Post pictures of your bike mess *NOT SAFE FOR ARTBLUR*

584 posts / 0 new
Last post
biek
(Reply to #501)

The RTS wrote:

Spent some time sorting thru some of my parts bins. What can I say - I like the Turbo.

i approve of your workbench.

pappaheugwang wrote:
u mad bro?

Thu, 04/14/2016 - 16:47
biek

there's a set of tubular shamals in the corner of my bedroom that i should turn into a months' rent that i've been dithering on.

pappaheugwang wrote:
u mad bro?

Thu, 04/14/2016 - 17:39
Rusty Piton
Rusty Piton's picture

Sell em dude, fuck that shit.

emor wrote:
Bicycle commuting is the worst way to get anywhere except for all the other ways.

Thu, 04/14/2016 - 19:17
NOVELTYNAME
NOVELTYNAME's picture

sell them then sell that 9sp ultegra stuff

"Folks want options!"

Thu, 04/14/2016 - 19:32
Rusty Piton
Rusty Piton's picture

I spent a few hours yesterday cleaning and organizing my bike mess. I was shocked by how many stems I have when I put em all in one place! Kinda shocked by how many of everything, really.

Organizized:

emor wrote:
Bicycle commuting is the worst way to get anywhere except for all the other ways.

Mon, 03/06/2017 - 11:17
mdilthey
mdilthey's picture
(Reply to #506)

Rusty Piton wrote:
Holy shit! I found a picture of the thing being buried there!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=374794302696598&set=gm.774286332632144&type=1
Argonne history: Chicago Pile-3 Demolition by Argonne National Laboratory, on Flickr
And here it is in use!
Argonne history: Chicago Pile-3 Site A by Argonne National Laboratory, on Flickr
The history of the place makes riding there so much more fun!
So many stories must be attached to the bits of cinder block and brick that occasionally stick out of the trail!

Didn't expect to run into this on Tarck. I love nuclear history. My dream is to teach a class in it someday. These pictures are so awesome.

Did you know it was Obama who killed the Yucca Mountain project, violating federal law in the process? I love the guy, but that sucked. All current nuclear waste from power generation is stored on-site at all 99 nuclear plants in the U.S. There's no permanent repository (even though federal law mandates that we should already have three) and even the temporary ones have had serious issues.

I personally think that storing nuclear waste is a helluva lot more solveable than climate change/deleterious health effects from fossil fuel emissions. If we really wanted to figure it out and if it weren't such a political burden, we'd have already done it. It would only take ~300-400 nuclear plants to cover all of the electricity use in the entire U.S.

26/M/41t N/W

Mon, 03/06/2017 - 12:20
mdilthey
mdilthey's picture
(Reply to #507)

26/M/41t N/W

Mon, 03/06/2017 - 12:21
NOVELTYNAME
NOVELTYNAME's picture

"Folks want options!"

Mon, 03/06/2017 - 12:24
Andrew_Squirrel
Andrew_Squirrel's picture

I like the organization Rusty!
I am too in the process of trying to get the bike room dialed since it's practically in the kitchen of our new house and will be visible to visitors. I feel bad forcing my partner to look at it everyday so i'm hoping that motivates me to keep it clean and pleasing to the eye.
Its going to be really hard transitioning from a huge garage with a 20 foot work bench and infinite storage to a tiny room intended to be a dining room.

This was the preliminary workbench area but I've since cleared about 50% of the stuff so I can actually use the entire bench and park the stool underneath.

Found some smaller matching tubs to organize bike parts & bags I want to keep. Made a little caster cart so its easy to pull out without scratching up the floor:

Cycletruck Parking was the most difficult, this seems to be the most optimal way to store it and allow shoe rack.

Picked up some of these racks which I really like but ...ugh... way too expensive. The hardware on them is really nice & allows you to store bikes in the most efficient way without putting holes in the walls:

We were gunna get rid of this book shelf when we shed 70% of our book collection but it fit the helmets, bags, locks, gloves + stuff pretty well so its being repurposed.

Mon, 03/06/2017 - 15:35
NOVELTYNAME
NOVELTYNAME's picture

finn is such a good model

"Folks want options!"

