Ludacious
The adjective Ludacious specifically refers to the attitude of people who are generally against new forms of technolgy or ideas. Especially those people who are forced to conform to "new world thinking" (but in practice, are only happy with the more traditional aspects of business). eg. Fountain Pen and an Abacus.
The historical etymology of Luddite is: -
One of a group of early 19th century English workmen who were campaigning against the automation of the power loom. Under cover of night and generally masked, the workers often destroyed the equipment that had displaced them. Today the word broadly refers to anyone who is opposed to technological change or new working methods.
The name Luddite is presumed to come from the leader of these angry workmen: Ned Ludd. The Leicestershire worker is said to have rushed into a stocking weaver's house and destroyed his equipment.
The adjective Ludacious specifically refers to the attitude of people who are generally against new forms of technolgy or ideas. Especially those people who are forced to conform to "new world thinking" (but in practice, are only happy with the more traditional aspects of business). eg. Fountain Pen and an Abacus.
The historical etymology of Luddite is: -
One of a group of early 19th century English workmen who were campaigning against the automation of the power loom. Under cover of night and generally masked, the workers often destroyed the equipment that had displaced them. Today the word broadly refers to anyone who is opposed to technological change or new working methods.
The name Luddite is presumed to come from the leader of these angry workmen: Ned Ludd. The Leicestershire worker is said to have rushed into a stocking weaver's house and destroyed his equipment.
Minnie Gertrude Matthews (1874?-19??) was named Brampton, Ontario's "Most Elderly Lady", on the occasion of Brampton Centennial anniversary of being a town. She was 99 when the centennial happened.
Born at Derry West, Ontario, she and her husband moved into a Meadowvale farm, moving to Brampton in 1940. In the book Brampton's 100th Anniversary, it was noted that "although she had loved farm life, Mrs. Matthews found Brampton a delightful town in which to live and mature."
In 1972, Matthews moved into Tullamore Nursing Home. She "still cares about her appearance, taking a lively interest in her clothes." It is unknown exactly how long after the centennial she died, this point of interest is being researched at present time.
She was the mother of Mrs. Gerry Kendall.
While Matthews was the "Most Elderly Lady", Brampton's "oldest native son" was Harry Pratley, at age 97; Harry Clarridge was 100, slightly older than Brampton, but was a long-time resident of Chinguacousy whom only retired to Brampton. About two years younger than Matthews was Mrs. R. G. Edwards.
Born at Derry West, Ontario, she and her husband moved into a Meadowvale farm, moving to Brampton in 1940. In the book Brampton's 100th Anniversary, it was noted that "although she had loved farm life, Mrs. Matthews found Brampton a delightful town in which to live and mature."
In 1972, Matthews moved into Tullamore Nursing Home. She "still cares about her appearance, taking a lively interest in her clothes." It is unknown exactly how long after the centennial she died, this point of interest is being researched at present time.
She was the mother of Mrs. Gerry Kendall.
While Matthews was the "Most Elderly Lady", Brampton's "oldest native son" was Harry Pratley, at age 97; Harry Clarridge was 100, slightly older than Brampton, but was a long-time resident of Chinguacousy whom only retired to Brampton. About two years younger than Matthews was Mrs. R. G. Edwards.
The base load theory is a subject which should be considered in the adoption of intermittent renewable electric power generation.
The issue was discussed in a 2004 paper.
Base load theory argument
First, It has been claimed that the variability of wind and solar are overestimated. Wind can provide some peak capacity credit, and solar is actually much more closely correlated with demand than is nuclear.
This includes an extrapolation from the observation that intermittent energy sources such as the wind or direct sunlight are not continually available at a single site, to the observation that line transmission loss increases with distance in an electricity network. Large amounts of electric power storage require substantial plant and equipment with some related capital and running costs. Statistically, however, these power sources are not fickle but highly predictable. For instance, the energy content of moving masses of air is very consistent over a wide geographical area, so numerous and widespread wind farms do not in aggregate experience the same intermittency as individual turbines.
Second, the argument presumes that renewable energy is predominantly intermittent, whereas most of the renewable energy in use today is in the form of fuel which can be burned on demand, and base-load capable renewable electric generators are common, including biomass geothermal and hydroelectric power. Promising emerging technologies include solar thermal power plants which store the sun's daytime heat for overnight electric generation.
