“The era of cheap & abundant energy is long gone. Money supply & debt have grown faster than real economy. Debt saturation is now a real risk, requiring a global scale reset.”"We are now in new era of expensive unconventional energy

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

This discussion is devolving. No offense Wombat, but your contribution is questionable.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Anthony Okrongly

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 2/22/2020 at 5:03 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay, I get it! The Yanks came to the war late, didn’t contribute a damn thing, and rode the British and Russian coattails to glory....end of story (I am a poet and didn’t know it!😂).

That said, there are a few things that you should give the Yanks some credit for (you know, besides dying on foreign soil), such as the Lend-Lease Program, essentially going it alone in the Pacific until Germany was defeated (a major issue with Stalin and Churchill), and the design and fabrication of the P-51 Mustang fighter (the one with the Packard built Merlin engine and Packard developed sodium cooled valves which the British hand built job kept eating...)...giving the allies their only long distance escort fighter during the crucial years of the war...allowing daylight bombing to continue.

Just some thoughts...

Clearly without the might of the US military the war most likely wouldn't have ended well and the world would be a pretty grim place today.

You could argue that the development of penicilin into a useable drug by Florey (Australian) and Chain (German refugee) saved more lives than anything else (est. 200M) and was a major factor in the allies winning the war.

https://www.thoughtco.com/alexander-fleming-discovers-penicillin-1779782

Both won the Nobel prize for medicine in 1945 along with Flemming. Flemming and Florey were both knighted.also.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I was alluding more towards the sacrifice, as opposed to life saving, issues.

The US did NOT win the war singlehandedly, that is a fact. But give credit where credit is die.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

On 2/21/2020 at 9:03 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

 P-51 Mustang fighter ..giving the allies their only long distance escort fighter

Just some thoughts...

Uh, just no.  P47 was the first long range fighter and ended the war as the LONGEST distance fighter as well.  P47's were over Berlin escorting bombers before the P51.  P47 won the war while the P51 won the glory(it looks better, no doubt about it).  P47 also had the lowest loss rate of any fighter in the war even though it had the MOST sorties of any fighter in the war and was tasked with ground pounding in the dirt against all the AA fire and NOT the P51.  P47 was also faster(high altitude and medium altitude, but not low), better rolling (all altitudes), better diving(all altitudes) than the P51.  Had more guns than P51, and carried more ammo per gun.  Carried more bombs than P51 as well(P51 essentially never bombed)

Lets put it this way: If you are the airforce eggs and braid and you had 2 good fighters, but only one of them can take damage, which one would you give to ground pounding and which would you give to more escort duties?  Hrmm?  Yea, the one which cannot take damage goes on escort duty.  There is a reason all navies, both USN, RN, IJN refused to use water cooled inline engines other than when forced in the RN's case and threw them overboard as soon as they got planes with radial engines. 

EDIT: PS: Plenty of other fighters, P38, Spitfire were over Berlin before the P47's who were there before the P51's, but not with guns/ammo, armor, they were specialized recon birds.  Technically you could have put a gun on them instead of a camera.

PPS: P38 had greater range, but was a piss poor fighter til the L version and by that time the war was over and Jets were in the skies.  Corsair obviously had the range as well.  US had 4 long ranged fighter aircraft.  Britain eventually made their Tempest which was also a long ranged fighter equal/superior to P47. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[John Foote + 1,135]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

P51 essentially never bombed

Assuming you are discounting the original version, pre-Merlin motor which didn't see much use except as ground support in North Africa. But it was a great leap from the P-40. 

The air forces learned early that recce birds were better off without guns. Crews didn't think so, but it kept them from fighting, hencing a higher rate of return to base. Typically didn't remove the guns, just didn't give the crew ammo. A classic case of what is best of the individual is counter to overall survivability. In a MK II eyeball era and film, the missions required coming home. Turning and fighting, getting your fangs out, was bad for the role.

I believe Chuck Yeager's last mission in Europe, he like most folks that day, thought the Germans wouldn't come out and went around strafing the ground in a P-51, returning home to learn others in the group had managed to shoot down some Germans. Been a while since I've read his book.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

1 hour ago, John Foote said:

Assuming you are discounting the original version, pre-Merlin motor which didn't see much use except as ground support in North Africa. But it was a great leap from the P-40.

And that version unlike all others had DIVE brakes, weighed 3/4 that of a B/D/H and all of what? 400 were made out of 12,000 of them?  And the tiny number which did go to war were quickly retired as they were horrifically vulnerable to ground fire on actual attack run targets instead of the targets of opportunity that you talked with Yeager about who have no AA fire around them

EDIT: Never read PR birds had guns.  All pictures of PR aircraft I have ever seen have no guns and have read where they purposefully removed all armor, guns, radio, self sealing tanks, etc for extra speed/range so... I think your quote is full of ....

Edited February 25, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 2/25/2020 at 12:00 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

EDIT: Never read PR birds had guns.  All pictures of PR aircraft I have ever seen have no guns and have read where they purposefully removed all armor, guns, radio, self sealing tanks, etc for extra speed/range so... I think your quote is full of ....

I am a bit of a reconnainse nerd, something over 1,000 hrs in RF-4s.

