blocks&diff=35373 2011-08-01T16:24:36Z

<p>Zawy: /* Where&#039;s the straw? */</p> <hr /> <div>Aren't they Compressed Earth Bricks? [[User:Ryan Lutz|Ryan Lutz]] 23:54, 29 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> ==Where's the straw? Firing is more conducive to OSE principles. ==<br /> Don't people the world all over usually mix in straw when making clay bricks? It's equivalent to rebar in cement. Hollow and firing also have great advantages. Firing allows greater strength for higher construction and easier water-proofing, not to mention shingles. Solar concentration can serve double-duty for the firing. I imagine a slow conveyor of bricks in front of a long parabolic mirror. So firing supports the modularity and 100 year lifespan goals. I think it would be wise for those who are making the big-picture decisions for OSE to become very familiar with what the 3rd world is doing to solve various problems. Travel is a business and .org expense. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 18:19, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Compressed_Earth_Blocks&diff=35372 2011-08-01T16:23:52Z

<p>Zawy: /* Where&#039;s the straw? */</p> <hr /> <div>Aren't they Compressed Earth Bricks? [[User:Ryan Lutz|Ryan Lutz]] 23:54, 29 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> ==Where's the straw?==<br /> Don't people the world all over usually mix in straw when making clay bricks? It's equivalent to rebar in cement. Hollow and firing also have great advantages. Firing allows greater strength for higher construction and easier water-proofing, not to mention shingles. Solar concentration can serve double-duty for the firing. I imagine a slow conveyor of bricks in front of a long parabolic mirror. So firing supports the modularity and 100 year lifespan goals. I think it would be wise for those who are making the big-picture decisions for OSE to become very familiar with what the 3rd world is doing to solve various problems. Travel is a business and .org expense. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 18:19, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Compressed_Earth_Blocks&diff=35371 2011-08-01T16:19:53Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>Aren't they Compressed Earth Bricks? [[User:Ryan Lutz|Ryan Lutz]] 23:54, 29 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> ==Where's the straw?==<br /> Don't people the world all over usually mix in straw when making clay bricks? It's equivalent to rebar in cement. alternatively hollow and firing have great advantages. Firing allows greater strength for higher construction. I think it would be wise for those who are making the big-picture decisions for OSE to become very familiar with what the 3rd world is doing to solve various problems. Travel is a business and .org expense. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 18:19, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Distributive_Economics&diff=35370 2011-08-01T15:57:59Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>Let me first summarize my response to this article:<br /> OSE is a tool for small groups of people. There's no reason to believe it will be used any wiser than hunter-gatherers (would have) used steel. OSE provides the perfect start for making weapons. We will still need government at local, national, and world levels, which includes economics (reliable and stable money and transaction law). Our political and economic systems are largely broken as evidence by our use of 50 times more energy and technology per person since 1900 and only marginal improvement in life. OSE does not fix politics and economics. It only enables them to be more wasteful if voters do not regain control and vote more intelligently. OSE can level the existing playing field between corporations and individuals, but that is not the source of the big problems. Mich has a 1960's style 20-something feeling for community that is based on the genetic programming that exists in many individuals, but OSE is not the solution to bringing that sense to a world that lost it as society got too big for our communal programming. The internet itself is, by making it possible for distant peoples to seem very close and no longer strangers. <br /> <br /> Below I'll discuss the items in the article to show they are not very relevant to OSE.<br /> <br /> *Item 1, design repository, is achieved by the internet, bypassing defunct I.P. law that only occasionally acts in the best interest of society.<br /> *Item 2, Appropriate scale, does not give any actionable information, except for suggesting an interesting read from 1973.<br /> <br /> *Item 3, Flexible fabrication, is apparently about digital fabrication and is meant to point out that &quot;3D printing&quot; flattens access to the produced goods. This, along with item 1, seem to be the core of this article, as described by the intro: &quot;promotes the equitable distribution of wealth through a combination [of these things] towards replicability [without regard to the larger political structure]&quot;<br /> <br /> *Item 4, Lifetime design, ignores advances in technology by stating that if it lasts 10 times longer it is worth 10 times more. However, this may be (or is being) used as a guide for OSE: already the majority of things being constructed have not changed much in the past 50 to 150 years. This may be very relevant to OSE as it may define a constraint as to what things need to be worked on.<br /> <br /> *Item 5, Free enterprise, points out that 1 and 3 have the ability to prevent monopolies. It seems to blame monopolies on the welfare state and Keynesian thought, which is a drastic misunderstanding of economics. Preventing monopolies can be viewed as welfare for the poor at the expense of the rich who broke no law in obtaining the monopoly (through fair, honest, mutually-agreed upon, free trade). I recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hudson_(economist) and http://michael-hudson.com to learn the basics of advanced classical economics. Marx took classical economics to its logical conclusion, which paved the way for a better understanding of economics which has not occured anywhere except in Michael Hudson's articles and video appearances. &quot;Political economy&quot; in 1800's America meant efficient use of energy for the movement of matter. This practical political thinking led to forced balance of trade and incubation of industry through tariffs in order to leave colony status behind (to go from a mere resource producer for the benefit of Europe to a self-sufficient industrial state). Michael Hudson explains the steam engine and steel of politics and economics. Incorrect neoliberal economic ideas are flooding the world's mind-space, largely for the benefit of interest-charging banks that no longer loan capital for the purpose of increasing efficiency of production. Mich seems to know &quot;modern&quot; economics is all screwey, but his comment indicates he has not yet stumbled on the right source of information to explain the source of the problems. <br /> <br /> *Item 6, Responsibility, means locally experiencing the consequences of your actions, largely the result of 3.<br /> <br /> *Item 7, Radical cost reduction, is again the result of 1 and 3. (modularity and lifespan are the result or partial goals of item 1). <br /> <br /> OK, so we have 1 and 3 as the essence of the article and the others as elaboration or food for thought. Let me explain how this ties into a larger political and economic structure. <br /> <br /> &lt;B&gt;Going into government, markets, evolution, and intelligence:&lt;/b&gt;<br /> First, Mich has said elsewhere that politics and economics will follow the OSE technology. This is not true. OSE provides a foundation upon which a larger structure (society) can be built. OSE solves local problems and acheives local goals. As such, it is merely a tool for larger scales to utilize. Without coordination through economics and government at higher and higher levels, OSE communities (OSEs) can ban together, or act independently, to adversely affect other OSEs and others in general. Spreading OSE technology is no different than spreading steel technology. Intelligence for the whole system (let's say the human species) is not an emergent behavior of independent intelligent agents such as OSE-like communities. Intelligence does not automatically emerge except through processes like evolution which form a higher structure of laws. For example, cells obeying the laws of their programming act in the best interest of the the body carrying them. Cells also act, with less concern, for the species, because copies of similar sets of genes (suimilar cells) are elsewhere in the species. We have that concern for species given to us through our cellular programming, so sometimes we are more intelligent than governments. But this does not mean that governments do not sometimes need to control people and OSEs that have gone against society's best interest in persuit of their personal goals. Cells in our body are really and sincerely programmed to act right or die. Minor changes can destroy all surrounding cells (cancer). &lt;B&gt;This kind of self-enforced programming to act in the best interest of the larger society is not an option for OSE&lt;/B&gt;, or any other human technology (so far). So humans developed government at higher and higher levels in the same way the brain is organized to exhibit intelligence for the whole body (see Palm founder Jeff Hawkings's book &quot;On Intelligence&quot; for