Third, it presumes that the distribution of supply between night-time ("base-load") demand and daytime (peak) for electricity is fixed. This stems partly from a lack of awareness of the extent to which consumption has been moved from the day time to night time by "demand" charges for Industrial/Commercial consumers (aka Demand Side Management, or DSM). This causes an overestimation of the importance of base load power (which typically cannot easily or cheaply reduce output in response to falling demand) which produce more power than would otherwise be required.
This lack of awareness of DSM causes an undestimation of the ability of the grid to handle either wind at night, or solar at peak demand periods.
It must be noted that because of the inherent variability in electric demand, any small contribution from intermittent renewable sources to an existing energy grid can be compensated for as though it were a reduction in the curve of demand from established electric generators. Larger contributions require some occasional and predictable compensation for their variability from peaking or load-following type generators; the additional cost of this compensation is known as a "firming" or "integration" cost. Unless the penetration of intermittent generation into the power supply network is very high (such that intermittent supply regularly exceeds gross electricity demand), any additional contribution that can be made from intermittent fuel-free energy sources has potential environmental and economic benefits due to fuel savings.
Greenhouse gas abatement and integration costs of intermittent electric power generation
The incremental integration cost of adding intermittent electric generation to an existing electricity network depends very much on the existing generation mix and on the correlation of the intermittent energy source with the network's load profile. In many situations the supply profile of wind power correlates so well with the load profile of electric demand in the existing economy that intermittent power mostly displaces power from expensive load following power plants, making the integration cost negative. The same is true for solar electric power, which is most abundant at exactly the same time as electric demand for air conditioning is at its greatest.
A principal motivator for advocacy of renewable energy is in order to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, but it should be noted that expensive capital investment in new electric generation equipment is not necessarily the cheapest way to achieve this goal.
Load-following and peaking power plants typically use natural gas or hydroelectricity and therefore produce below-average carbon dioxide emissions, so while the economic benefit of intermittent generation is greatest when supply matches the demand curve, the emission reduction benefit is reduced. For intermittent renewables to have a large greenhouse mitigation effect, they must generate enough power to displace inexpensive coal-fired base load power stations, rather than peaking generators.
Even when electricity from fossil fuel is the principal source of carbon dioxide emissions, it may be cheaper to reduce an economy's net emissions by targeting more potent greenhouse gases and by other ways to reduce fossil fuel consumption including urban planning (in order to reduce the demand for transport fuel), cogeneration, end-use efficiency of electric and fuel-burning equipment, fuel substitution and careful management of forestry and agriculture.
The base load fallacy in Australian politics
The fallacy was presented by members of the Australian government in 2004 when it was noted that the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target was working "too well". This has been understood by commentators such as Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute to mean that the success of renewables jeapordised the government's commitment to lobbyists from industries such as coal, uranium and aluminium., although the decision not to extend the MRET was ostensibly taken on the basis that there were cheaper ways to limit greenhouse gas emissions than by subsidising renewable electricity generation. Subsidies which would have supported immediate renewable energy deployment and the nascent domestic renewable energy industry were diverted to research into clean coal and geosequestration technology. Adoption of such measures has been on an experimental scale only, and Australia's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.
Since that time the same Government has decided to increase the nominal target, but expanding it to cover non-renewable "clean energy" technology such as nuclear and clean coal generation as well as renewables. This long-term endorsement of coal and nuclear power is usually accompanied by a repetition of the base load fallacy, even while promoting intermittent renewables in niche markets (such as photovoltaics for daytime air conditioning peak shaving purposes).
Criticism
On December 10, 2007 Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, wrote the following, "Greenpeace is deliberately misleading the public into thinking that wind and solar energy, both of which are inherently intermittent and unreliable, can replace baseload power that is continuous and reliable. Only three technologies can produce large amounts of baseload power: fossil fuels, hydroelectric plants and nuclear power. Given that we want to reduce fossil fuels and that potential hydroelectric sites are becoming scarce, nuclear power is the main option... Over the past 10 years, Germany and Denmark have poured billions of taxpayers' euros into wind and solar energy in the vain hope that this would allow them to shut down fossil fuel and nuclear plants. They have not succeeded because every solar panel and every wind turbine must be backed up by reliable power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing."
The issue was discussed in a 2004 paper.
Base load theory argument
First, It has been claimed that the variability of wind and solar are overestimated. Wind can provide some peak capacity credit, and solar is actually much more closely correlated with demand than is nuclear.
