Gordon Moore on explosives, and semiconductors

[Max Hauser]

Fascinating talk tonight by Gordon Moore of Intel, at the Computer History
Museum in Mountain View, Carver Mead acting as interviewer. (For those who
don't know them, Moore was a co-founder of Fairchild Semiconductor and later
Intel, and a seminal figure in that industry; Carver Mead a professor in
related specialties, in contact with Moore since 1959.) Audience included
Intel alumni and journalists. Occasion was 40th anniversary of "Moore's
law" which predicted in 1965 the doubling of semiconductor density
periodically, "for at least the next 10 years" (it continues today).

Moore spent some of his time on explosives, and their popularity as a
motivator for technical careers, a popularity that proves to be surprisingly
wide. That will presumably be the main interest in this note, but first a
little more about semiconductors. (First the broccoli, then dessert!)

Moore's original 1965 article in _Electronics_ (I picked up a copy)
projected integrated circuits (ICs) becoming commonplace in products like
car control systems, home computers, portable telephones. "The electronic
wristwatch needs only a display to be feasible today." He included
projections such as the curve that became Moore's Law (Carver Mead, I
understand, coined that name later), based at the time only on 1959-1965
density data. He explained to us that the whole motivation of the article
was to "sell" the idea of ICs to the electronics industry which regarded
them, at the time, as expensive and exotic, of interest only for high-priced
apps in military or aerospace. Moore provided data suggesting otherwise,
that ICs would become mainstream technology, which is obvious now,
after-the-fact. Later he mentioned some of the magnitudes of integrated
component manufacture now; 10 to the 18th power of transistors produced
annually, comparable to the number of letters in printed documents -- and a
transistor on an IC is now cheaper, on average, than a readable text
character printed on paper.

Moore was a chemist by training, and explained that he got into chemistry
originally as a child because a neighbor got a chemistry set -- "they had
good stuff in them in those days!" -- and quickly became skilled at blowing
things up. He made nitroglycerin, which he would detonate by putting a
drop on a piece of filter paper and striking it with a hammer on an iron
anvil. This made a very sharp crack, and would leave his ears ringing for
an hour or two. Moore explained that this damaged his hearing, and led to
his later relying on a hearing aid. This was around Redwood City,
California, where his father was a deputy sheriff. At one point, officials
found a collection of tools somewhere that looked like they were for
cracking open safes, and a little bottle of yellowish liquid, which had them
concerned. As Moore told it, his father called him in on the case (he was
still an adolescent) and he tested a drop of the liquid with his
filter-paper technique, and it blew. The deputies were then worried about
how to dispose of the nitro, but Moore stepped forward eagerly -- "I'll take
care of that." (He held up both hands to us, in the proud sign of the
successful explosives hobbyist: All digits present.) They also made
rockets, he said, but good rockets were difficult -- "it was much easier to
blow things up."

Later at Cal Tech when he was a grad student in chemistry, someone did a
survey and found that 80% of the Chem grad students got into it via
fireworks and explosives. Amazing!

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

<snip>

Moore spent some of his time on explosives, and their popularity as a
motivator for technical careers, a popularity that proves to be surprisingly
wide. That will presumably be the main interest in this note, but first a
little more about semiconductors. (First the broccoli, then dessert!)

<snip>

Moore was a chemist by training, and explained that he got into chemistry
originally as a child because a neighbor got a chemistry set -- "they had
good stuff in them in those days!" -- and quickly became skilled at blowing
things up. He made nitroglycerin, which he would detonate by putting a
drop on a piece of filter paper and striking it with a hammer on an iron
anvil. This made a very sharp crack, and would leave his ears ringing for
an hour or two. Moore explained that this damaged his hearing, and led to
his later relying on a hearing aid. This was around Redwood City,
California, where his father was a deputy sheriff. At one point, officials
found a collection of tools somewhere that looked like they were for
cracking open safes, and a little bottle of yellowish liquid, which had them
concerned. As Moore told it, his father called him in on the case (he was
still an adolescent) and he tested a drop of the liquid with his
filter-paper technique, and it blew. The deputies were then worried about
how to dispose of the nitro, but Moore stepped forward eagerly -- "I'll take
care of that." (He held up both hands to us, in the proud sign of the
successful explosives hobbyist: All digits present.) They also made
rockets, he said, but good rockets were difficult -- "it was much easier to
blow things up."