how the brain works through &quot;HTM&quot;). To explain how the brain and governments work differently from cells, let me describe the process in the simplest example, large corporate structure. Corporations have engineers, marketers, accountants, and lawyers to work out details at '''small intervals of space and time''' (sensation and motor control) while CEOs, CFOs, and CTOs work at much larger space and time intervals with only a vague consciousness of the details below. The managers are not any smarter, they just have a different skill set (i.e. their pattern recognition and predictive power is being used for larger space and time intervals). In the brain, the managers are the parallel to our consciousness, as we have no knowledge of the computations going on in the first layers of neurons tied to sensation and motor control. So there needs to be &quot;management&quot; (feedback) over larger and larger scales in the brain and in society (city, state, fed, world). Individual marketplace transactions can be free and fair, but without government to guide things at a higher level, those transactions do not act in the best interests of society. Cells are different because they are hard-wired with a lot of wise technology. They have no choice but to follow the programming. People and OSEs have to be guided not only by the marketplace, but by rules the government enforces on top of the marketplace. To summarize, Mich seems to have faith that OSE tools can act in a way that is beneficial to the whole of society. This is how cells operate. This is similar to faith in a free market place with zero or minimal governmental &quot;overhead&quot; (see the Mises and Hayak economic &quot;religion&quot;). It works in cells, but it does not work in markets or any other human institutions because only cells have internally-enforced, wise programming (although things like core linux and TCP/IP may qualify). Even in the body, cells were found to be in-effective for fast changing-environments so they organized themselves into brains which could reprogram behavior.<br /> <br /> A completely free market where government only enforces honesty and fairness for each and every transaction does not exhibit intelligence at a higher level. The market is only a mathematical process that seeks the optimum solution for a given set of conditions, similar to bayesian and neural networks. These are not intelligent. Intelligence occurs when these networks incorporate feedback connections (not merely feedback signals for adjusting variables) that work across groups of nodes. This is the purpose of voting: to enforce laws and flatten wealth through progressive taxation. Instead of welfare, the taxes from the wealthy should be used like they were in the 1800's: to increase the efficiency of production by building infrastructure that also happens to flattern wealth (equal roads, police, and education for all) and to stop monopolies (including sub-contracting utility work) and fixing other issues market forces can't address (e.g., &quot;externalities&quot; to market transactions such as pollution). This type of feedback can't be an inherent internal part of (i.e. programmed) the independent economic agents (people, NN nodes, or OSEs). &quot;Governing&quot; requires purposeful, intelligent design, or it's going to left up to anarchistic evolution (intelligent design by death of the least aggressive). We have different laws at different levels (cells, person, OSE, society) in order to exhibit intelligence at higher and higher levels for greatest benefit to society. A basic rule of law enabling a free and fair marketplace solves the prisoner's dilemma for &quot;cooperate&quot; at the transaction level, but higher levels of governing (truly intelligent guidance) are required to maximize productivity towards total or average happiness (which can be approximated by the median purchasing power parity GDP/person with financial and asset price (non-production) GDP removed). <br /> <br /> OSE &quot;codes of conduct&quot; are the beginning of law for the OSE community. It's not needed any more than at any other &quot;company&quot; because we already have governments enforcing basic law. I would more seriously treat OSE as a repository for technological innovation that can solve food and shelter problems at the smallest possible level without getting philosophical or trying to venture into politics and economics. This will provide appeal to a wide variety: survivalists, DIYs, farmers, and 3rd world towns. I would also 1st seek production of profitable units rather than asking for charity. Reinvest profits in the next module. You'll only make profit where the module is needed and not available elsewhere. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 14:06, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Distributive_Economics&diff=35361 2011-08-01T13:57:21Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>Let me first summarize my response to this article:<br /> OSE is a tool for small groups of people. There's no reason to believe it will be used any wiser than hunter-gatherers used steel. OSE provides the perfect start for making weapons. We will still need government at local, national, and world levels, which includes economics (reliable and stable money and transaction law). Our political and economic systems are largely broken as evidence by our use of 50 times more energy and technology per person since 1900 and only marginal improvement in life. OSE does not fix politics and economics. It only enables them to be more wasteful if voters do not regain control and vote more intelligently. OSE can level the existing playing field between corporations and individuals, but that is not the source of the big problems. Mich has a 1960's style 20-something feeling for community that is based on the genetic programming that exists in many individuals, but OSE is not the solution to bringing that sense to a world that lost it as society got too big for our communal programming. The internet itself is, by making it possible for distant peoples to seem very close and no longer strangers.<br /> <br /> *Item 1, design repository, is achieved by the internet, bypassing defunct I.P. law that only occasionally acts in the best interest of society.<br /> *Item 2, Appropriate scale, does not give any actionable information, except for suggesting an interesting read from 1973.<br /> <br /> *Item 3, Flexible fabrication, is apparently about digital fabrication and is meant to point out that &quot;3D printing&quot; flattens access to the produced goods. This, along with item 1, seem to be the core of this article, as described by the intro: &quot;promotes the equitable distribution of wealth through a combination [of these things] towards replicability [without regard to the larger political structure]&quot;<br /> <br /> *Item 4, Lifetime design, ignores advances in technology by stating that if it lasts 10 times longer it is worth 10 times more. However, this may be (or is being) used as a guide for OSE: already the majority of things being constructed have not changed much in the past 50 to 150 years. <br /> <br /> *Item 5, Free enterprise, points out that 1 and 3 have the ability to prevent monopolies. It seems to blame monopolies on the welfare state and Keynesian thought, which is a drastic misunderstanding of economics. I recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hudson_(economist) and http://michael-hudson.com to learn the basics of advanced classical economics. Marx took classical economics to its logical conclusion, which paved the way for a better understanding of economics which has not occured anywhere except in Michael Hudson's articles and video appearances. &quot;Political economy&quot; in 1800's America meant efficient use of energy for the movement of matter. This practical political thinking led to forced balance of trade and incubation of industry through tarrifs in order to leave colony status behind (to go from a mere resource producer for the benefit of Europe to a self-sufficient industrial state). Michael Hudson explains the steam engine and steel of politics and economics. Incorrect neoliberal economic ideas are flooding the world's mind-space, largely for the benefit of interest-charging banks that no longer loan capital for the purpose of increasing efficiency of production. Mich seems to know &quot;modern&quot; economics is all screwey, but his comment indicates he has not yet stumbled on the right source of information to explain it. <br /> <br /> *Item 6, Responsibility, means locally experiencing the consequences of your actions, again the result of 1 and 3.