This includes an extrapolation from the observation that intermittent energy sources such as the wind or direct sunlight are not continually available at a single site, to the observation that line transmission loss increases with distance in an electricity network. Large amounts of electric power storage require substantial plant and equipment with some related capital and running costs. Statistically, however, these power sources are not fickle but highly predictable. For instance, the energy content of moving masses of air is very consistent over a wide geographical area, so numerous and widespread wind farms do not in aggregate experience the same intermittency as individual turbines.
Second, the argument presumes that renewable energy is predominantly intermittent, whereas most of the renewable energy in use today is in the form of fuel which can be burned on demand, and base-load capable renewable electric generators are common, including biomass geothermal and hydroelectric power. Promising emerging technologies include solar thermal power plants which store the sun's daytime heat for overnight electric generation.
Third, it presumes that the distribution of supply between night-time ("base-load") demand and daytime (peak) for electricity is fixed. This stems partly from a lack of awareness of the extent to which consumption has been moved from the day time to night time by "demand" charges for Industrial/Commercial consumers (aka Demand Side Management, or DSM). This causes an overestimation of the importance of base load power (which typically cannot easily or cheaply reduce output in response to falling demand) which produce more power than would otherwise be required.
This lack of awareness of DSM causes an undestimation of the ability of the grid to handle either wind at night, or solar at peak demand periods.
It must be noted that because of the inherent variability in electric demand, any small contribution from intermittent renewable sources to an existing energy grid can be compensated for as though it were a reduction in the curve of demand from established electric generators. Larger contributions require some occasional and predictable compensation for their variability from peaking or load-following type generators; the additional cost of this compensation is known as a "firming" or "integration" cost. Unless the penetration of intermittent generation into the power supply network is very high (such that intermittent supply regularly exceeds gross electricity demand), any additional contribution that can be made from intermittent fuel-free energy sources has potential environmental and economic benefits due to fuel savings.
Greenhouse gas abatement and integration costs of intermittent electric power generation
The incremental integration cost of adding intermittent electric generation to an existing electricity network depends very much on the existing generation mix and on the correlation of the intermittent energy source with the network's load profile. In many situations the supply profile of wind power correlates so well with the load profile of electric demand in the existing economy that intermittent power mostly displaces power from expensive load following power plants, making the integration cost negative. The same is true for solar electric power, which is most abundant at exactly the same time as electric demand for air conditioning is at its greatest.
A principal motivator for advocacy of renewable energy is in order to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, but it should be noted that expensive capital investment in new electric generation equipment is not necessarily the cheapest way to achieve this goal.
Load-following and peaking power plants typically use natural gas or hydroelectricity and therefore produce below-average carbon dioxide emissions, so while the economic benefit of intermittent generation is greatest when supply matches the demand curve, the emission reduction benefit is reduced. For intermittent renewables to have a large greenhouse mitigation effect, they must generate enough power to displace inexpensive coal-fired base load power stations, rather than peaking generators.
Even when electricity from fossil fuel is the principal source of carbon dioxide emissions, it may be cheaper to reduce an economy's net emissions by targeting more potent greenhouse gases and by other ways to reduce fossil fuel consumption including urban planning (in order to reduce the demand for transport fuel), cogeneration, end-use efficiency of electric and fuel-burning equipment, fuel substitution and careful management of forestry and agriculture.
The base load fallacy in Australian politics
The fallacy was presented by members of the Australian government in 2004 when it was noted that the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target was working "too well". This has been understood by commentators such as Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute to mean that the success of renewables jeapordised the government's commitment to lobbyists from industries such as coal, uranium and aluminium., although the decision not to extend the MRET was ostensibly taken on the basis that there were cheaper ways to limit greenhouse gas emissions than by subsidising renewable electricity generation. Subsidies which would have supported immediate renewable energy deployment and the nascent domestic renewable energy industry were diverted to research into clean coal and geosequestration technology. Adoption of such measures has been on an experimental scale only, and Australia's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.
Since that time the same Government has decided to increase the nominal target, but expanding it to cover non-renewable "clean energy" technology such as nuclear and clean coal generation as well as renewables. This long-term endorsement of coal and nuclear power is usually accompanied by a repetition of the base load fallacy, even while promoting intermittent renewables in niche markets (such as photovoltaics for daytime air conditioning peak shaving purposes).
