Slashdot Mirror

You're talking about a liquid under pressure. Pressurize liquids store very little energy, because they are largely uncompressable.

You might find it informative to read about the biggest presses. The 1500 HP motors don't make nearly enough power to operate the press directly: they accumulate the energy in pressure accumulator bottles until there's enough in storage to operate the press once. it's a "hydro-pneumatic" system.

It's the only example I can think of where energy is routinely stored and discharged at thousands of PSI, and safely. Scuba tanks store air at a reasonable fraction of that pressure, but they aren't used for power (so limited fill/discharge rate) and they do blow up from time to time.

In North Sea on an offshore rig at elevation about 180 feet (say 30 fathoms high, 60 metres approx) wave crashed into and over the rig. Yes a rough wave, unusual but actually recorded due to rig height!. This is one of a number of 'extreme wave heights'.
Link: Paid Paper.
http://offshoremechanics.asmed...
Free but 'averaged' data (mean heights)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....

Here's an image:
http://electronicpackaging.asm...

As you can see, there's no need for nanometer alignment. Small imperfections aren't a problem either.

In what way is one company getting the work like a job being split up among many companies? According to the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), over 20,000 different companies and universities worked on the Apollo program.

In short, the answer to your question is no.

https://www.asme.org/engineeri...

A few years ago a similar story was posted and i said wearable electronics (both glasses and watches) nice to see i was right. As my previous comment is only just coming to pass now, I'll add to it with tactile touchscreens (tactus is working on this by injecting fluid into bubbles just above the touchscreen http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/fluids-engineering/fluid-systems-take-on-touchscreens), and also flexible screens (samsung, nokia, sharp, lg all are working on this) for phones that can be wrapped around your wrist and thrown like you stole it. We will also see mobile devices taking on the pc in some areas with a bunch of docks and dummy devices. One more thing, and i might get some grief over this, is if intel can get there act together, x86 mobile would have a lot of advantages.

This is not the first time a "GMO panic" story has fallen flat on the ears of Slashdot. The media keeps trying to stir up paranoia about in vitro meat, and I haven't met a single person who finds it anything other than ethically unimpeachable.

but here goes: all energy goes into heat. 100%.

That goes without saying.

But if you read what I wrote, you will see that word waste in front of the word heat.
 
For example, let us look at this link: http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/automotive/using-waste-engine-heat-in-automobile-engines

Currently, up to 65% of the heat energy produced in internal combustion engines, whether gasoline or diesel, is wasted.

And this link: http://www.ehow.com/facts_5854602_heat-vs_-incandescent-light-bulbs.html

... about 30 percent of the energy powering a fluorescent light is wasted in heat

... and this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_heat#Power_generation

The electrical efficiency of thermal power plants is defined as the ratio between the input and output energy. It is typically only 30%

There are a lot more similar figures that you can obtained from the Net.

Yeah. It's called ASME B31.

http://www.asme.org/products/books/process-piping--the-complete-guide-to-asme-b31-3--

If your data is good and you did things right, there is no anti-you crowd to worry about. If your data is trying to back up a preset agenda instead of going where the evidence takes you.....well then you should expect strong resistance from others who disagree with your findings.

This isn't tobacco. Comparisons to the tobacco industry are not warranted. The ASME and API would both be more than happy to accept and publish your work if you find evidence that supports or challenges what they already know. Petroleum and Petro engineering have a solid 100 year history of advancements so I am going to warn you that the task ahead is not easy. However, if you are right and have evidence to back it up, you can pretty much write your own ticket to any career you desire. And the petro industry will be the first ones on your doorstep throwing large amounts of money at you so you can figure out more stuff.

The only people who worry about the "anti-you" crowd are those who don't know what they are talking about.

The Bloom Box is advertised as 60% efficient at turning methane energy into electrical energy. The best most heat engines can do is about 35%...

Combined-cycle gas-fired plants are about 60% efficient. Average loss to grid transmission is about 7%, so a 60% box in my back yard would be more efficient, but not enormously so. Always questions about uptime and other reliability. Plus the problems of keeping something that operates at 1,000 degrees C in my backyard...