<br /> <br /> *Item 7, Radical cost reduction, is again the result of 1 and 3. (modularity and lifespan are the result of 1)<br /> <br /> OK, so we have 1 and 3 as the essence of the article and the others as elaboration or food for thought. Let me explain how this ties into a larger political and economic structure. <br /> <br /> &lt;B&gt;Going deep into government, markets, evolution, and intelligence:&lt;/b&gt;<br /> First, Mich has said elsewhere that politics and economics will follow the OSE technology. This is not true. OSE provides a foundation upon which a larger structure (society) can be built. OSE solves local problems and acheives local goals. As such, it is merely a tool for larger scales to utilize. Without coordination through economics and government at higher and higher levels, OSE communities (OSEs) can ban together, or act independently, to adversely affect other OSEs and others in general. Spreading OSE technology is no different than spreading steel technology. Intelligence for the whole system (let's say the human species) is not an emergent behavior of independent intelligent agents such as OSE-like communities. Intelligence does not automatically emerge except through processes like evolution which form a higher structure of laws. For example, cells obeying the laws of their programming act in the best interest of the the body carrying them. Cells also act, with less concern, for the species, because copies of similar sets of genes (suimilar cells) are elsewhere in the species. We have that concern for species given to use through our cellular programming, so sometimes we are more intelligent than governments. But this does not mean that governments do not sometimes need to control people and OSEs that have gone against society's best interest in persuit of their personal goals. Cells in our body are really and sincerely programmed to act right or die. Minor changes can destroy all surrounding cells (cancer). &lt;B&gt;This kind of self-enforced programming is not an option for OSE&lt;/B&gt;, or any other human technology (so far). So humans developed government at higher and higher levels in the same way the brain is organized to exhibit intelligence for the whole body (see Palm founder Jeff Hawkings's book &quot;On Intelligence&quot; for how the brain works at the largest scale, building up from identical smaller units). In the same way, large organizations have engineers, marketers, accountants, and lawyers to work out details at small space and time intervals (sensation and motor coontrol) while CEOs, CFOs, and CTOs work at much larger space and time intervals with only a vague consciousness of the details below. The managers are not any smarter, they just have a different skill set (i.e. their pattern recognition and predictive power is at larger space and time intervals). In the brain, the managers are consciousness, as we have no knowledge of the computations going on in the first layers of neurons from sensation. So there needs to be management at higher levels (groups of OSEs). To summarize, Mich seems to have faith that programming individual units can cause them to act in a way that is beneficial for the whole. This is how cells operate. This is also the faith of free marketers wanting to do away with government. It works in cells, but it does not yet work in markets or any other human institutions. And even in the body, cells were found to be in-effective for fast changing-environments so they organized themselves into brains which could reprogram behavior.<br /> <br /> A completely free market where government only enforces honesty and fairness for each and every transaction does not exhibit intelligence at a higher level. The market is only a mathematical process that seeks the optimum solution for a given set of conditions, similar to bayesian and nueral networks. These are not intelligent. Intelligence occurs when these networks incorporate feedback connections (not merely feedback signals for adjusting variables) that work across groups of nodes. This is the purpose of voting: to enforce laws and flatten wealth through progressive taxation. Instead of welfare, the taxes from the wealthy should be used like they were in the 1800's: to increase the efficiency of production by building infrastructure that also happens to flattern wealth (equal roads, police, and education for all) and to stop monopolies (including sub-contracting utility work) and fixing other issues market forces can't address (&quot;externalities&quot; to market transactions such as pollution). This type of feedback can't be invisibly a part (programmed) of the independent economic agents (people, NN nodes, or OSEs). &quot;Governing&quot; requires purposeful, intelligent design, or it's going to left up to anarchistic evolution (intelligent design by death of the least agressive). We have a different group of laws at different levels (cells, person, OSE, society) in order to exhibit intelligence at higher and higher levels (solving the prisoner's dilemma for &quot;cooperate&quot; at each level of organization) for the purpose of efficiently finding and using energy to move matter in order to replicate.<br /> <br /> OSE &quot;codes of conduct&quot; are the beginning of law for the OSE community. It's not needed any more than at any other &quot;company&quot; because we already have governments enforcing the essentials on individual brains in bodies whose cells are programmed to give priority to the individual. I would more seriously treat OSE as a repository for technological innovation that can solve food and shelter problems at the smallest possible level without getting philosophical or trying to venture into politics and economics. This will provide appeal to a wide variety: survivalists, DIYs, farmers, and 3rd world towns. I would also 1st seek production of profitable units rather than asking for charity. Reinvest in the next module. You'll only make profit where the module is needed and not available elsewhere. Unlike the above discussion, OSE needs to '''Focus''' in order to succeed. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 14:06, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Distributive_Economics&diff=35360 2011-08-01T13:39:39Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>Let me first summarize my response to this article:<br /> OSE is a tool for small groups of people. There's no reason to believe it will be used any wiser than hunter-gatherers used steel. OSE provides the perfect start for making weapons. We will still need government at local, national, and world levels, which includes economics (reliable and stable money and transaction law). Our political and economic systems are largely broken as evidence by our use of 50 times more energy and technology per person since 1900 and only marginal improvement in life. OSE does not fix politics and economics. It only enables them to be more wasteful if voters do not regain control and vote more intelligently.<br /> <br /> *Item 1, design repository, is achieved by the internet, bypassing defunct I.P. law that only occasionally acts in the best interest of society.<br /> *Item 2, Appropriate scale, does not give any actionable information, except for suggesting an interesting read from 1973.<br /> <br /> *Item 3, Flexible fabrication, is apparently about digital fabrication and is meant to point out that &quot;3D printing&quot; flattens access to the produced goods. This, along with item 1, seem to be the core of this article, as described by the intro: &quot;promotes the equitable distribution of wealth through a combination [of these things] towards replicability [without regard to the larger political structure]&quot;<br /> <br /> *Item 4, Lifetime design, ignores advances in technology by stating that if it lasts 10 times longer it is worth 10 times more. However, this may be (or is being) used as a guide for OSE: already the majority of things being constructed have not changed much in the past 50 to 150 years. <br /> <br /> *Item 5, Free enterprise, points out that 1 and 3 have the ability to prevent monopolies. It seems to blame monopolies on the welfare state and Keynesian thought, which is a drastic misunderstanding of economics. I recommend reading http://michael-hudson.com to learn the basics of advanced classical economics. Marx took classical economics to its logical conclusion, which paved the way for a better understanding of economics which has not occured anywhere except in Michael Hudson's articles and video appearances. &quot;Political economy&quot; in 1800's America meant efficient use of energy for the movement of matter. This practical political thinking led to forced balance of trade and incubation of industry through tarrifs in order to leave colony status behind (to go from a mere resource producer for the benefit of Europe to a self-sufficient industrial state). Michael Hudson explains the steam engine and steel of politics and economics. Incorrect neoliberal economic ideas are flooding the world's mind-space, largely for the benefit of interest-charging banks that no longer loan capital for the purpose of increasing efficiency of production. Mich seems to know &quot;modern&quot; economics is all screwey, but his comment indicates he has not yet stumbled on the right source of information to explain it. <br /> <br /> *Item 6, Responsibility, means locally experiencing the consequences of your actions, again the result of 1 and 3.