Here is another article about the collapse of the coal industry:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2016/04/the_u_k_is_quitting_coal_poorer_countries_aren_t.html
By definition AT is an organization and cannot do anything - people can
do things.
Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
On Thu,
I'm not sure how you can say that AT never invented anything.
For decades Bell Labs (Part of AT) was one of the preeminent research
labs in the world.
From Wikipedia:
/At its peak, Bell Laboratories was the premier facility of its type,
developing a wide range of revolutionary technologies,
Chem,
Just for the fun of it; I did my military time servicing those analog
computers as I called them. They were vacuum tubes and mechanical devices.
It is partly the fact because I am old and partly because the Swedish Navy
was less sophisticated then the US ditto.
Best Regards ,
Lennart
Jed,
Very few small companies went belly up because of those examples I gave.
The number of people impact was infinitesimal small.
The other side is that many small companies had the flexibility to shift
and therefore they grow.
AT has never invented anything.
Shockley was given credit I think.
Just keeping Jed honest:
First calculator: 2000 BC Inventor: Sumerians
http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/history-of-the-calculator.php
First Electronic Calculator:
The story of the electronic calculator really begins in the late 1930s as
the world began to prepare for renewed
Lennart Thornros wrote:
> There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
> tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
> of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.
>
So did many small
From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy
Jones,
There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum tube /
transistor
Jones,
There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.
This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility
Chris Zell wrote:
> Sounds to me as if you guys are planning on a huge amount of coke
> production. Lots of sulfur, heavy metals, coal tar and creosote oil left
> over.
>
I do not see how there would be more than you get from burning the coal. I
suppose it will be less
Sounds to me as if you guys are planning on a huge amount of coke production.
Lots of sulfur, heavy metals, coal tar and creosote oil left over.
You might want to site the factory in China or Africa………
Ken,
Amazing that the coal industry itself has been so near-sighted about the how to
proceed. They should have been looking for value-added alternatives in the 50s
at the start of the nuclear age and secured their own Manhattan project for
coal redeployment.
Emblematic of the
That is exactly right, Jones! There are several papers and patents on
feasible ways to use coal as high value products, especially CNTs,
activated carbon, graphene, quantum dots etc. Here are four examples C.
Xiang et al (J. Tour's group at Rice Univ) . Coal as an abundant source of
graphene
I wrote:
> 2. The total mass of coal needed to replace steel this would be much less
> than the mass of coal we now burn. I estimate it would be roughly 1/5th.
> World production of steel is 135 million tons per month or 1.620 billion
> tons per year . . .
>
I realize that is a silly analysis.
Jones Beene wrote:
> Coal could be an ideal replacement for imported steel…that is, when it is
> in the form of graphite fiber or nanotubes. Nanotubes are 10 times
> stronger than steel by weight. A significant % of hot rolled steel comes
> from abroad, and with enough
From: Jed Rothwell
Daniel Rocha wrote:
Save for the workers, is that good or bad?
It is bad for the workers and good for everyone else. In my opinion, the
workers deserve help from the rest of society.
It does not have to be “either-or” (workers vs environment) except under blind
adherence
It happened in China, but the government is training them to allocate to
other industries.
Daniel Rocha wrote:
Save for the workers, is that good or bad?
>
It is bad for the workers and good for everyone else. In my opinion, the
workers deserve help from the rest of society.
- Jed
Save for the workers, is that good or bad?
See:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/news/companies/peabody-coal-bankruptcy/index.html
20 matches
Mail list logo