Later at Cal Tech when he was a grad student in chemistry, someone did a
survey and found that 80% of the Chem grad students got into it via
fireworks and explosives. Amazing!

Sounds like my own childhood. I made nitroglycerin, mercury
fulminate, nitrogen triiodide, and a bevy of rocket fuels.

Fulminate was one of my favorite explosives. I used to place mercury
fulminate on a spoon and cup my hand over it and detonate it, leaving
a hole in the spoon and no injury to my hand. Let's see:

* mercury, tech grade, dissolve in:
* nitric acid, 70% (or RFNA), until fully dissolved, then add:
* ethyl alcohol, allow the exothermic reaction to boil;
* leaving crystals settling out at the bottom;
* dissolve, filter, and recrystalize using glacial acetic acid.

When using sugar and potassium nitrate to make rocket fuel, I noticed
that the flash point was only about 100 C above the melting point, so
I created a boiling sulfuric acid back in which to immerse a Florence
flask for melting the stuff. All this behind many tens of sand bags
to protect me during manufacture.

I designed and built rocket nozzles, based on information from Captain
Bertrand Brinley's Rocket Manual for Amateurs. These were made out of
steel on a small metal lathe. The tubes were SAE 1020 steel, 1/4"
thick, about 1.5" diameter. Flame temps are in the 2600 F range, as I
recall, for zinc/sulfur fuels. Design tube pressures were in the
1000-1400 psi area, if memory serves.

I experimented with Ammonium and Potassium Perchlorates, Potassium
Chlorate, Zinc, Sulfer, Ethylene Oxide, Picric Acid, white and yellow
phosphorus, and pretty much anything interesting I could lay my hands
on. And at the time, I could get Boulevard Labs in Chicago to ship me
pretty much anything, including RFNA, WFNA, 70% H2O2, and Picric Acid
(on trains, only, though.)

Never lost a body part, always launched rockets safely behind sand bag
barricades and in large areas, but I did suffer a bad burn or two.
Still have many pounds of some of the chemicals in my garage that I
sometimes use to make fireworks and so on.

Wonderful experience, almost entirely done solo and without adult
supervision or help, and it is what really got me reading and studying
science in earnest.

Jon

 

[Max Hauser]

"Jonathan Kirwan" in news:[email protected]...

...
I experimented with Ammonium and Potassium Perchlorates, Potassium
Chlorate, Zinc, Sulfer, Ethylene Oxide, Picric Acid, white and yellow
phosphorus, and pretty much anything interesting I could lay my hands on.
And at the time, I could get Boulevard Labs in Chicago to ship me pretty
much anything, including RFNA, WFNA, 70% H2O2, and Picric Acid ...

Never lost a body part ...

With that set of chemicals it sounds like you were lucky, as well as
careful. (Picric acid! Jeez.)

RFNA and WFNA figured incessantly in the liquid binary fuel-oxidant systems
of US (and, I'd assume, other) rockets around the 1950s-60s, in the quest
for high specific impulse. (The highest-performance of the high-thrust fuel
systems tended to rely on liquid pairs that were either cryogenic or very
reactive or both, according anyway to technical sources like Holzmann.)

Below, something I posted here in 1989. Original also acknowledged Norm
Strong, well established by then as Pyro Rex on the electronics newsgroups.

Cheers -- Max


--
"As a ... dramatic illustration of the effect of larger specific-impulse
variations, consider four identical, single-stage rockets each having a mass
ratio of ten (initial to final weight) loaded with hypothetical propellants
having specific impulses of 200, 300, 400 and 500 lb-sec/lb, respectively.
The first can attain a maximum horizontal range of about 1300 nautical miles
(theoretical, drag-free), the second about 4100 miles, the third can become
an earth satellite, and the fourth can escape from the earth entirely."