Mon, 03/06/2017 - 15:59
imoscardotcom
imoscardotcom's picture

his and hers cable locks might be the cutest thing I've seen this calendar year

Mon, 03/06/2017 - 15:59
JUGE FREDD
JUGE FREDD's picture

pretty sure those are colormatched to his two different 650b bike / Giro outfit schemes

It's a struggle, but you cut out his tongue, and his last words are "atmo atmo Atmo ATMO ATMOOOOOGORIHGGHRSHGGRLMGGMMGMgrrglegurglegrr....."
– akasnowmaaan

Mon, 03/06/2017 - 18:44
Tail Hook Lengthener
Tail Hook Lengthener's picture

I have Squirrel coordination envy.

Sneaky Viking wrote:
when you look back at your life sometimes you see a set of hands on your keyboard and a set of paws, but sometimes there's only a set of paws and that's when Tarckbear was typing for you.

Mon, 03/06/2017 - 19:12
ckd
ckd's picture
(Reply to #514)

mdilthey wrote:
Rusty Piton wrote:
Holy shit! I found a picture of the thing being buried there!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=374794302696598&set=gm.774286332632144&type=1
Argonne history: Chicago Pile-3 Demolition by Argonne National Laboratory, on Flickr
And here it is in use!
Argonne history: Chicago Pile-3 Site A by Argonne National Laboratory, on Flickr
The history of the place makes riding there so much more fun!
So many stories must be attached to the bits of cinder block and brick that occasionally stick out of the trail!

Didn't expect to run into this on Tarck. I love nuclear history. My dream is to teach a class in it someday. These pictures are so awesome.

Did you know it was Obama who killed the Yucca Mountain project, violating federal law in the process? I love the guy, but that sucked. All current nuclear waste from power generation is stored on-site at all 99 nuclear plants in the U.S. There's no permanent repository (even though federal law mandates that we should already have three) and even the temporary ones have had serious issues.

I personally think that storing nuclear waste is a helluva lot more solveable than climate change/deleterious health effects from fossil fuel emissions. If we really wanted to figure it out and if it weren't such a political burden, we'd have already done it. It would only take ~300-400 nuclear plants to cover all of the electricity use in the entire U.S.

I did some research on Yucca Mtn in my undergrad and, while it's a pretty good long-term solution, there are some pretty hazardous seismic risks in the region.

The problem with nuclear waste is the extremely long holding times needed. When you store waste like that in a region that even has a remote risk of catastrophic earthquakes, you create a risk of a pretty bummer situation.

I then presented the alternative of burying our nuclear waste on the moon or in a subduction zone, but nobody took me seriously for some reason.

Spencer Raleigh, Medical Panini

Mon, 03/06/2017 - 23:54
Rusty Piton
Rusty Piton's picture

Derek, how the hell would we get to the moon?!?

emor wrote:
Bicycle commuting is the worst way to get anywhere except for all the other ways.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 00:00
Tail Hook Lengthener
Tail Hook Lengthener's picture

If it's already airborne, why not just fling it into the vastness of space? At even the most moderate speed, would it not be completely decayed by the time it reached anything? And more likely, won't it just go on forever, until the death of the universe in 10^100 years?

What about engineering a bacteria to eat it and turn it into water? Is that some shit that's possible?

Sneaky Viking wrote:
when you look back at your life sometimes you see a set of hands on your keyboard and a set of paws, but sometimes there's only a set of paws and that's when Tarckbear was typing for you.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 00:12
mdilthey
mdilthey's picture
(Reply to #517)

Wintage Townie wrote:
If it's already airborne, why not just fling it into the vastness of space? At even the most moderate speed, would it not be completely decayed by the time it reached anything? And more likely, won't it just go on forever, until the death of the universe in 10^100 years?

What about engineering a bacteria to eat it and turn it into water? Is that some shit that's possible?

There's so much debris floating around in orbit right now that it's becoming harder to keep satellites up there without them getting hit and destroyed. I can only imagine the shitshow if 2030's astronauts have to dodge nuclear waste coming at them at 17,500 miles per hour.

As for the bacteria, they tried to do that with PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls, basically fireproof oil) and some of the molecules were too complex for the engineering involved. But, on some of it, it did work, like the PCB's in the Hudson river.

Sadly, that doesn't work on nuclear waste because you're basically looking at heavier isotopes of Uranium. It's already a base element and can't be broken down any more. In order to turn it into water, you'd need to be a goddamn alchemist.

26/M/41t N/W

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 00:23
ckd
ckd's picture

What in the hell do you do, new guy? I wanna talk bioremediation with you.

Spencer Raleigh, Medical Panini

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 00:36
ckd
ckd's picture
(Reply to #519)

Rusty Piton wrote:
Derek, how the hell would we get to the moon?!?