The original purpose of military aviation was reconnaissance, starting in the civil war. In WW1 they started shooting at each other and developed some air to ground, but denying reconnaissance was much important in WWI air warfare for shooting each other down than the damage of a couple of bombs.

The French theorized strategic bombing could win a war (it doesn't) and a lot have bought into that. The German model was more an extension of artillery, and it worked great for the blitzkrieg, but not so well in the overall war. WW2 recce was really in adapted airframes, not purpose built. Bombers of a sort actually carried much of the load. The birts did hot rod some Spitfires, the Mosquito pretty good for it. 

Eisenhower took advantage of the fact we gave USSR a lot of B29s, and then flew B29s over Russia taking pictures gambling they wouldn't be shot down. Really the two best purpose built reconnaissance birds are the U2/TR1 and SR-71. Everything else is a bastard child fighter or bomber, or cargo plan My beast, the RF-4, repurposed a generation 1 Texas Instruments terrain following radar for low level night capabilities, combined with photo flash (please shoot me down and not used in my time) and IR sensors. The Navy RF-5 Vigilante was a heck of a low level machined, designed to drop a nuke but the goofy spit it out the ass delivery system didn't work. The USAF RFs were wired for "devices" for Snow Cat missions, but except for confirming the consent switch was safety wired shut, not an operation factor. Once cool seeker heads came to Aim 9, (Ls and later), mounting them on RFs started to happen. But the classic "alone, unarmed, and unafraid" never really went away. But high risk mission  were two ships for survive ability. Turning to fight statistically worked against the mission.

Drones and satellites have pretty much obsoleted in many applications. The last Japanese RF-4 flights were in the last 30 days or so. 

Prior to Gulf War 1 reconnaissance always had the highest mortality rate of any main military airpower application. No losses in Gulf War 1, although in the build up a couple of deaths practicing. Ultra low level flying is very unforgiving.

[specinho + 470]

On 2/7/2020 at 9:20 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

 coffee beans get right to it. Peasants grow most of them.

The following comment is not about energy or price but the word highlighted. According to the latest update, only minority born with royal blood could claim to be royalty; others are categorized under Peasants or commoners (believed to be originated from mouth of royalty in ancient feudal days). Of course, there are rich peasants and poor peasants. Noble, is a title earned by what one does, not born into it??

On 2/7/2020 at 11:45 AM, Boat said:

On YouTube there was a video of clear glass containing solar. Maybe panels will go obsolete as every building window could generate power. Never underestimate tech.

 

On 2/7/2020 at 3:34 PM, 0R0 said:

That has been around for a while, still expensive as all getout. 

Again, the following comment is not about renewable energy but the design of glass houses.........

Once upon a time, we built ceiling to floor glass in exclusive places with nice view or scenery. Nowadays, one finds this design along the road side of busy traffic that one usually wants to avoid, ceiling to floor glass facing neighbours' houses (no..... let's not go there to discuss what the neighbours might do unnoticing they are being noticed unintentionally) or facing grave yard openly and etc........... That..... and ever witnessing flies knocked unconscious colliding with the unseen glass panel, or bird?? We are copying and pasting the design everywhere but......... seriously........... on second or third thought................??

On 2/15/2020 at 7:03 AM, 0R0 said:

Or perhaps to India, if it ever opens up sufficiently to allow capital in to build infrastructure so there would actually be substantial income there?

Read something the other day. A famous legend in the history (can't remember which one) said:" On population control, if you have many male, no problem. Male don't get pregnant and give birth. If you have many female, even if with one and only male survivor, you would have problem of over population........." ....

Edited March 11, 2020 by specinho

[Daniel Ryslink + 19]

Seems like the infinite economic growth on a finite world with finite resources is really not achievable after all. What an unpleasant surprise. 

[Tomasz + 1,608]

The facts are that more than 80% of Wermaht soldiers and their allies were killed on the Eastern Front. Militarily, the war in Europe was won by the USSR with significant US material support and a relatively small military contribution from the Western Allies.

Practically until June 1944, the only country fighting the Third Reich on land was the USSR, and three clashes were decisive for the outcome of the conflict - suspending Barbaross's operation and counterattacking near Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of the Kursk Arch. Not neglecting the contribution of Western allies, the proportions are as clear as roughly 4: 1 in losses inflicted on Wehrmacht.

[0R0 + 6,251]

48 minutes ago, Tomasz said:

The facts are that more than 80% of Wermaht soldiers and their allies were killed on the Eastern Front. Militarily, the war in Europe was won by the USSR with significant US material support and a relatively small military contribution from the Western Allies.

Practically until June 1944, the only country fighting the Third Reich on land was the USSR, and three clashes were decisive for the outcome of the conflict - suspending Barbaross's operation and counterattacking near Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of the Kursk Arch. Not neglecting the contribution of Western allies, the proportions are as clear as roughly 4: 1 in losses inflicted on Wehrmacht.

Absolutely true. It is precisely why the US created NATO and the global order that funded it. To counter the Russian/Soviet aggressive and effective killing machine. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

5 hours ago, Daniel Ryslink said:

Seems like the infinite economic growth on a finite world with finite resources is really not achievable after all. What an unpleasant surprise. 

We have invented ways to stretch resource consumption to produce every more value per unit. Sometimes very successfully like PHEVs, sometimes not so much, like the plastic clad aluminum coke cans that have the structural integrity of wet paper once you open them.