-- Holzmann, _Chemical Rockets and Flame and Explosives Technology_, Marcel
Dekker 1969.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

"Jonathan Kirwan" in
With that set of chemicals it sounds like you were lucky, as well as
careful. (Picric acid! Jeez.)

Picric acid was definitely one of my very favorite materials to use.
For fire-cracker applications, rather than the excellent rocket fuel
it also made, I'd grind it up with Potassium Chlorate (it seemed to
work a little better than the perchlorate form) using great deal of
care, of course, and then pack the mixture into spent, large caliber
rifle shells. I used damp cotton to carefully tamp down any lagging
crystals of material before crimping the shell with the fuse inserted.
Then I'd use a powerful sling-shot, hold the shell in it, as someone
else lit the fuse and I'd then launch it over a high hill. The
extreme _report_ that echoed back was fun.

Never had a single accident of any kind with Picric acid despite
extensive use. I was very, very careful and very observant of every
small detail I could think of. And _scared spitless_ at every moment,
to be honest. But that made me go read many books on the subject of
explosives and safety precautions before doing anything, too. I would
spend hours and hours in the research library examining every facet I
could find information about.

RFNA and WFNA figured incessantly in the liquid binary fuel-oxidant systems
of US (and, I'd assume, other) rockets around the 1950s-60s, in the quest
for high specific impulse. (The highest-performance of the high-thrust fuel
systems tended to rely on liquid pairs that were either cryogenic or very
reactive or both, according anyway to technical sources like Holzmann.)

Well, it's kind of hard to use hydrogen or oxygen in gas form in a
practical rocket and, of course, they need to be _reactive_!

I had considered the idea of trying liquid fuels, but never had the
money to even give it a small chance. Perhaps it was for the better,
though. I can just imagine what this additional complexity would have
posed, in terms of risk, for me back then as a teenager. On the other
hand, who knows? But I really didn't care about or need the ability
to turn the motor on and off, under control. So that advantage for
liquid fuels wasn't really of much value to me, anyway. And I didn't
need to strive for the absolute pinnacle of ISP, either.

In hindsight, I can see that price, safety, purpose, availability,
complexity, time, and other factors either clearly indicated solid
fuels or else didn't suggest liquid. But I'm sure that if I'd had a
chance to try it, I probably would have.

Below, something I posted here in 1989. Original also acknowledged Norm
Strong, well established by then as Pyro Rex on the electronics newsgroups.

Thanks. I'd already worked out similar details for myself. There are
a few very wonderful books on rocketry put out decades ago. One I
recall is called "Mathematics of Space Exploration" by Myrl Ahrendt.
Sadly, these attempts to bring serious rocketry down to popular
consumable reading seem to be missing, now. Or, perhaps, I've just
missed finding them.

Jon

 

[Max Hauser]

"Jonathan Kirwan" in news:[email protected]...

...
Picric acid was definitely one of my very favorite materials to use. For
fire-cracker applications, rather than the excellent rocket fuel it also
made, I'd grind it up with Potassium Chlorate (it seemed to work a little
better than the perchlorate form) using great deal of care, of course, and
then pack the mixture into spent, large caliber rifle shells. I used damp
cotton to carefully tamp down any lagging crystals of material before
crimping the shell with the fuse inserted. Then I'd use a powerful
sling-shot, hold the shell in it, as someone else lit the fuse and I'd
then launch it over a high hill. The extreme _report_ that echoed back
was fun.

I believe that you were dealing with a compound high explosive (the Picric
acid or trinitrophenol was so in its own right, and shock-sensitive, but the
Chlorate could also participate in the detonation -- Chlorate combined with
reducing agents makes a famous binary HE, resembling a binary blasting
agent, without needing any other HE).