Criticism
On December 10, 2007 Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, wrote the following, "Greenpeace is deliberately misleading the public into thinking that wind and solar energy, both of which are inherently intermittent and unreliable, can replace baseload power that is continuous and reliable. Only three technologies can produce large amounts of baseload power: fossil fuels, hydroelectric plants and nuclear power. Given that we want to reduce fossil fuels and that potential hydroelectric sites are becoming scarce, nuclear power is the main option... Over the past 10 years, Germany and Denmark have poured billions of taxpayers' euros into wind and solar energy in the vain hope that this would allow them to shut down fossil fuel and nuclear plants. They have not succeeded because every solar panel and every wind turbine must be backed up by reliable power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing."
Wes Hayward is an engineer, author and a renowned Radio Amateur residing in the United States. He holds the amateur radio callsign W7ZOI and has written numerous articles about amateur radio electronics construction, in various magazines. Together with another fellow amateur, Doug DeMaw, W1FB, Wes was responsible for popularizing home made construction of simple radio equipment, which fostered experimentation among radio amateurs.
Wes not only built wonderful equipment, he has always shared his ideas with others through correspondence, mentoring, and publication (both in-print and on the web). Most notably, he has been a regular contributor to the ARRL publication QST, since the mid 1960's. His article Direct Conversion--A Neglected Technique presented the home experimenter with a simple topology that was easy to reproduce. With the evolution to solid state semiconductors in the early 1970's, Wes presented solid state techniques for radio construction through the publication of Solid State Design for the Radio Amateur (co-authored by ARRL technical editor M.F. Doug DeMaw, W1FB).
Wes has authored a total of three books. His latest, Experimental methods in RF Design, (EMRFD) is very popular among the radio homebrewers.
Wes' contributions re-defined the way amateurs build & experiment with radio equipment. The term Ugly construction was first coined by Wes in a 1981 QST article. This term is now widely used within the amateur radio community. He presented a simple-to-build RF spectrum analyzer, which enables home experimenters with test capability previously far out of the reaches of a hobbyist's budget. Wes also published techniques (and software) to assist with crystal filter design. This enabled numerous amateurs (and upstart manufacturers) with the tools and knowledge necessary to design their own high-performance receivers.
The commercial communication world is well aware of Wes' contributions as well. Today, many top-end professional radio transceivers have block diagrams which can be traced back to one of Wes' publications. Many of his receiver / mixer topologies played a key role in the early days of the cellular telephone handset.
Wes received a BS in Physics from Washington State University in 1961 and an MSEE from Stanford University in 1966. He has held his amateur radio license since 1955. He is an avid backpacker & mountaineer. He is well-known for taking his portable radio equipment with him into the hills for QRP operation.
Publications
* Wes Hayward, Rick Campbell, Bob Larkin. (2003). Experimental Methods in Radio Frequency Design. American Radio Relay League (ARRL). ISBN 0872598799.
* Wes Hayward, Bob Larkin. Simple RF-Power Measurement QST, June, 2001.
* Wes Hayward, Terry White. The Micromountaineer Revisited QST, Jul 2000.
* Wes Hayward, Terry White. A Tracking Signal Generator for Use with a Spectrum Analyzer QST Nov 1999.
* Wes Hayward, Terry White. A Spectrum Analyzer for the Radio Amateur QST Aug & Sep 1998.
* Wes Hayward. Extending the Double-Tuned Circuit to Three Resonators QEX, Mar/Apr 1998.
* Wes Hayward. Refinements in Crystal Ladder Filter Design, QEX, Jun 1995.
* Wes Hayward. Electronic T/R Switching QEX, May 1995.
* Wes Hayward. (1995). Introduction to Radio Frequency Design. American Radio Relay League (ARRL). ISBN 0872594920.
* Wes Hayward. Measuring and Compensating Oscillator Frequency Drift, QST, Dec 1993.
* Wes Hayward. Reflections on the Reflection coefficient: An intuitive examination QEX, Jan 1993.
* Wes Hayward. The Double Tuned Circuit: An Experimenter’s Tutorial QST, Dec 1991.
* Wes Hayward, Experiments with Primitive FET Mixers, RF Design, Nov 1990.
* Wes Hayward. Designing and Building Simple Crystal Filters QST, Jul 1987.
* Wes Hayward. Beyond the Dipper QST, May 1986.