Clean coal!

Spencer Raleigh, Medical Panini

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 00:37
eric_ssucks
eric_ssucks's picture

Can't we reprocess most of the intensely radioactive spent fuel? Also, yucca mountain was picked because no one lives there, before the tectonics of the basin and range were fully understood. Maybe a better place is in a very deep tunnel in the Appalachian range, but that's prohibitively expensive and close to the eastern seaboard, in a wet climate.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 00:58
Blakey
Blakey's picture
(Reply to #521)

ckd wrote:
Clean coal!

are you an australian politician? or an advisor to them?

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 01:04
DaFROG
DaFROG's picture
(Reply to #522)

Blakey wrote:
ckd wrote:
Clean coal!

are you an australian politician? or an advisor to them?

but but but.... coal is the future of humanity... said no one ever (except tony "onion, raw, skin on" abbot)

We have assembled an international voltron of geometry, marketing and metallurgy experts working around the clock and have determined that your bike sucks

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 05:30
euclid
euclid's picture
(Reply to #523)

mdilthey wrote:
Wintage Townie wrote:
If it's already airborne, why not just fling it into the vastness of space? At even the most moderate speed, would it not be completely decayed by the time it reached anything? And more likely, won't it just go on forever, until the death of the universe in 10^100 years?

What about engineering a bacteria to eat it and turn it into water? Is that some shit that's possible?

There's so much debris floating around in orbit right now that it's becoming harder to keep satellites up there without them getting hit and destroyed. I can only imagine the shitshow if 2030's astronauts have to dodge nuclear waste coming at them at 17,500 miles per hour.

As for the bacteria, they tried to do that with PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls, basically fireproof oil) and some of the molecules were too complex for the engineering involved. But, on some of it, it did work, like the PCB's in the Hudson river.

Sadly, that doesn't work on nuclear waste because you're basically looking at heavier isotopes of Uranium. It's already a base element and can't be broken down any more. In order to turn it into water, you'd need to be a goddamn alchemist.

Don't park it in orbit. Send it off into the inky void.

I wonder what the energy requirements for disposal would be compared to the energy harvested from the fuel/waste.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 11:36
eric_ssucks
eric_ssucks's picture

Yeah, you don't really want to be spending that much trying to get it out of the gravity well, especially with the potential for rapid kinetic dispersion if there's a rocket malfunction. Sticking it in a deep subduction zone with a high sedimentation rate is not a terrible idea, even with the potential for containment failure. Heavy metals are heavy, and dilution is the solution to pollution.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 11:42
ckd
ckd's picture
(Reply to #525)

Blakey wrote:
ckd wrote:
Clean coal!

are you an australian politician? or an advisor to them?

I'd have to take a pay cut to do either of those things.

Also I don't have a knife big enough for Australia.

Spencer Raleigh, Medical Panini

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 11:46
ckd
ckd's picture
(Reply to #526)

eric_ssucks wrote:
Yeah, you don't really want to be spending that much trying to get it out of the gravity well, especially with the potential for rapid kinetic dispersion if there's a rocket malfunction.

Nice 5 dollar words, college guy.

Another option is to repackage all of the waste as energy efficient hot water heaters.

Spencer Raleigh, Medical Panini

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 11:48
eric_ssucks
eric_ssucks's picture

Heeeyy, I saw you when I was at the University.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 12:21
Tail Hook Lengthener
Tail Hook Lengthener's picture
(Reply to #528)

ckd wrote:
Also I don't have a knife big enough for Australia.

Sneaky Viking wrote:
when you look back at your life sometimes you see a set of hands on your keyboard and a set of paws, but sometimes there's only a set of paws and that's when Tarckbear was typing for you.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 12:21
iwillbe
iwillbe's picture
(Reply to #529)

eric_ssucks wrote:
Yeah, you don't really want to be spending that much trying to get it out of the gravity well, especially with the potential for rapid kinetic dispersion if there's a rocket malfunction. Sticking it in a deep subduction zone with a high sedimentation rate is not a terrible idea, even with the potential for containment failure. Heavy metals are heavy, and dilution is the solution to pollution.

Yeah, that's why we need a space elevator: stick toxic waste on a freight train unto the heavens, let those dumb jerks over on Alpha Centauri deal with it in 583750920937475 years

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 12:25
Tail Hook Lengthener
Tail Hook Lengthener's picture

See, that's my point. I am not saying that we do it now, when like 10% of rockets still fail, and even getting things into near earth orbit is a huge problem. I just mean like, in another 50 years, when there's a space elevator in Antartica, we just send that shit in the direction of Voyager. It'll take 30,000 years just to get through the Oort Cloud.