<br /> <br /> *Item 7, Radical cost reduction, is again the result of 1 and 3. (modularity and lifespan are the result of 1)<br /> <br /> OK, so we have 1 and 3 as the essence of the article and the others as elaboration or food for thought. Let me explain how this ties into a larger political and economic structure. <br /> <br /> &lt;B&gt;Going deep into government, markets, evolution, and intelligence:&lt;/b&gt;<br /> First, Mich has said elsewhere that politics and economics will follow the OSE technology. This is not true. OSE provides a foundation upon which a larger structure (society) can be built. OSE solves local problems and acheives local goals. As such, it is merely a tool for larger scales to utilize. Without coordination through economics and government at higher and higher levels, OSE communities (OSEs) can ban together, or act independently, to adversely affect other OSEs and others in general. Spreading OSE technology is no different than spreading steel technology. Intelligence for the whole system (let's say the human species) is not an emergent behavior of independent intelligent agents such as OSE-like communities. Intelligence does not automatically emerge except through processes like evolution which form a higher structure of laws. For example, cells obeying the laws of their programming act in the best interest of the the body carrying them. Cells also act, with less concern, for the species, because copies of similar sets of genes (suimilar cells) are elsewhere in the species. We have that concern for species given to use through our cellular programming, so sometimes we are more intelligent than governments. But this does not mean that governments do not sometmies need to control people and OSEs that have gone against society's best interest in persuit of their personal goals. Cells in our body are really and sincerely programmed to act right or die. Minor changes can destroy all surrounding cells (cancer). &lt;B&gt;This kind of self-enforced programming is not an option for OSE&lt;/B&gt;, or any other human technology (so far). So humans developed government at higher and higher levels in the same way the brain is organized to exhibit intelligence for the whole body (see Palm founder Jeff Hawkings's book &quot;On Intelligence&quot; for how the brain works at the largest scale, building up from identical smaller units). In the same way, large organizations have engineers, marketers, accountants, and lawyers to work out details at small space and time intervals (sensation and motor coontrol) while CEOs, CFOs, and CTOs work at much larger space and time intervals with only a vague consciousness of the details below. The managers are not any smarter, they just have a different skill set (i.e. their pattern recognition and predictive power is at larger space and time intervals). In the brain, the managers are consciousness, as we have no knowledge of the computations going on in the first layers of neurons from sensation. So there needs to be management at higher levels (groups of OSEs). To summarize, Mich seems to have faith that programming individual units can cause them to act in a way that is beneficial for the whole. This is how cells operate. This is also the faith of free marketers wanting to do away with government. It works in cells, but it does not yet work in markets or any other human institutions. And even in the body, cells were found to be in-effective for fast changing-environments so they organized themselves into brains which could reprogram behavior.<br /> <br /> A completely free market where government only enforces honesty and fairness for each and every transaction does not exhibit intelligence at a higher level. The market is only a mathematical process that seeks the optimum solution for a given set of conditions, similar to bayesian and nueral networks. These are not intelligent. Intelligence occurs when these networks incorporate feedback connections (not merely feedback signals for adjusting variables) that work across groups of nodes. This is the purpose of voting: to enforce laws and flatten wealth through progressive taxation. Instead of welfare, the taxes from the wealthy should be used like they were in the 1800's: to increase the efficiency of production by building infrastructure that also happens to flattern wealth (equal roads, police, and education for all) and to stop monopolies (including sub-contracting utility work) and fixing other issues market forces can't address (&quot;externalities&quot; to market transactions such as pollution). This type of feedback can't be invisibly a part (programmed) of the independent economic agents (people, NN nodes, or OSEs). &quot;Governing&quot; requires purposeful, intelligent design, or it's going to left up to anarchistic evolution (intelligent design by death of the least agressive). We have a different group of laws at different levels (cells, person, OSE, society) in order to exhibit intelligence at higher and higher levels (solving the prisoner's dilemma for &quot;cooperate&quot; at each level of organization) for the purpose of efficiently finding and using energy to move matter in order to replicate.<br /> <br /> OSE &quot;codes of conduct&quot; are the beginning of law for the OSE community. It's not needed any more than at any other &quot;company&quot; because we already have governments enforcing the essentials on individual brains in bodies whose cells are programmed to give priority to the individual. I would more seriously treat OSE as a repository for technological innovation that can solve food and shelter problems at the smallest possible level without getting philosophical or trying to venture into politics and economics. This will provide appeal to a wide variety: survivalists, DIYs, farmers, and 3rd world towns. I would also 1st seek production of profitable units rather than asking for charity. Reinvest in the next module. You'll only make profit where the module is needed and not available elsewhere. Unlike the above discussion, OSE needs to '''Focus''' in order to succeed. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 14:06, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Distributive_Economics&diff=35359 2011-08-01T13:38:07Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>Let me first summarize my response to this article:<br /> OSE is a tool for small groups of people. There's no reason to believe it will be used any wiser than hunter-gatherers used steel. OSE provides the perfect start for making weapons. We will still need government at local, national, and world levels, which includes economics (reliable and stable money and transaction law). Our political and economic systems are largely broken as evidence by our use of 50 times more energy and technology per person since 1900 and only marginal improvement in life. OSE does not fix politics and economics. It only enables them to be more wasteful if voters do not regain control and vote more intelligently.<br /> <br /> *Item 1, design repository, is acheived by the internet. <br /> *Item 2, Appropriate scale, does not give any actionable information, except for suggesting an interesting read from 1973.<br /> <br /> *Item 3, Flexible fabrication, is apparently about digital fabrication and is meant to point out that &quot;3D printing&quot; flattens access to the produced goods. This, along with item 1, seem to be the core of this article, as described by the intro: &quot;promotes the equitable distribution of wealth through a combination [of these things] towards replicability [without regard to the larger political structure]&quot;<br /> <br /> *Item 4, Lifetime design, ignores advances in technology by stating that if it lasts 10 times longer it is worth 10 times more. However, this may be (or is being) used as a guide for OSE: already the majority of things being constructed have not changed much in the past 50 to 150 years. <br /> <br /> *Item 5, Free enterprise, points out that 1 and 3 have the ability to prevent monopolies. It seems to blame monopolies on the welfare state and Keynesian thought, which is a drastic misunderstanding of economics. I recommend reading http://michael-hudson.com to learn the basics of advanced classical economics. Marx took classical economics to its logical conclusion, which paved the way for a better understanding of economics which has not occured anywhere except in Michael Hudson's articles and video appearances. &quot;Political economy&quot; in 1800's America meant efficient use of energy for the movement of matter. This practical political thinking led to forced balance of trade and incubation of industry through tarrifs in order to leave colony status behind (to go from a mere resource producer for the benefit of Europe to a self-sufficient industrial state). Michael Hudson explains the steam engine and steel of politics and economics. Incorrect neoliberal economic ideas are flooding the world's mind-space, largely for the benefit of interest-charging banks that no longer loan capital for the purpose of increasing efficiency of production. Mich seems to know &quot;modern&quot; economics is all screwey, but his comment indicates he has not yet stumbled on the right source of information to explain it. <br /> <br /> *Item 6, Responsibility, means locally experiencing the consequences of your actions, again the result of 1 and 3.