Slashdot Mirror

Here are more details:

A typical photovoltaic cell is made of a thin boron doped P-type (P for positive) silicon wafer with positively charged 'holes' (missing electrons). [...] Metal contact is made to both the P and N-type silicon allowing electrons to flow out of the N-type silicon [...]

Unfortunately photovoltaic cells are expensive to produce, as you traditionally need access to elaborate, clean' manufacturing plants [...]

Nicole has spent the last two years researching an alternative manufacturing process [...] Using Inkjet printing, aluminium spray and a pizza oven, Nicole has created metal contacts to both the negative and positive sections of a solar cell

"[...] we spray on something like nail polish and then inkjet print a kind of nail polish remover which lets us etch certain parts of the wafer. This creates a metallisation pattern so we can deposit aluminium on the back surface of the solar cell and create our metal contacts to both the P and N-type silicon simultaneously using a very cheap, low temperature pizza oven!

from http://www.amonline.net.au/eureka/index.cfm?objectid=A4D69CF1-9890-B67D-2409EF3BFCD8F038&DISPLAYENTRY=true

I assumed that producing ultra-pure silicon wafers was the most expensive part about making solar cells, but I guess this would also help.

When asked to describe the process she says "To pattern the cell we spray on something like nail polish and then inkjet print a kind of nail polish remover which lets us etch certain parts of the wafer. This creates a metallisation pattern so we can deposit aluminium on the back surface of the solar cell and create our metal contacts to both the P and N-type silicon simultaneously using a very cheap, low temperature pizza oven! And hey presto we've created a simple, low-cost solar cell without having to use expensive high tech equipment or high temperature processes!"

(from here)

Black and white is a common colour scheme for all sorts of fishing birds. For example, some cormorants around here are black and white:

http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/little_pied_ cormorant.htm

My current favorite:

http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/about/fieldwork/ norfanz/psychrol2.htm

The name they gave it is fine, but 'Sploork' seems like a better fit to me.

http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/about/fieldwork/ norfanz/psychrol2.htm

Fishes is actually correct of you are talking about different species of fish.

From the Australian Museum Online site.

A group of fish of the same species are called fish. Two or more species of fish are called 'fishes'.

For example, a number of Eastern Australian Salmon swimming together can be called a school of fish. But if one Tarwhine starts swimming with the Eastern Australian Salmon they are called fishes.

I landed in Oz from the UK as a 5yro in 1964, my youngest brother often brought home venomous snakes and kept them in glass cages, he is now a zoologist who runs NT "safari's" in a 4WD mini-bus.

"Very much so, since I haven't seen him since I was 7, because of the very same temper."

My old man used to smack us on the bare arse with a cane, however I never saw him as a violent man as he rarely hit out in anger/fear, I always knew why I was being punished. Also "the cane/strap" was a "social norm" in the '60s, no different to the one used by the head master at school. OTOH: My ex-wife is now 44 and still hasn't fully overcome the phycological and behavioural damage inflicted by her father.

"However he had a point I suppose. I was, um, swinging it around my head....."

He still failed to explain the point, he should have sat you down and told you to make sure when you swing a stingray around your head that you hold it by the blunt end, you know, like all the other kids do. Maybe even enforced it with something along the lines of, "Now, if I catch you swinging a stingray by the tail again, I will give you a hiding".

"Ever play Jellyfish tennis?"

LOL yes, also jellyfish cricket and a round or two of cane toad golf. A freinds 4yro amazed me on a recent trip to the beach, he "punched out" a 2-3 foot long Port Jackson shark that had "attacked" him.

See for yourself

1. Look at the nose tip of the fossil and the artist drawing of Tiktaalik. The drawing has an elevated crocodile-like nose, while there is nothing in the fossil indicating that. Compare the fossil of Tiktaalik with the skeletons of modern crocodiles: this or just google it up for yourself

2. There is no indication to crocodile-like grin pictured by the artist. The mouth line on the fossil is as straight as it can be.

3. Generally, the head drawn by the artist is just a copy of a crocodile head.

4. The most funny thing in this drawing is that it is not even needed for their conclusions. The next species in the chain, Acanthostega, have a scull more similar to the scull of Panderichthys, not Tiktaalik. What the heck they were thinking?

Given that mass media almost always misrepresents the science, I am going to read the Nature article.

Maybe it's because we developed those social skills early on that we became so dangerous more recently?