What was so notorious about Picric Acid in historical writing was its use in
munitions circa World War I. It formed "touchy" complexes over time when in
contact with heavy metals (as in artillery shells) and the assembly could
become, unpredictably, touch-sensitive; or even detonate spontaneously.
Just like impure nitroglycerin. Ascanio Sobrero himself was badly maimed
for instance; of course some of the Nobel family were killed (and they were
experts: there are harrowing accounts of random people experimenting with
the stuff in the 1800s -- in hotel rooms and so on).
....

Well, it's kind of hard to use hydrogen or oxygen in gas form in a
practical rocket and, of course, they need to be _reactive_!

Yes. I meant aggressively reactive, corrosive, etc. Ingredients like
Fluorine, FLOX, and the binary system of "nitric anhydride" and mixed
Hydrazines (as in the Titan-III engine system; famous accidental explosion
in 1979 when a dropped tool punctured a fuel tank). Such components are
reactive enough to kill you on exposure, from other properties. (Maybe I
should have written very, very reactive.)

....

There are a few very wonderful books on rocketry put out decades ago.

Yes, exactly. (In its heyday, _Scientific American's_ "Amateur Scientist"
section published details of custom stratospheric amateur rockets -- among
many topics, high-powered X-ray sources to transmute atoms; lasers of all
kinds; etc. This faded away in a gradual cultural de-fanging, which may or
may not have done more good than harm.)

Sadly, these attempts to bring serious rocketry down to popular consumable
reading seem to be missing, now. Or, perhaps, I've just missed finding
them.

Take heart. In the 1990s I noticed a hobby magazine (prominent in silicon
valley, for some reason) called High-Powered Model Rocketry, or maybe it was
.... Amateur Rocketry. I don't know its current status, but recent Google
on first phrase gets many hits. Contents were real stuff, all kinds of
commercial _serious_ rocket engines, including a liquid-solid hybrid with a
hollow cylinder of carbon fuel and a solenoid-valved compressed liquid
oxidant gas module -- shown in production quantities. Looks like this art
is very much alive in the US.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

"Jonathan Kirwan" in
I believe that you were dealing with a compound high explosive (the Picric
acid or trinitrophenol was so in its own right, and shock-sensitive, but the
Chlorate could also participate in the detonation -- Chlorate combined with
reducing agents makes a famous binary HE, resembling a binary blasting
agent, without needing any other HE).
Yes.

What was so notorious about Picric Acid in historical writing was its use in
munitions circa World War I. It formed "touchy" complexes over time when in
contact with heavy metals (as in artillery shells) and the assembly could
become, unpredictably, touch-sensitive; or even detonate spontaneously.
Just like impure nitroglycerin. Ascanio Sobrero himself was badly maimed
for instance; of course some of the Nobel family were killed (and they were
experts: there are harrowing accounts of random people experimenting with
the stuff in the 1800s -- in hotel rooms and so on).

I didn't know any of this until you wrote it here. No idea. But it
sounds like I should have been even more scared than I was!

...

Yes. I meant aggressively reactive, corrosive, etc. Ingredients like
Fluorine, FLOX, and the binary system of "nitric anhydride" and mixed
Hydrazines (as in the Titan-III engine system; famous accidental explosion
in 1979 when a dropped tool punctured a fuel tank). Such components are
reactive enough to kill you on exposure, from other properties. (Maybe I
should have written very, very reactive.)

I think I understood, but just took it in another direction.

...

Yes, exactly. (In its heyday, _Scientific American's_ "Amateur Scientist"
section published details of custom stratospheric amateur rockets -- among
many topics, high-powered X-ray sources to transmute atoms; lasers of all
kinds; etc. This faded away in a gradual cultural de-fanging, which may or
may not have done more good than harm.)

For me, I'm very glad I had access. For some of us, as kids, what it
took to drive us to read the mathematics and try to work through the
details of it, to drive us through the science discussions in detail,
to drive us to ferret out and learn how to make things with our
hands... was fire, smoke, sound, and action. Otherwise, perhaps, I'd
have given up long before, without that motivation in play, and done
something else that was easier at the time.