* Wes Hayward. A Unified Approach to the Design of Crystal Ladder Filters QST, May 1982.
* Wes Hayward, John Lawson. A Progressive Communications Receiver QST, Nov 1981.
* Roger Hayward, Wes Hayward. The Ugly Weekender QST, Aug 1981.
* Wes Hayward, Doug DeMaw. (1977). Solid State Design for the Radio Amateur. American Radio Relay League (ARRL). ISBN 0872590402
* Wes Hayward, Dick Bingham. Direct Conversion - A Neglected Technique QST, Nov, 1968
Wes not only built wonderful equipment, he has always shared his ideas with others through correspondence, mentoring, and publication (both in-print and on the web). Most notably, he has been a regular contributor to the ARRL publication QST, since the mid 1960's. His article Direct Conversion--A Neglected Technique presented the home experimenter with a simple topology that was easy to reproduce. With the evolution to solid state semiconductors in the early 1970's, Wes presented solid state techniques for radio construction through the publication of Solid State Design for the Radio Amateur (co-authored by ARRL technical editor M.F. Doug DeMaw, W1FB).
Wes has authored a total of three books. His latest, Experimental methods in RF Design, (EMRFD) is very popular among the radio homebrewers.
Wes' contributions re-defined the way amateurs build & experiment with radio equipment. The term Ugly construction was first coined by Wes in a 1981 QST article. This term is now widely used within the amateur radio community. He presented a simple-to-build RF spectrum analyzer, which enables home experimenters with test capability previously far out of the reaches of a hobbyist's budget. Wes also published techniques (and software) to assist with crystal filter design. This enabled numerous amateurs (and upstart manufacturers) with the tools and knowledge necessary to design their own high-performance receivers.
The commercial communication world is well aware of Wes' contributions as well. Today, many top-end professional radio transceivers have block diagrams which can be traced back to one of Wes' publications. Many of his receiver / mixer topologies played a key role in the early days of the cellular telephone handset.
Wes received a BS in Physics from Washington State University in 1961 and an MSEE from Stanford University in 1966. He has held his amateur radio license since 1955. He is an avid backpacker & mountaineer. He is well-known for taking his portable radio equipment with him into the hills for QRP operation.
Publications
* Wes Hayward, Rick Campbell, Bob Larkin. (2003). Experimental Methods in Radio Frequency Design. American Radio Relay League (ARRL). ISBN 0872598799.
* Wes Hayward, Bob Larkin. Simple RF-Power Measurement QST, June, 2001.
* Wes Hayward, Terry White. The Micromountaineer Revisited QST, Jul 2000.
* Wes Hayward, Terry White. A Tracking Signal Generator for Use with a Spectrum Analyzer QST Nov 1999.
* Wes Hayward, Terry White. A Spectrum Analyzer for the Radio Amateur QST Aug & Sep 1998.
* Wes Hayward. Extending the Double-Tuned Circuit to Three Resonators QEX, Mar/Apr 1998.
* Wes Hayward. Refinements in Crystal Ladder Filter Design, QEX, Jun 1995.
* Wes Hayward. Electronic T/R Switching QEX, May 1995.
* Wes Hayward. (1995). Introduction to Radio Frequency Design. American Radio Relay League (ARRL). ISBN 0872594920.
* Wes Hayward. Measuring and Compensating Oscillator Frequency Drift, QST, Dec 1993.
* Wes Hayward. Reflections on the Reflection coefficient: An intuitive examination QEX, Jan 1993.
* Wes Hayward. The Double Tuned Circuit: An Experimenter’s Tutorial QST, Dec 1991.
* Wes Hayward, Experiments with Primitive FET Mixers, RF Design, Nov 1990.
* Wes Hayward. Designing and Building Simple Crystal Filters QST, Jul 1987.
* Wes Hayward. Beyond the Dipper QST, May 1986.
* Wes Hayward. A Unified Approach to the Design of Crystal Ladder Filters QST, May 1982.
* Wes Hayward, John Lawson. A Progressive Communications Receiver QST, Nov 1981.
* Roger Hayward, Wes Hayward. The Ugly Weekender QST, Aug 1981.
* Wes Hayward, Doug DeMaw. (1977). Solid State Design for the Radio Amateur. American Radio Relay League (ARRL). ISBN 0872590402
* Wes Hayward, Dick Bingham. Direct Conversion - A Neglected Technique QST, Nov, 1968