On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:41:23 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 13 Jul 2003 18:32:51 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

A thread came up a day or three ago, about building some sort of motor
to run a small generator or a belt to supply power to :stuff: in
either remote locations or in the event of a long term power failure.

I think that in most remote locations the major factor would
be lack of fuel. So it would have to take into account
the local fuel supply if any. Most remote areas you find
folks pumping or lifting water by hand or other human power.

That's probably the most important thing an engine can do.

For a non-remote area the most important thing would be
sanitation, water supply (again) and garbage disposal.
A good reason to be out of a populated area where one
could have a) an outhouse, b) a hand-pump well.

Some places water wells are far too deep to be able to operate a hand
pump, while modifying an generator or mechanical pump to run from a
belt drive would not be that hard.

Depends on what sort of pump you envision. A traditional "pitcher
pump" operates on the principle of creating a vacuum in a chamber
controlled by valves.

The water is forced up by atmospheric pressure at STP.

So, roughly, you are talking about a limit on a hand pump at surface
level of perhaps 32 feet or so.

If you want, you can "mechanize" such a hand pump to provide 100, or
1000, or even a million strokes per minute...but you cannot suspend
the laws of physics.

Nor can you expect to be believed if you tell lies about others on
usenet.



If you really wanted to stay connected to civilization
then one of those wind-up battery radios would be a
nice touch. Honestly I don't think an engine would
be of much use unless one were in a large agricultural
setting and most of those tended to be large cast iron
single-jug hit and miss types. Simple, reliable, belt
drive for all the machines.

Jim

Its not a matter of staying connected, but the ability to run tools by
either electrical generation or belt drive thats important.

IMHO, what is even more important is that other people with other
skills trust you enough to form a survival group with you.

Roughly [and theoretically] speaking, prior to Y2K might have wanted
you in my group, or even been willing to follow some group where you
were a leader.

However, given your recent lie about me, am searching for some
cross-cultural term of absolute rejection at any possible level of
co-operation.

I could, of course, say that I "wouldn't **** on you if you were on
fire", or that "if you were washed up on the beach half drowned I
might drag you out into deeper water or throw a bucket of water on
you."

All considered, for the moment will stick with the hope of testifying
against you at the Judgement and helping to condemn you to eternal
Hell, Gunner.

Perhaps you think you can freely lie about others. Perhaps people in
California think that such behaviour is somehow "acceptable".

However, I think it very interesting that many if not most of those on
misc.survivalism who are trying to defend your lie are from
California.

Perhaps you think that once you can try to get away with lying about
others anywhere in the world you can then lie about others in other
states of the USA?

Don't know. Don't even understand why you should want to tell lies
about me.

Can you show where have ever accused any American of "self confessed
criminal activity"?

Challenge you to do so.









However, both of these actually seem rather mild.




Gunner

"What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs


"_Magna est veritas et praevalebit"_
(Truth is mighty and will prevail).

erniegalts
[Australia]
[misc.survivalism]