<br /> <br /> *Item 7, Radical cost reduction, is again the result of 1 and 3. (modularity and lifespan are the result of 1)<br /> <br /> OK, so we have 1 and 3 as the essence of the article and the others as elaboration or food for thought. Let me explain how this ties into a larger political and economic structure. <br /> <br /> &lt;B&gt;Going deep into government, markets, evolution, and intelligence:&lt;/b&gt;<br /> First, Mich has said elsewhere that politics and economics will follow the OSE technology. This is not true. OSE provides a foundation upon which a larger structure (society) can be built. OSE solves local problems and acheives local goals. As such, it is merely a tool for larger scales to utilize. Without coordination through economics and government at higher and higher levels, OSE communities (OSEs) can ban together, or act independently, to adversely affect other OSEs and others in general. Spreading OSE technology is no different than spreading steel technology. Intelligence for the whole system (let's say the human species) is not an emergent behavior of independent intelligent agents such as OSE-like communities. Intelligence does not automatically emerge except through processes like evolution which form a higher structure of laws. For example, cells obeying the laws of their programming act in the best interest of the the body carrying them. Cells also act, with less concern, for the species, because copies of similar sets of genes (suimilar cells) are elsewhere in the species. We have that concern for species given to use through our cellular programming, so sometimes we are more intelligent than governments. But this does not mean that governments do not sometmies need to control people and OSEs that have gone against society's best interest in persuit of their personal goals. Cells in our body are really and sincerely programmed to act right or die. Minor changes can destroy all surrounding cells (cancer). &lt;B&gt;This kind of self-enforced programming is not an option for OSE&lt;/B&gt;, or any other human technology (so far). So humans developed government at higher and higher levels in the same way the brain is organized to exhibit intelligence for the whole body (see Palm founder Jeff Hawkings's book &quot;On Intelligence&quot; for how the brain works at the largest scale, building up from identical smaller units). In the same way, large organizations have engineers, marketers, accountants, and lawyers to work out details at small space and time intervals (sensation and motor coontrol) while CEOs, CFOs, and CTOs work at much larger space and time intervals with only a vague consciousness of the details below. The managers are not any smarter, they just have a different skill set (i.e. their pattern recognition and predictive power is at larger space and time intervals). In the brain, the managers are consciousness, as we have no knowledge of the computations going on in the first layers of neurons from sensation. So there needs to be management at higher levels (groups of OSEs). To summarize, Mich seems to have faith that programming individual units can cause them to act in a way that is beneficial for the whole. This is how cells operate. This is also the faith of free marketers wanting to do away with government. It works in cells, but it does not yet work in markets or any other human institutions. And even in the body, cells were found to be in-effective for fast changing-environments so they organized themselves into brains which could reprogram behavior.<br /> <br /> A completely free market where government only enforces honesty and fairness for each and every transaction does not exhibit intelligence at a higher level. The market is only a mathematical process that seeks the optimum solution for a given set of conditions, similar to bayesian and nueral networks. These are not intelligent. Intelligence occurs when these networks incorporate feedback connections (not merely feedback signals for adjusting variables) that work across groups of nodes. This is the purpose of voting: to enforce laws and flatten wealth through progressive taxation. Instead of welfare, the taxes from the wealthy should be used like they were in the 1800's: to increase the efficiency of production by building infrastructure that also happens to flattern wealth (equal roads, police, and education for all) and to stop monopolies (including sub-contracting utility work) and fixing other issues market forces can't address (&quot;externalities&quot; to market transactions such as pollution). This type of feedback can't be invisibly a part (programmed) of the independent economic agents (people, NN nodes, or OSEs). &quot;Governing&quot; requires purposeful, intelligent design, or it's going to left up to anarchistic evolution (intelligent design by death of the least agressive). We have a different group of laws at different levels (cells, person, OSE, society) in order to exhibit intelligence at higher and higher levels (solving the prisoner's dilemma for &quot;cooperate&quot; at each level of organization) for the purpose of efficiently finding and using energy to move matter in order to replicate.<br /> <br /> OSE &quot;codes of conduct&quot; are the beginning of law for the OSE community. It's not needed any more than at any other &quot;company&quot; because we already have governments enforcing the essentials on individual brains in bodies whose cells are programmed to give priority to the individual. I would more seriously treat OSE as a repository for technological innovation that can solve food and shelter problems at the smallest possible level without getting philosophical or trying to venture into politics and economics. This will provide appeal to a wide variety: survivalists, DIYs, farmers, and 3rd world towns. I would also 1st seek production of profitable units rather than asking for charity. Reinvest in the next module. You'll only make profit where the module is needed and not available elsewhere. Unlike the above discussion, OSE needs to '''Focus''' in order to succeed. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 14:06, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Distributive_Economics&diff=35344 2011-08-01T12:06:23Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>Let me first summarize my response to this article:<br /> OSE is a tool for small groups of people. There's no reason to believe it will be used any wiser than hunter-gatherers used steel. OSE provides the perfect start for making weapons.<br /> <br /> *Item 1, design repository, is acheived by the internet. <br /> *Item 2, Appropriate scale, does not give any actionable information, except for suggesting an interesting read from 1973.<br /> <br /> *Item 3, Flexible fabrication, is apparently about digital fabrication and is meant to point out that &quot;3D printing&quot; flattens access to the produced goods. This, along with item 1, seem to be the core of this article, as described by the intro: &quot;promotes the equitable distribution of wealth through a combination [of these things] towards replicability [without regard to the larger political structure]&quot;<br /> <br /> *Item 4, Lifetime design, ignores advances in technology by stating that if it lasts 10 times longer it is worth 10 times more. However, this may be (or is being) used as a guide for OSE: already the majority of things being constructed have not changed much in the past 50 to 150 years. <br /> <br /> *Item 5, Free enterprise, points out that 1 and 3 have the ability to prevent monopolies. It seems to blame monopolies on the welfare state and Keynesian thought, which is a drastic misunderstanding of economics. I recommend reading http://michael-hudson.com to learn the basics of advanced classical economics. Marx took classical economics to its logical conclusion, which paved the way for a better understanding of economics which has not occured anywhere except in Michael Hudson's articles and video appearances. &quot;Political economy&quot; in 1800's America meant efficient use of energy for the movement of matter. This practical political thinking led to forced balance of trade and incubation of industry through tarrifs in order to leave colony status behind (to go from a mere resource producer for the benefit of Europe to a self-sufficient industrial state). Michael Hudson explains the steam engine and steel of politics and economics. Incorrect neoliberal economic ideas are flooding the world's mind-space, largely for the benefit of interest-charging banks that no longer loan capital for the purpose of increasing efficiency of production. Mich seems to know &quot;modern&quot; economics is all screwey, but his comment indicates he has not yet stumbled on the right source of information to explain it. <br /> <br /> *Item 6, Responsibility, means locally experiencing the consequences of your actions, again the result of 1 and 3.<br /> <br /> *Item 7, Radical cost reduction, is again the result of 1 and 3. (modularity and lifespan are the result of 1)<br /> <br /> OK, so we have 1 and 3 as the essence of the article and the others as elaboration or food for thought. Let me explain how this ties into a larger political and economic structure. <br /> <br /> &lt;B&gt;Going deep into government, markets, evolution, and intelligence:&lt;/b&gt;<br /> First, Mich has said elsewhere that politics and economics will follow the OSE technology. This is not true. OSE provides a foundation upon which a larger structure (society) can be built. OSE solves local problems and acheives local goals. As such, it is merely a tool for larger scales to utilize. Without coordination through economics and government at higher and higher levels, OSE communities (OSEs) can ban together, or act independently, to adversely affect other OSEs and others in general. Spreading OSE technology is no different than spreading steel technology. Intelligence for the whole system (let's say the human species) is not an emergent behavior of independent intelligent agents such as OSE-like communities. Intelligence does not automatically emerge except through processes like evolution which form a higher structure of laws. For example, cells obeying the laws of their programming act in the best interest of the the body carrying them. Cells also act, with less concern, for the species, because copies of similar sets of genes (suimilar cells) are elsewhere in the species. We have that concern for species given to use through our cellular programming, so sometimes we are more intelligent than governments. But this does not mean that governments do not