Sneaky Viking wrote:
when you look back at your life sometimes you see a set of hands on your keyboard and a set of paws, but sometimes there's only a set of paws and that's when Tarckbear was typing for you.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 12:30
Falkor
Falkor's picture

Yeah the space idea is pretty much a non-starter. Way too expensive and potential for truly catastrophic disaster via launch failure.

A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.

How much does it cost to send something into space?
Musk says SpaceX's latest rocket in development, the Falcon Heavy, will be able to do it for as little as $1,000 a pound. Historically, that's pretty low. Using the Space Shuttle to get a pound of something to the Space Station, for example, costs around $10,000.

So 2,204 lbs/metric ton x 2,000 tons x $1,000 = $4,408,000,000 / year. And that's using Musk's made-up best case scenario number.

I was reading something the other day about new reactor designs that are safer and use fuel more efficiently. That's probably our best bet - utilize the current waste as fuel and reduce the waste output going forward.

I like the idea of trying to drill down and drop it into a subduction zone. Although that's probably what some prior ancient civilization thought too; they just kept shoving their nuclear waste down into the ground until they went too far and the whole thing went nuclear and now we have plate tectonics.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 13:57
mdilthey
mdilthey's picture
(Reply to #532)

Falkor wrote:
Way too expensive and potential for truly catastrophic disaster via launch failure.

Haha, hooooly shit, yep. That's a pretty big "no" right there. Rockets explode all the time.

I went to the Air and Space museum in D.C. in January and I don't remember the figures involved with the amount of fuel/energy required to escape earth's orbit, I just remember it being mind-blowingly significant.

Face, talk bioremediation to me, baby. I grabbed this from the tried-and-true academic reference, Wikipedia:
"The species involved in these processes have the ability to influence the properties of radionuclides such as solubility, bioavailability and mobility to accelerate its stabilization."

So HY you can use plants and maybe bacteria to filter out radiation from soil. They can't break it down but they can sure help remediate the effects. That's wicked.

26/M/41t N/W

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 14:22
mdilthey
mdilthey's picture
(Reply to #533)

Oh, and also, here's the big issue with nuclear power plants:

On February 12, 1980, Jimmy Carter basically put forth a federal law that required that the U.S. create and manage nuclear waste repositories. it made perfect sense. The law says, no new plants can be authorized until there's a place to put the waste.

This launched literally DECADES of legal dispute, from three fronts:

1) States and municipalities suing the federal government to keep nuclear waste repositories out of their backyards
2) Nuclear power companies avoiding the cost of building repositories
3) Politicians/presidents avoiding the politically unfavorable mandate to build repositories. "Nuclear Waste" doesn't look good on a campaign sheet.

This effectively ended the production of nuclear power plants in the US. No new nuclear plants have been built since 1980, other than a couple of projects that had already started prior to the law (if I'm remembering correctly). The entire industry is absolutely frozen.

As for the reprocessing of waste for fuel, YES, this is absolutely possible given current technology, but nobody has invested. Nuclear waste is very unpopular, very hard to get insured against, and difficult from a federal and state legislation point of view. It's so difficult, in so many ways, that nobody bothers to even try.

The nuclear industry was born in a time where there was virtually no oversight into government activity. It was the wild west, our government built a nuclear power/weapons platform almost overnight that was larger than the U.S. Auto industry at its peak. Today, post-environmentalism, the world is very different. The government doesn't have the same authoritarian power they used to have. In the current political atmosphere, a nuclear industry can't exist. And it's purely political.

France's electric grid is 80% nuclear. Their population favors it. It's seen as an item of nationalistic pride.

26/M/41t N/W

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 14:29
NOVELTYNAME
NOVELTYNAME's picture

"Folks want options!"

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 15:43
The RTS
The RTS's picture

Fucking space nerds fucking up this page.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 15:51
fixed
fixed's picture
(Reply to #536)

yes, and there was a brief period of time in the 2000s where there was more highly enriched uranium in rochester than almost anywhere else in the country. doing nothing, just chilling down there blowing off neutrons like a vape contest

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 17:38
ryker

I dunno... visiting Chernobyl left me with the impression we are not smart enough for nuclear. Fukushima happened since then too...