I lament, a little, that we are so very focused on safety to such an
extreme that children are driven away from science in droves. Over
time, one learns a more mature reason for continuing to learn. But as
a child, the motivation to overcome learning obstacles must come first
well before this maturity can begin to develop. And for many, this
motivation comes from interesting and fun _action_. And that usually
has danger associated with it.

Now, what I could have used as a child was more mentoring for safety
and guidance -- but to be honest I would NOT have let anyone stop me
from doing dangerous things and I don't think it _should_ be a
teacher's business to make things so safe that no real learning or the
love of learning can develop.

When safety rises above all other concerns, all that does is stop some
very good people from deciding to develop those skills. What I think
should happen is that adults should help make these experiences as
safe and educational as possible -- not to interpose and just become a
barrier. Because all that does is cause children to go in other
directions.

I'd like to see MORE programs available, more options to choose from,
for children. With knowing adults using their knowledge and
experience to help make fun and interesting motivating events become
safer and more educational ones and more accessible ones.

For example, a child's interest in science or electronics might be
peaked by the idea of radioactivity. Building a Geiger counter is
lots of fun (I did it), but then the child needs access to radioactive
materials, too. In my case, I went out and bought some autunite from
a rock show. And I had a lot of fun with it. (Still have some laying
around here.) But what if adult supervision told the kid that they
could build the Geiger counter but that they weren't allowed to play
around with various materials to "see what happens" unless there was
some adult around to supervise them? It might kill the interest,
because when a child becomes momentarily interested in such things it
is indeed a fleeting moment of interest and it must be capitalized on,
then. If there are "gate keepers" barring the path at every turn or
telling kids they can't be interested in something when _they_ are
ready to be interested, then the whole thing just falls flat. It
would have, for me, anyway.

I don't know the solution. But somehow, children need to have access
to learn on _their_ schedules and with _their_ interests. And adults
should do what they can to help children capitalize on their
curiosities and to do so in safer ways (but not necessarily in ways
that are so safe that there is no risk at all and motivation then
disappears.)

I don't think my own childhood was all that great, though. I really
could have used the advice and support of expert adults and I'm sure I
would have had an even safer and more educational experience in the
process. With __proper__ (but not limiting) support, I might have
been safer (far less risk) and learned much more, too.

The point I'm making isn't that kids should be able to do anything
they want to, but that adults who do little other than say NO without
offering another similar path are just causing kids to stop or look
elsewhere. The idea should be, "yes, and we could do it even better
this way ..." Not, "No, that's not safe. Try again."

Taking the "yes, and ..." mode of supporting an interest doesn't mean
agreeing to do it the way a child wants to, though. It means going
with their motivations and adding to their thoughts and guiding and
channeling. But not throwing cold water on it, without offering
something else just as much fun.

Take heart. In the 1990s I noticed a hobby magazine (prominent in silicon
valley, for some reason) called High-Powered Model Rocketry, or maybe it was
... Amateur Rocketry. I don't know its current status, but recent Google
on first phrase gets many hits. Contents were real stuff, all kinds of
commercial _serious_ rocket engines, including a liquid-solid hybrid with a
hollow cylinder of carbon fuel and a solenoid-valved compressed liquid
oxidant gas module -- shown in production quantities. Looks like this art
is very much alive in the US.

I don't think children have much real access or support for things
like that. Yeah, I'd love it! And I'm sure there are lots of serious
adults involved in this. But they are already past their motivation
hurdles. I'd like to see these kinds of interesting learning
opportunities made available at the levels and abilities of children
in high school and maybe even before that.

Very much enjoyed thinking about these things, again, Max. Thanks for
stimulating them.

Jon

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jonathan Kirwan

I didn't know any of this until you wrote it here. No idea. But it
sounds like I should have been even more scared than I was!

Even messing with potassium chlorate can get you a Darwin Award. As you
said, the perchlorate is more stable, but has more oxygen on board.