sometmies need to control people and OSEs that have gone against society's best interest in persuit of their personal goals. Cells in our body are really and sincerely programmed to act right or die. Minor changes can destroy all surrounding cells (cancer). &lt;B&gt;This kind of self-enforced programming is not an option for OSE&lt;/B&gt;, or any other human technology (so far). So humans developed government at higher and higher levels in the same way the brain is organized to exhibit intelligence for the whole body (see Palm founder Jeff Hawkings's book &quot;On Intelligence&quot; for how the brain works at the largest scale, building up from identical smaller units). In the same way, large organizations have engineers, marketers, accountants, and lawyers to work out details at small space and time intervals (sensation and motor coontrol) while CEOs, CFOs, and CTOs work at much larger space and time intervals with only a vague consciousness of the details below. The managers are not any smarter, they just have a different skill set (i.e. their pattern recognition and predictive power is at larger space and time intervals). In the brain, the managers are consciousness, as we have no knowledge of the computations going on in the first layers of neurons from sensation. So there needs to be management at higher levels (groups of OSEs). To summarize, Mich seems to have faith that programming individual units can cause them to act in a way that is beneficial for the whole. This is how cells operate. This is also the faith of free marketers wanting to do away with government. It works in cells, but it does not yet work in markets or any other human institutions. And even in the body, cells were found to be in-effective for fast changing-environments so they organized themselves into brains which could reprogram behavior.<br /> <br /> A completely free market where government only enforces honesty and fairness for each and every transaction does not exhibit intelligence at a higher level. The market is only a mathematical process that seeks the optimum solution for a given set of conditions, similar to bayesian and nueral networks. These are not intelligent. Intelligence occurs when these networks incorporate feedback connections (not merely feedback signals for adjusting variables) that work across groups of nodes. This is the purpose of voting: to enforce laws and flatten wealth through progressive taxation. Instead of welfare, the taxes from the wealthy should be used like they were in the 1800's: to increase the efficiency of production by building infrastructure that also happens to flattern wealth (equal roads, police, and education for all) and to stop monopolies (including sub-contracting utility work) and fixing other issues market forces can't address (&quot;externalities&quot; to market transactions such as pollution). This type of feedback can't be invisibly a part (programmed) of the independent economic agents (people, NN nodes, or OSEs). &quot;Governing&quot; requires purposeful, intelligent design, or it's going to left up to anarchistic evolution (intelligent design by death of the least agressive). We have a different group of laws at different levels (cells, person, OSE, society) in order to exhibit intelligence at higher and higher levels (solving the prisoner's dilemma for &quot;cooperate&quot; at each level of organization) for the purpose of efficiently finding and using energy to move matter in order to replicate.<br /> <br /> OSE &quot;codes of conduct&quot; are the beginning of law for the OSE community. It's not needed any more than at any other &quot;company&quot; because we already have governments enforcing the essentials on individual brains in bodies whose cells are programmed to give priority to the individual. I would more seriously treat OSE as a repository for technological innovation that can solve food and shelter problems at the smallest possible level without getting philosophical or trying to venture into politics and economics. This will provide appeal to a wide variety: survivalists, DIYs, farmers, and 3rd world towns. I would also 1st seek production of profitable units rather than asking for charity. Reinvest in the next module. You'll only make profit where the module is needed and not available elsewhere. '''Focus.''' [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 14:06, 1 August 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Distributive_Economics&diff=35342 2011-08-01T11:28:31Z

<p>Zawy: Created page with &quot;Let me first summarize my response to this article: OSE is a tool for small groups of people. There&#039;s no reason to believe it will be used any wiser than hunter-gatherers used st...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Let me first summarize my response to this article:<br /> OSE is a tool for small groups of people. There's no reason to believe it will be used any wiser than hunter-gatherers used steel. OSE provides the perfect start for making weapons.<br /> <br /> *Item 1, design repository, is acheived by the internet. <br /> *Item 2, Appropriate scale, does not give any actionable information, except for suggesting an interesting read from 1973.<br /> <br /> *Item 3, Flexible fabrication, is apparently about digital fabrication and is meant to point out that &quot;3D printing&quot; flattens access to the produced goods. This, along with item 1, seem to be the core of this article, as described by the intro: &quot;promotes the equitable distribution of wealth through a combination [of these things] towards replicability [without regard to the larger political structure]&quot;<br /> <br /> *Item 4, Lifetime design, ignores advances in technology by stating that if it lasts 10 times longer it is worth 10 times more. However, this may be (or is being) used as a guide for OSE: already the majority of things being constructed have not changed much in the past 50 to 150 years. <br /> <br /> *Item 5, Free enterprise, points out that 1 and 3 have the ability to prevent monopolies. It seems to blame monopolies on the welfare state and Keynesian thought, which is a drastic misunderstanding of economics. I recommend reading http://michael-hudson.com to learn the basics of advanced classical economics. Marx took classical economics to its logical conclusion, which paved the way for a better understanding of economics which has not occured anywhere except in Michael Hudson's articles and video appearances. &quot;Political economy&quot; in 1800's America meant efficient use of energy for the movement of matter. This practical political thinking led to forced balance of trade and incubation of industry through tarrifs in order to leave colony status behind (to go from a mere resource producer for the benefit of Europe to a self-sufficient industrial state). Michael Hudson explains the steam engine and steel of politics and economics. Incorrect neoliberal economic ideas are flooding the world's mind-space, largely for the benefit of interest-charging banks that no longer loan capital for the purpose of increasing efficiency of production. Mich seems to know &quot;modern&quot; economics is all screwey, but his comment indicates he has not yet stumbled on the right source of information to explain it. <br /> <br /> *Item 6, Responsibility, means locally experiencing the consequences of your actions, again the result of 1 and 3.<br /> <br /> *Item 7, Radical cost reduction, is again the result of 1 and 3. (modularity and lifespan are the result of 1)<br /> <br /> OK, so we have 1 and 3 as the essence of the article and the others as elaboration or food for thought. Let me explain how this ties into a larger political and economic structure. <br /> <br /> &lt;B&gt;Going deep into government, markets, evolution, and intelligence:&lt;/b&gt;<br /> First, Mich has said elsewhere that politics and economics will follow the OSE technology. This is not true. OSE provides a foundation upon which a larger structure (society) can be built. OSE solves local problems and acheives local goals. As such, it is merely a tool for larger scales to utilize. Without coordination through economics and government at higher and higher levels, OSE communities (OSEs) can ban together, or act independently, to adversely affect other OSEs and others in general. Spreading OSE technology is no different than spreading steel technology. Intelligence for the whole system (let's say the human species) is not an emergent behavior of independent intelligent agents such as OSE-like communities. Intelligence does not automatically emerge except through processes like evolution which form a higher structure of laws. For example, cells obeying the laws of their programming act in the best interest of the the body carrying them. Cells also act, with less concern, for the species, because copies of similar sets of genes (suimilar cells) are elsewhere in the species. We have that concern for species given to use through our cellular programming, so sometimes we are more intelligent than governments. But this does not mean that governments do not sometmies need to control people and OSEs that have gone against society's best interest in persuit of their personal goals. Cells in our body are really and sincerely programmed to act right or die. Minor changes can destroy all surrounding cells (cancer). &lt;B&gt;This kind of self-enforced programming is not an option for OSE&lt;/B&gt;, or any other human technology (so far). So humans developed government at higher and higher levels in the same way the brain is organized to exhibit intelligence for the whole body (see Palm founder Jeff Hawkings's book &quot;On Intelligence&quot; for how the brain works at the largest scale, building up from identical smaller units). In the same way, large organizations have engineers, marketers, accountants, and lawyers to work out details at small space and time intervals (sensation and motor coontrol) while CEOs, CFOs, and CTOs work at much larger space and time intervals with only a vague consciousness of the details below. The managers are not any smarter, they just have a different skill set (i.e. their pattern recognition and predictive power is at larger space and time intervals). In the brain, the managers are consciousness, as we have no knowledge of the computations going on in the first layers of neurons from sensation. So there needs to be management at higher levels (groups of OSEs). To summarize, Mich seems to have faith that programming individual units can cause them to act in a way that is beneficial for the whole. This is how cells operate. This is also the faith of free marketers wanting to do away with government. It works in cells, but it does not yet work in markets or any other human institutions. And even in the body, cells were found to be in-effective for fast changing-environments so they organized themselves into brains which could reprogram behavior.