• 2 Posts
  • 1.75K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • The hotter it gets, the thicker the oxide layer form

    This is accurate enough for tempering of most cutting tools, but technically, the oxide layer will continue to grow if you hold a lower temperature for a longer than normal time, and might not fully develop if you reach a higher temperature for a shorter than normal period of time.

    This property useful if you are trying to develop a specific color rather than achieve a specific metallurgy. You can heat to a lower temperature for a longer time to develop a deeper, more consistent color.

    In my experience, it’s easier to develop colors with an oven or propane torch rather than a forge or acetylene.





  • I won’t say that this blade is properly heat treated; it probably isn’t. In welding, the problem is the wide variation of heat affects in a very small zone. You can have material that is very brittle just millimeters away from material that is very soft and ductile.

    You’re describing “normalization”, which is a process that makes steel uniformly tough, but “plastic”. When you flex it, it bends, and stays bent. “Annealing” is a similar process, where the temperature is raised a bit higher, and the cooling slowed even more. “Annealing” leaves the steel very soft.

    In tool making, you’re first looking for high hardness (acquired with a “quenching” process). This makes it very brittle; it has no elasticity.

    Next, you’re dialing back that hardness with a “tempering” process, which is done at a lower temperature than the normalization process, and the cooling can be much faster. When tempered, it’s still very hard, (significantly harder than “normalized”) but now it is slightly elastic. It will flex, but beyond a critical point, it just snaps; it probably won’t take on a permanent bend.

    These colors are oxide layers that form at temperatures in the “tempering” range.






  • The 15% or 20% guidelines are based on the amount of work performed by the tipped employees (who earn less than minimum wage before tips.) the amount of the check correaponds pretty closely to how much time a waiter has to spend serving a table.

    Drivers are not usually employees; they usually have $0/hr in wages, and pay their own fuel and vehicle expenses. Delivery services typically pay $2 per trip, and a trip will involve 2-4 stops. The base pay from the delivery service does not even cover fuel costs, let alone the driver’s time.

    The amount of work a delivery driver performs is not at all related to the amount of the check. The 15%/20% rules are not remotely close to the amount of work the driver performs. $8 on a $20 order is a garbage tip if it’s a 10-mile delivery to a fourth-floor walkup. $4 on a $70 order might be a decent tip if it’s a 1-mile delivery to a front porch.

    The appropriate tip for delivery is based on mileage, not food price. $1 for pickup, $1 for dropoff, and $1 per mile is a pretty basic tip. A driver can complete about 3, $2 runs per hour. $3 tips gives him a gross income of about $15/hr, and he can net about $10-12 of that after expenses.









  • Hey buddy, no one serious thinks the way you do

    The only people serious about widespread implementation of solar are, indeed, thinking the way I am. The general concept is commonly referred to as “demand shaping” in the industry. Anyone still focused on supply shaping in 2024 is supporting coal, gas, and nuclear infrastructure. The supply shaping model attempts to resolve the differences in the supply and demand curves through grid level storage: attempting to broadly time-shift generation.

    “Demand shaping” understands that storing power is inherently inefficient, and attempts to solve the differences by moving the time of consumption to the time of production.

    the industry is using more fossil fuel to meet the increased demand

    The industry already has the solar capacity to meet the kind of demand I am talking about. They already have excess solar production that they can’t effectively utilize, and we know that they can’t effectively utilize it because it is regularly driving generation rates negative.

    We are already producing (or capable of producing) the solar energy in question; we are wasting it due to a lack of demand. We are shutting down solar panels in the middle of the day due to a lack of demand. Solar rollout is stalling due to lack of demand for the specific power that solar is capable of producing.

    When we create a demand specifically for solar energy, we increase the profitability of our existing solar infrastructure. We make it feasible and profitable to expand that infrastructure, which makes it pick up a bigger share of our normal load as well.



  • You do realize we are already using demand shaping, but for the traditional baseload/peaker model, right?

    Power companies offer steep discounts to industries like aluminum smelters and iron foundries to move their production to a night shift. Doing this increases the base load, which allows a larger percentage of the total power demand to be met by baseload generators instead of peaker plants.

    The problem with this should be obvious: demand shaping on the baseload/peaker model drives demand to hours of the day that solar and wind cannot possibly meet.

    Current peaks are higher than they need to be because people are wasting energy

    Current peaks are not nearly as high as they should be. As much night-time demand as possible should be moved to daytime, where it can be met with solar. We need peak demand to correspond to peak generation. We can’t move peak solar production; the trick is to shift our demand curve to match the solar production curve. Both peaks need to occur simultaneously.

    you want is to increase demand as if that had no environmental impact. I’m done here.

    You’re still not comprehending. I’m meeting a far higher percentage of our current energy consumption with solar instead of dirtier and less efficient coal/oil/nuclear baseload generation, pumped storage, battery storage, etc. The “extra” demand I am asking for is 100% met by the excess capacity of our solar generation that arises under optimal conditions. That excess capacity is baked in. When we have enough solar capacity to meet normal demand with overcast skies, optimal conditions will give us massive surpluses.

    Because it is met entirely with excess capacity that would otherwise be wasted, the “extra” demand I am calling for has zero additional environmental impact. It monetizes excess capacity that we wouldn’t normally be able to utilize.

    Give me the benefit of a doubt for a moment, and actually consider what I am saying. Yes, it sounds paradoxical at first glance, but it will make a lot more sense when you realize I’m talking about how to move the overwhelming majority of our electrical production to solar/wind and virtually eliminating peaker plants.