Picric acid and KClO3 has more oxygen than it needs for full combustion.
You might have increased power by adding, say, carbon, to get more gas
generation.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jonathan Kirwan


Even messing with potassium chlorate can get you a Darwin Award. As you
said, the perchlorate is more stable, but has more oxygen on board.
Picric acid and KClO3 has more oxygen than it needs for full combustion.
You might have increased power by adding, say, carbon, to get more gas
generation.

I believe I did the simple calculations back then and weighed out
additional charcoal to also use.

Jon

 

[Max Hauser]

I agree that this discussion touches on deeper, long-term questions about
science and learning and motivation. (Like many serious questions, it
raises dilemmas, or trade-offs.) I got separate email on the same topic
from an old friend (who became a career physicist). I think it's well
expressed, so without meaning to steal his thunder, I'll presume to quote.

"While we can all applaud a more sensible control over dangerous substances,
it saddens me that the generations following my own may never experience the
thrill of meaningful experimentation that comes not from homemade fireworks,
per se, but from carrying out and observing reactions now made unavailable
by a liability-fearing society. Making a hydrogen balloon, creating
synthetic rubber, watching oozing carbon monoliths grow from sugar and
sulfuric acid, smelling sweet menthol made from aspirin, identifying barium
from its scarlet flame color, extracting pungent chlorine from table salt,
or growing crystals of silver from solution, were all delights during my
junior high and high school years. Let's face it, there has to be some level
of drama in any learning process for it to be compelling. We are robbing the
Sputnik potential from our kids."


The US movie "October sky" also dealt with some of this, implicitly.
(Speaking of Sputnik.) The teenager doing all those test firings in the
movie would surely be arrested for a domestic terrorist today, never mind
the point of what he was doing. I learned about that movie from another old
friend, who followed a related career path to the movie's protagonist, and
had obstacles when young. (E.g., scheme to set up a then-rare low-power
laser to communicate with high-school friend on adjacent hill; mom didn't
know lasers, opposed the idea. I won't have a laser in the house; you'll
burn holes in the wall; etc.)

I remember as a child (aged 8?) being shown around a high school with my
brother. What did the chem teacher display, to rivet our attention? A soft
bottle that he took out gingerly, and described as nitroglycerin. (We were
bug-eyed.) Not the first or last chemistry teacher to understand the drama
content of unstable chemicals.

Though I skipped nitro, I did experiment later with fireworks (especially
colored smokes and flames -- I think my friend quoted earlier meant pale
green, for barium, by the way) and related things, and now appreciate luck
in parents who not only took a long view, but were equipped to (my mother
having studied chemistry, my father with jack-of-all-trades background that
included destroying UXBs during 2nd world war, not that it directly applied,
of course). But after picking up stories of victims of mindless fireworks
hobby, I got the point of reading well ahead, to understand what I was
doing. My parents supported this, commenting on Literature I unearthed from
ancient and modern sources. "Yes, these look like good recipes. Steer
clear of Chlorates, that's what often nails people, and you don't always
need them anyway. Use that concrete blockhouse in the back yard that your
father built as an architectural project. If a fire should start, it'll be
safely contained." (Of course, I didn't follow every advice, but I'm
grateful for its quality. We all owe our parents plenty.)

-- Max

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

I agree that this discussion touches on deeper, long-term questions about
science and learning and motivation. (Like many serious questions, it
raises dilemmas, or trade-offs.) I got separate email on the same topic
from an old friend (who became a career physicist). I think it's well
expressed, so without meaning to steal his thunder, I'll presume to quote.

"While we can all applaud a more sensible control over dangerous substances,
it saddens me that the generations following my own may never experience the
thrill of meaningful experimentation that comes not from homemade fireworks,
per se, but from carrying out and observing reactions now made unavailable
by a liability-fearing society. Making a hydrogen balloon, creating
synthetic rubber, watching oozing carbon monoliths grow from sugar and
sulfuric acid, smelling sweet menthol made from aspirin, identifying barium
from its scarlet flame color, extracting pungent chlorine from table salt,
or growing crystals of silver from solution, were all delights during my
junior high and high school years. Let's face it, there has to be some level
of drama in any learning process for it to be compelling. We are robbing the
Sputnik potential from our kids."