<br /> <br /> A completely free market where government only enforces honesty and fairness for each and every transaction does not exhibit intelligence at a higher level. The market is only a mathematical process that seeks the optimum solution for a given set of conditions, similar to bayesian and nueral networks. These are not intelligent. Intelligence occurs when these networks incorporate feedback connections (not merely feedback signals for adjusting variables) that work across groups of nodes. This is the purpose of voting: to enforce laws and flatten wealth through progressive taxation. Instead of welfare, the taxes from the wealthy should be used like they were in the 1800's: to increase the efficiency of production by building infrastructure that also happens to flattern wealth (equal roads, police, and education for all) and to stop monopolies (including sub-contracting utility work) and fixing other issues market forces can't address (&quot;externalities&quot; to market transactions such as pollution). This type of feedback can't be invisibly a part (programmed) of the independent economic agents (people, NN nodes, or OSEs). &quot;Governing&quot; requires purposeful, intelligent design, or it's going to left up to anarchistic evolution (intelligent design by death of the least agressive). We have a different group of laws at different levels (cells, person, OSE, society) in order to exhibit intelligence at higher and higher levels (solving the prisoner's dilemma for &quot;cooperate&quot; at each level of organization) for the purpose of efficiently finding and using energy to move matter in order to replicate.</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sun-tracking&diff=35273 2011-07-31T15:28:56Z

<p>Zawy: /* Parabolic trough needs to be parallel to ground */</p> <hr /> <div>I would also recommend including content about passive solar tracking, as this eliminates both electronics and motors from the equation, and makes solar tracking possible with relatively basic materials. See the zomeworks tracker for details on this method: http://zomeworks.com/products/pv-trackers. Electronic solar trackers can often provide a 100% increase in photovoltaic efficiency, and passive trackers provide between 45% and 85%, depending on a number of environmental factors, foremost being wind. <br /> <br /> However, since they have very few moving parts, and rely on gravity + evaporation to track the sun, they require almost no upkeep. Compared to electronic/motorized trackers, these guys are the epitome of lifetime engineering.<br /> <br /> == Combo Tracker? ==<br /> <br /> Could you do both, calculate where the sun should approximately be and then use feedback to accurately place it? [[User:Catprog|Catprog]] 15:16, 28 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> == Parabolic dish is best for steam because it allows for simple tracking solution ==<br /> Instead of the Solar Fire's P32 method, I would use a parabolic dish which will be more powerful in early morning and late afternoon, capturing a lot more area. The support point would need to be 3 meters above the ground and strong enough for winds as the top edge of the dish would be 6 meters above the ground. Use an equatorial axis that is adjusted once every few days and you only need 1 axis of solar tracking instead of the P32's 5 different adjustments every 10 minutes or so. Physically aim it in the morning at say 9 am, then adjust a single potentiometer at 3 pm and you're good to go indefinitely as long as the timer remains on time. This assumes equatorial axis that is adjust every week. Receiver &quot;bucket&quot; of water will be 1.5 meters from dish's center support point.[[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:16, 31 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> ==Parabolic trough needs to be parallel to ground==<br /> I've seen several DIY parabolic trough designs that are not parallel to the ground. This defeats 2 main reasons for the trough: 1) you don't waste land or get shadows side-to-side and 2) altitude adjustment is much smaller that azimuth adjustment (60 degrees over the course of a day instead of 160). This lessens accuracy requirements. There is waste on the ends from this benefit, so longer troughs are better. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 17:28, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sun-tracking&diff=35272 2011-07-31T15:28:06Z

<p>Zawy: /* Parabolic trough needs to be parallel to ground*/</p> <hr /> <div>I would also recommend including content about passive solar tracking, as this eliminates both electronics and motors from the equation, and makes solar tracking possible with relatively basic materials. See the zomeworks tracker for details on this method: http://zomeworks.com/products/pv-trackers. Electronic solar trackers can often provide a 100% increase in photovoltaic efficiency, and passive trackers provide between 45% and 85%, depending on a number of environmental factors, foremost being wind. <br /> <br /> However, since they have very few moving parts, and rely on gravity + evaporation to track the sun, they require almost no upkeep. Compared to electronic/motorized trackers, these guys are the epitome of lifetime engineering.<br /> <br /> == Combo Tracker? ==<br /> <br /> Could you do both, calculate where the sun should approximately be and then use feedback to accurately place it? [[User:Catprog|Catprog]] 15:16, 28 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> == Parabolic dish is best for steam because it allows for simple tracking solution ==<br /> Instead of the Solar Fire's P32 method, I would use a parabolic dish which will be more powerful in early morning and late afternoon, capturing a lot more area. The support point would need to be 3 meters above the ground and strong enough for winds as the top edge of the dish would be 6 meters above the ground. Use an equatorial axis that is adjusted once every few days and you only need 1 axis of solar tracking instead of the P32's 5 different adjustments every 10 minutes or so. Physically aim it in the morning at say 9 am, then adjust a single potentiometer at 3 pm and you're good to go indefinitely as long as the timer remains on time. This assumes equatorial axis that is adjust every week. Receiver &quot;bucket&quot; of water will be 1.5 meters from dish's center support point.[[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:16, 31 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> ==Parabolic trough needs to be parallel to ground==<br /> I've seen several DIY parabolic trough designs that are not parallel to the ground. This defeats 2 main reasons for the trough: 1) you don't waste land or get shadows side-to-side and 2) altitude adjustment is much smaller that azimuth adjustment (60 degrees over the course of a day instead of 160). There is waste on the ends from this benefit, so longer troughs are better. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 17:28, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Open_Heliostat_Array_Project&diff=35269 2011-07-31T14:41:09Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>== No, no, no, no ==<br /> You're going to have a mess of motors or cabling for all that complex 2 axis tracking for each mirror. Use parabolic troughs parallel to ground like most systems. The trade off for a lot less tracking (only 1 axis for an entire row) is that you need glass insulation on the pipes. Troughs will also use less land (no spacing due to sideways shadows between mirrors). You need aluminum reflectors to get the parabolic shape, or maybe you can figure out how to use aluminized mylar (very cheap, very light, and more reflective than mirrors due to no 8% glass reflection loss). The problem is how to get them in the right shape without distortion. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:31, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Open_Heliostat_Array_Project&diff=35268 2011-07-31T14:38:24Z

<p>Zawy: /* No, no, no, no */</p> <hr /> <div></div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Solar_Concentrator_Links&diff=35267 2011-07-31T14:38:08Z