There seems to be plenty of natural predators of these toads.

http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/canetoad.htm
"Predators of Cane Toad tadpoles in Australia include dragonfly nymphs, water beetles, Saw-shelled Turtles and Keelback Snakes. Keelbacks also eat young toads; laboratory tests have shown that they can tolerate low levels of toad toxins. Young or adult Cane Toads are eaten by wolf spiders, freshwater crayfish, Estuarine Crocodile, crows, White-faced Heron, kites, Bush Stone-curlew, Tawny Frogmouth, Water Rat and the Giant White-tailed Rat. Some predators eat only the toad's tongue, or attack its belly and eat only the mildly poisonous internal organs."

Also from this;
"Only about 0.5% of Cane Toad individuals that hatch from eggs survive to reach sexual maturity and reproduce."

It's best to let the nature deal with the 0.5% and give some time for the natural predators to neutralize the toads. It's under reported that these toads are consider NEUTRAL and not harmful pests as they are portrayed (typical over-reaction by media) because mainly they eat as much "pests" as they harm non-pests (whatever that means). The effects are over-shadowed by the human-factor ("the toad killed my dog/cat!" factor).

Lastly it contributes scientifically valuable data on evolutionary effect. It may be more valuable and important to let the nature take its course rather than outback Ausies make some holiday "wacking" these toads as some sort of past time out of this as far as the ecology of Australia is concerned.

I'm no biologist, but hell, I can see that nature is more resilient than we give it credit for.

On a more serious note, the Chinese Dinosaur exhibit (curently in Australia) website, has some artists renderings of feathered dinos.

I think it was actually a viperfish.

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.

Worldwide study that indicts Australia more by saying that climate was a factor elsewhere. Even so, 121 genera of megafauna extict out of 150 is a pretty sizable chunk. (That's 80% of the megafauna alone. Smaller species also went extinct.)

Science Daily has a report from a while back that goes into depth in the specific case of Australia.

Australian Museum factsheet on this subject.

Hope this helps

About 20 yrs ago I did some caving out on the Nullabor Plain (Australia). In a cave called Mullamullang we went about 4 miles horizontally (only a few 100 feet down) and at the end dome there's a species of spider there that has no eyes or pigmentation. This is the only place in the world this species has been found, probably having been sucked in (there's a v v strong diurnal wind that blows through the cave entrance, changing direction every 10hrs (that's right, ten hrs, not 12). The whole trip took 16 hrs. Read more about the spider here

Introducing a non-native anything to an environment will eventually affect the environment. Look at N. America and the White Man.

It's a picture of the stout infant fish, alright. Check out the Australian Museum Online site for more information and pictures. I believe the picture shown is of a pregnant female, which as other posters have noted is larger than the male at a whopping 8.4mm.

Also, the length is likely the standard length, which is to say, it doesn't include the fleshy bit of the tail, but only up to the end of the spine.

One noteable difference from the dwarf goby fish is that stout infant fish apparently lack pigmentation except in the eyes. The dwarf goby is a nice shade of orange.

It's a picture of the stout infant fish, alright. Check out the Australian Museum Online site for more information and pictures. I believe the picture shown is of a pregnant female, which as other posters have noted is larger than the male at a whopping 8.4mm.

Also, the length is likely the standard length, which is to say, it doesn't include the fleshy bit of the tail, but only up to the end of the spine.

One noteable difference from the dwarf goby fish is that stout infant fish apparently lack pigmentation except in the eyes. The dwarf goby is a nice shade of orange.

It's a picture of the stout infant fish, alright. Check out the Australian Museum Online site for more information and pictures. I believe the picture shown is of a pregnant female, which as other posters have noted is larger than the male at a whopping 8.4mm.

Also, the length is likely the standard length, which is to say, it doesn't include the fleshy bit of the tail, but only up to the end of the spine.

One noteable difference from the dwarf goby fish is that stout infant fish apparently lack pigmentation except in the eyes. The dwarf goby is a nice shade of orange.

It's a picture of the stout infant fish, alright. Check out the Australian Museum Online site for more information and pictures. I believe the picture shown is of a pregnant female, which as other posters have noted is larger than the male at a whopping 8.4mm.

Also, the length is likely the standard length, which is to say, it doesn't include the fleshy bit of the tail, but only up to the end of the spine.

One noteable difference from the dwarf goby fish is that stout infant fish apparently lack pigmentation except in the eyes. The dwarf goby is a nice shade of orange.

Actually, there is some dispute as to whether gambusia are truly good for controlling mosquito populations. It is more likely a factor of them either being able to survive in disturbed and polluted habitats, or outcompeting native species that also eat mosquito larvae. Gambusia are native to America, and alongside the carp are considered an invasive species in Australia...see here or here for more info.

That would actually (imho) make it look less like a spider, since they usually have 8 eyes.
Spider eyes