Thanks, and yes. I have taught at Portland State University for a few
years as an adjunct professor and sporadically taught grade school and
high school science, both during and after school hours, as an unpaid
volunteer while my own children were growing up and going to school.
I'm no high-class expert on any science subject, to be sure, but I am
broadly educated in science and I do try and still read some, despite
other pressures.

The US movie "October sky" also dealt with some of this, implicitly.
(Speaking of Sputnik.) The teenager doing all those test firings in the
movie would surely be arrested for a domestic terrorist today, never mind
the point of what he was doing. I learned about that movie from another old
friend, who followed a related career path to the movie's protagonist, and
had obstacles when young. (E.g., scheme to set up a then-rare low-power
laser to communicate with high-school friend on adjacent hill; mom didn't
know lasers, opposed the idea. I won't have a laser in the house; you'll
burn holes in the wall; etc.)

I remember as a child (aged 8?) being shown around a high school with my
brother. What did the chem teacher display, to rivet our attention? A soft
bottle that he took out gingerly, and described as nitroglycerin. (We were
bug-eyed.) Not the first or last chemistry teacher to understand the drama
content of unstable chemicals.

I had _no_ parenting, at all. Dad died when I was 7. My mom had
little interest in raising kids, had only occasional jobs, and dated
more for the support, I think, than the relationship. We were beyond
poor, so I would work the berry and vegetable fields during the day to
make a little money for our family. We lived in places without walls,
just a roof. No medical care of any kind (it is the US, you know,
where we were _free_ to be starving and poor and dying), as at that
time there was no real access to gov't supports for her. I begged
food from stores, went door to door selling my time or else berries
I'd picked, etc.

So I was pretty much left to my own devices. As such, it was nature
that taught me. And although nature cannot be cajoled or pleaded
with, it is a consistent and predictable teacher. Anyway, no one
really cared one way or another how I spent my time; or pestered me
about having a huge beaker of boiling sulfuric acid on a bench behind
some sand bags I'd cobbled up. When a tornado came through our area
and destroyed a bowling alley, I called up the owner and begged to be
allowed to rummage through the rubble and he said, "Yes." So that's
one example of how I got some of the materials I wanted for my
interests, back then.

Though I skipped nitro, I did experiment later with fireworks (especially
colored smokes and flames -- I think my friend quoted earlier meant pale
green, for barium, by the way) and related things, and now appreciate luck
in parents who not only took a long view, but were equipped to (my mother
having studied chemistry, my father with jack-of-all-trades background that
included destroying UXBs during 2nd world war, not that it directly applied,
of course). But after picking up stories of victims of mindless fireworks
hobby, I got the point of reading well ahead, to understand what I was
doing. My parents supported this, commenting on Literature I unearthed from
ancient and modern sources. "Yes, these look like good recipes. Steer
clear of Chlorates, that's what often nails people, and you don't always
need them anyway. Use that concrete blockhouse in the back yard that your
father built as an architectural project. If a fire should start, it'll be
safely contained." (Of course, I didn't follow every advice, but I'm
grateful for its quality. We all owe our parents plenty.)

I owe my parents very little, even looking back. And I cannot recall
a single teacher who stood out in my life, relying instead on the
excellent libraries we had here to make up for the differences.

I can't say enough about how much having access to free books on
science meant to me, back then. We can debate all day long on the
politics of social supports, but I will NEVER give an inch on the
subject of good libraries. There cannot ever be enough of them and
they cannot ever be adequately stocked.

A child in poor circumstances, as I found myself, may have everything
else fail them -- their parents, teachers, access to health care, or
whatever -- but if they have access to a good library system, then at
least they have a sporting chance to better themselves in life within
their grasp.