<p>Zawy: deleted broken link http://www.rise.org.au/info/Tech/hightemp/index.html</p> <hr /> <div>Saracon Parabolic Trough: low-temp steam for cooking for 15 to 30 people. Long parabolic trough designs parallel to ground have the advantage of not needing as frequent or as precise tracking adjustment compared to parabolic dishes (for cooking, once per hour instead of every 10 minutes).<br /> <br /> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJYeQHAvgTM&amp;feature=related<br /> <br /> Concentrated Solar Power Open Source Initiative (CSPOSI):<br /> <br /> *http://www.csposi.org/<br /> <br /> The following two links are not directly about solar concentration for steam generation, but since there is not a generalized solar page yet, here they are:<br /> <br /> The solar cooking wikia:<br /> <br /> *http://solarcooking.wikia.com/<br /> <br /> DIY solar Site:<br /> <br /> *http://www.builditsolar.com/index.htm<br /> <br /> [[Category:Solar Turbine]]</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Open_Heliostat_Array_Project&diff=35266 2011-07-31T14:31:02Z

<p>Zawy: no, not heliostats</p> <hr /> <div>== No, no, no, no ==<br /> You're going to have a mess of motors or cabling for all that complex 2 axis tracking for each mirror. Use parabolic troughs parallel to ground like most systems. The trade off for a lot less tracking (only 1 axis for an entire row) is that you need glass insulation on the pipes. Troughs will also use less land (no spacing due to sideways shadows between mirrors). You need aluminum reflectors to get the parabolic shape, or maybe you can figure out how to use aluminized mylar (very cheap, very light, and more reflective than mirrors due to no 8% glass reflection loss). The problem is how to get them in the right shape without distortion. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:31, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sun-tracking&diff=35265 2011-07-31T14:18:04Z

<p>Zawy: /* Parabolic dish is best for steam because it allows for simple tracking solution */</p> <hr /> <div>I would also recommend including content about passive solar tracking, as this eliminates both electronics and motors from the equation, and makes solar tracking possible with relatively basic materials. See the zomeworks tracker for details on this method: http://zomeworks.com/products/pv-trackers. Electronic solar trackers can often provide a 100% increase in photovoltaic efficiency, and passive trackers provide between 45% and 85%, depending on a number of environmental factors, foremost being wind. <br /> <br /> However, since they have very few moving parts, and rely on gravity + evaporation to track the sun, they require almost no upkeep. Compared to electronic/motorized trackers, these guys are the epitome of lifetime engineering.<br /> <br /> == Combo Tracker? ==<br /> <br /> Could you do both, calculate where the sun should approximately be and then use feedback to accurately place it? [[User:Catprog|Catprog]] 15:16, 28 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> == Parabolic dish is best for steam because it allows for simple tracking solution ==<br /> Instead of the Solar Fire's P32 method, I would use a parabolic dish which will be more powerful in early morning and late afternoon, capturing a lot more area. The support point would need to be 3 meters above the ground and strong enough for winds as the top edge of the dish would be 6 meters above the ground. Use an equatorial axis that is adjusted once every few days and you only need 1 axis of solar tracking instead of the P32's 5 different adjustments every 10 minutes or so. Physically aim it in the morning at say 9 am, then adjust a single potentiometer at 3 pm and you're good to go indefinitely as long as the timer remains on time. This assumes equatorial axis that is adjust every week. Receiver &quot;bucket&quot; of water will be 1.5 meters from dish's center support point. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:16, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sun-tracking&diff=35264 2011-07-31T14:17:40Z

<p>Zawy: /* Parabolic dish is best for steam because it allows for simple tracking solution */</p> <hr /> <div>I would also recommend including content about passive solar tracking, as this eliminates both electronics and motors from the equation, and makes solar tracking possible with relatively basic materials. See the zomeworks tracker for details on this method: http://zomeworks.com/products/pv-trackers. Electronic solar trackers can often provide a 100% increase in photovoltaic efficiency, and passive trackers provide between 45% and 85%, depending on a number of environmental factors, foremost being wind. <br /> <br /> However, since they have very few moving parts, and rely on gravity + evaporation to track the sun, they require almost no upkeep. Compared to electronic/motorized trackers, these guys are the epitome of lifetime engineering.<br /> <br /> == Combo Tracker? ==<br /> <br /> Could you do both, calculate where the sun should approximately be and then use feedback to accurately place it? [[User:Catprog|Catprog]] 15:16, 28 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> == Parabolic dish is best for steam because it allows for simple tracking solution ==<br /> Instead of the Solar Fire's P32 method, I would use a parabolic dish which will be more powerful in early morning and late afternoon, capturing a lot more area. The support point would need to be 3 meters above the ground and strong enough for winds as the top edge of the dish would be 6 meters above the ground. Use an equatorial axis that is adjusted once every few days and you only need 1 axis of solar tracking instead of the P32's 5 different adjustments every 10 minutes or so. Physically aim it in the morning at say 9 am, then adjust a single potentiometer at 3 pm and you're good to go indefinitely as long as the timer remains on time. This assumes equatorial axis that is adjust every week. Receiver bucket of water will be 1.5 meters from dish's center support point. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:16, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sun-tracking&diff=35263 2011-07-31T14:16:21Z

<p>Zawy: /* Combo Tracker? */</p> <hr /> <div>I would also recommend including content about passive solar tracking, as this eliminates both electronics and motors from the equation, and makes solar tracking possible with relatively basic materials. See the zomeworks tracker for details on this method: http://zomeworks.com/products/pv-trackers. Electronic solar trackers can often provide a 100% increase in photovoltaic efficiency, and passive trackers provide between 45% and 85%, depending on a number of environmental factors, foremost being wind. <br /> <br /> However, since they have very few moving parts, and rely on gravity + evaporation to track the sun, they require almost no upkeep. Compared to electronic/motorized trackers, these guys are the epitome of lifetime engineering.<br /> <br /> == Combo Tracker? ==<br /> <br /> Could you do both, calculate where the sun should approximately be and then use feedback to accurately place it? [[User:Catprog|Catprog]] 15:16, 28 July 2011 (CEST)<br /> <br /> == Parabolic dish is best for steam because it allows for simple tracking solution ==<br /> Instead of the Solar Fire's P32 method, I would use a parabolic dish which will be more powerful in early morning and late afternoon, capturing a lot more area. The support point would need to be 3 meters above the ground and strong enough for winds as the top edge of the dish would be 6 meters above the ground. Use an equatorial axis that is adjusted once every few days and you only need 1 axis of solar tracking instead of the P32's 5 different adjustments every 10 minutes or so. Physically aim it in the morning at say 9 am, then adjust a single potentiometer at 3 pm and you're good to go indefinitely as long as the timer remains on time. This assumes equatorial axis that is adjust every week. [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 16:16, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=User:Zawy&diff=35231 2011-07-31T01:39:47Z

<p>Zawy: Created page with &quot;Electrical engineer. Interested in all things solar. I&#039;ve played with parabolic trough designs, forced air hot boxes, and reflecting light into windows (80% efficient). Would ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Electrical engineer. Interested in all things solar. I've played with parabolic trough designs, forced air hot boxes, and reflecting light into windows (80% efficient). Would like to find a way to use aluminized mylar instead of mirrors for concentrated solar. I like the 3d model of the proposed house...great solar heating design (with the attached greenhouse, long south-facing house, and large windows).</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_cubicle&diff=35229 2011-07-31T01:32:33Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>Where does oxygen for stove combustion come from?<br /> Do you have drawings with installation details?<br /> <br /> == CEB? ==<br /> Why not use the brick maker? [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 03:30, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_cubicle&diff=35227 2011-07-31T01:30:44Z

<p>Zawy: </p> <hr /> <div>Where does oxygen for stove combustion come from?<br /> Do you have drawings with installation details?<br /> <br /> ===<br /> Why not use the CEB? [[User:Zawy|Zawy]] 03:30, 31 July 2011 (CEST)</div>

Zawy