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 19:25
mdilthey
mdilthey's picture
(Reply to #538)

Total deaths from radiation at U.S. nuclear power plants since the 1950's: zero muthafuckas!

At Chernobyl, they deliberately turned off the safety mechanisms and then induced a criticality. In Japan they built a nuclear plant on the ocean. Not judging, America's not perfect, but when done right, nuclear is not any more of a threat than the 30,000 deaths from pollution-related health issues from fossil fuels in the U.S. (China's pollution death toll? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?)

It's the lesser of two evils.

26/M/41t N/W

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 19:34
fixed
fixed's picture

yeah, fukushima location was perhaps a silly decision. japan is mildly fucked since you gotta put em near water. they have plenty of water, it just so happens that the water is also subject to unpredictable and very large waves. we have a nuke plant up here on lake ontario. lake ontario is not subject to large waves of any variety. we're also like 700 miles from a fault line.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 19:49
crowding
crowding's picture

Recently moved up to Maple Leaf. New place has a real detached garage to settle into.


Tue, 03/07/2017 - 19:53
Falkor
Falkor's picture

That looks awesome. I'd consider covering those windows.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 20:12
yummygooey
(Reply to #542)

crowding wrote:
Recently moved up to Maple Leaf.

Hello neighbor.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 20:15
ckd
ckd's picture

I worked at that hardware store for, like, 100 years.

Spencer Raleigh, Medical Panini

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 20:19
Tail Hook Lengthener
Tail Hook Lengthener's picture

I would normally be jealous of your setup, but I just got a house with a basement and am in the middle of a transition of my own. I will share when it's complete.

One thing I know - you will all envy my drill press.

Sneaky Viking wrote:
when you look back at your life sometimes you see a set of hands on your keyboard and a set of paws, but sometimes there's only a set of paws and that's when Tarckbear was typing for you.

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 20:20
jeffro
jeffro's picture

Can we mix nuc waste with concrete to immobilize it and then bury it? Iunno, maybe there's lead shieldin in the mix, too?

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 20:22
mdilthey
mdilthey's picture
(Reply to #546)

jeffro wrote:
Can we mix nuc waste with concrete to immobilize it and then bury it? Iunno, maybe there's lead shieldin in the mix, too?

It's called Pondcrete and they did that at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Manufacturing Plant in the 1970's. Pulled this from Wikipedia, although I really, really recommend the book "Making a Real Killing" by Len Ackland if you wanna hear about some fucked up nuclear shit. Remember my statistic on deaths in the U.S. from radiation at power plants? NOT accurate for nuclear weapons manufacturing.

"Rockwell workers mixed hazardous and other wastes with concrete to create one-ton solid blocks called pondcrete. These were stored in the open under tarps on asphalt pads. The pondcrete turned out to be weak storage, an outcome that had been predicted by Rockwell's own engineers. Relatively unprotected from the elements, the blocks began to leak and sag. Nitrates, cadmium and low-level radioactive waste began to leach into the ground and run downhill toward Walnut Creek and Woman Creek."

Most nuclear waste is stored submerged in water on-site. Like giant, nuclear swimming pools.

26/M/41t N/W

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 20:27
jamey
jamey's picture
(Reply to #547)

crowding wrote:
Recently moved up to Maple Leaf. New place has a real detached garage to settle into.

I don't want to alarm you, but I think you might have a ghost in the right back corner of your garage.

truckdoug "never turn down free beer, dont stick your dick where you wouldnt put your face, and always ride shimano"

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 20:32
ckd
ckd's picture
(Reply to #548)

jeffro wrote:
Can we mix nuc waste with concrete to immobilize it and then bury it? Iunno, maybe there's lead shieldin in the mix, too?

What do you think heated floors are made of?

Spencer Raleigh, Medical Panini

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 20:35
mdilthey
mdilthey's picture
(Reply to #549)

ckd wrote:
jeffro wrote:
Can we mix nuc waste with concrete to immobilize it and then bury it? Iunno, maybe there's lead shieldin in the mix, too?

What do you think heated floors are made of?

Money

26/M/41t N/W

Tue, 03/07/2017 - 20:58
eric_ssucks
eric_ssucks's picture
(Reply to #550)

mdilthey wrote:
ckd wrote:
jeffro wrote:
Can we mix nuc waste with concrete to immobilize it and then bury it? Iunno, maybe there's lead shieldin in the mix, too?

What do you think heated floors are made of?

Money

Accurate.

Wed, 03/08/2017 - 01:07

Pages