Jon

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:04:54 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan

[snip]

I can't say enough about how much having access to free books on
science meant to me, back then. We can debate all day long on the
politics of social supports, but I will NEVER give an inch on the
subject of good libraries. There cannot ever be enough of them and
they cannot ever be adequately stocked.

A child in poor circumstances, as I found myself, may have everything
else fail them -- their parents, teachers, access to health care, or
whatever -- but if they have access to a good library system, then at
least they have a sporting chance to better themselves in life within
their grasp.

Jon

I'm presently serving on the Phoenix Library Bond Subcommittee.

Three new libraries are going into the poorest sections of town, and
all will be accessible by mass transit as well.

...Jim Thompson

 

[[email protected]]

Three new libraries are going into the poorest sections of town, and
all will be accessible by mass transit as well.

Such a terrible waste of money to grind up trees, sprinkle them with
pigment, then ship them around the globe. Much better to spend the
political energy making sure that books can be made available online
and then spend the money on making sure everyone has Internet access.

 

[martin griffith]

On 3 Oct 2005 08:02:40 -0700, in sci.electronics.design

Such a terrible waste of money to grind up trees, sprinkle them with
pigment, then ship them around the globe. Much better to spend the
political energy making sure that books can be made available online
and then spend the money on making sure everyone has Internet access.

I wonder how many megawatts all the internet servers in the world use?
A book doesn't need generated power to be read


martin

 

[[email protected]]

I wonder how many megawatts all the internet servers in the world use?
A book doesn't need generated power to be read

Ah yes, but all the servers are running anyway - and not appreciably
consuming more resources if the online book is being accessed. Whereas
manufacturing and distributing books permanently uses resources.

 

[Pat Ford]

Ah yes, but all the servers are running anyway - and not appreciably
consuming more resources if the online book is being accessed. Whereas
manufacturing and distributing books permanently uses resources.

No you can burn books as fuel to generate electricity.
Pat

 

[Jim Thompson]

Such a terrible waste of money to grind up trees, sprinkle them with
pigment, then ship them around the globe. Much better to spend the
political energy making sure that books can be made available online
and then spend the money on making sure everyone has Internet access.

EACH of these libraries typically will get 40 PC stations.

I'm talking neighborhoods where >25% of the population is below the
poverty level. I have 6 PC's in my house... in these low income
neighborhoods they typically have none.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Ah yes, but all the servers are running anyway - and not appreciably
consuming more resources if the online book is being accessed. Whereas
manufacturing and distributing books permanently uses resources.

I think that trees and soybeans (for the ink) are significantly more
"renewable" than the components of a PC, no?

That being said, for a kid born today having (free) Internet access probably
is about as important as free book access was to a kid some 30 years ago;
happily most libraries and schools recognize this and have plenty of PCs
available.

 

[Robert Baer]

Such a terrible waste of money to grind up trees, sprinkle them with
pigment, then ship them around the globe. Much better to spend the
political energy making sure that books can be made available online
and then spend the money on making sure everyone has Internet access.

BUT!
What about the extra pollution from generating the extra power,
making the extra computers, etc??

 

[Robert Baer]

On 3 Oct 2005 08:02:40 -0700, in sci.electronics.design



I wonder how many megawatts all the internet servers in the world use?
A book doesn't need generated power to be read


martin

EXACTLY!

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

Later at Cal Tech when he was a grad student in chemistry, someone did a
survey and found that 80% of the Chem grad students got into it via
fireworks and explosives. Amazing!

Did a lunchtime survey:

Most of my engineering-background colleagues are competent bomb makers that
got into electronics and software due to the need for telematics, guidance
systems, remote control, initiation mechanisms and timers ;-}. Impressing
girls with disco lighting of room is *the* other favorite, actually
(although that strategy never worked).

Myself *still* got a nostalgic pile of papers on "Exploding Bridge Wires" -
my generation could not just pick up detonators as our fathers did so other
means had to be aquired.

PS <while donning the asbestos casuals>:

The "pure" software guys are generally math-weenies, that never did anything
practical or indeed fun before becoming decadent (i.e. software developers)
;-))