From 1870 to 1910, at least 10,000 boiler explosions in North America were recorded. By 1910 the rate jumped to 1,300 to 1,400 a year. Some were spectacular accidents that aroused public outcries for remedial action. A Boiler Code Committee was formed in 1911 that led to the Boiler Code being published in 1914-15 and later incorporated in laws of most US states and territories and Canadian provinces.

It's funny that at one time the same was said about the Ford Motor Co. In 1927 they built the 15 millionth Model T, a record that would stand until 1972, when Volkswagen built the 15 millionth VW beetle. Today, it's only their own PR people who think Ford is increasing their market share. Actually, their stock price has gone consistently down for the last three years.

As you see, there's no such thing as a company that will "always dominate". Considering that the software industry evolves much faster than the automotive segment, I don't think we will need to wait 45 years to see another company assume the predominance Microsoft has today.

What this country (US) needs to do is scrap the abomination of the Federal Education Dept./Board/Plan and give the power back to the people. Those neighborhoods who care should adopt and pay for the certification of some international education standard.

And those that don't care can teach creationism and have a hell of a football team. Much like now. Frankly, I think we need more and better national standards -- much like much of the rest of the world.

As a disclaimer, one of my former bosses is promoting math and science at the DOE within No Child Left Behind today and for all NCLB's problems I don't think she's moved to the dark side. Listen to one of her talks here:

http://www.asme.org/Education/PreCollege/Pat_OConn ell_Ross_Team_Leader.cfm

Water injection was OLD technology by WWII. The 1904 Hart-Parr tractor came from the factory with water injection. (the first known commercial application of water injection)

Water injection however has problems. Water freezes in winter, which is perhaps the worst on. So it is used where it is needed (Hart-Parr wanted to use kerosene fuel, but they needed some knock control), or where the hassle is worth the gains. (racing)

I don't have a problem with government serving society's interests. My problem is with the fact that they (particularly the Federal Government) don't do a very good job of it.

Also, I don't want to eliminate public education. I just want the Feds out of it. The Dept of Education wasn't created until 1980. We had universal public education for a while before then . . . I don't think there's any danger of returning to 20% education rates.

I have absolutely no financial interest in the price of a 747. My point was that there are incentives other than the FAA to build safe airplanes. I don't understand your other point . . . competition is _bad_ for the aircraft industry? Why is lack of competition good for the aircraft industry and its customers, but bad for the software industry (ref: your sig)? Monopolies (or duopolies) are bad, no matter what the business.

The ASME does not receive any government support. At least, that's what their most recent annual report says.

I am far from complacent in the state of my government. I am doing everything I can to change things. I vote, I lobby my representatives . . . hell, sometimes I even argue with total strangers on the internet. It may not ever change anything, but it's my right and my duty to try.

Anyway, I'm now way off topic. My original point still stands: as long as the Feds are funding space exploration, it will end up being run the way NASA is now. If I could convince myself that it would be otherwise, I'd be all in favor of it.

JET reached (or came very close to) the break-even point (produced as much power as it consumed). ITER will surpass it and actually generate power. (5-10x as much out as is put in, so that would mean that the heating required during fusion would be around 50-100MW). See here, for example.

It's also designed to be repairable in the event of a failure (in the way a commercial reactor would need to be), and its designers have benefitted considerably from the experience of JET. The BBC has covered this reactor for some time: I'm surprised slashdot has only picked up on it now.

Useful doesn't mean "useful to the reader." It applies more to "is it possible to create this" e.g. you can't patent a perpetual motion machine because it's not possible. Anyone can find a use for anything. No real explanation in 35 USC 101, but that's what it means.

Wake me up when they bring back the NS Savannah.

Offhand, I can't think of a movie with a steam train exploding in a fireball, but fireball aside, it was fairly common for steam engines to explode when pushed beyond their specs. 1647 were killed when the Sultana exploded in 1864. I'm sure that was a pretty cinematic explosion.

One of the reasons that ordinary light bulbs are so cheap is the process of manufacturing. The glass blanks are made with a ribbon machine That is so incredibly efficient that only 15 of these machines produce all the glass blanks for all the lightbulbs produced today(see P10 of the linked pdf). It will be hard to top that for LED's or anything else.

During the presentation, someone asked about what the commercial applications were for such technology. Apparently, blimp companies are VERY interested in fuel cell technology. Blimps, as they burn off fuel for the steering engines, get lighter. In order to get back down to the ground, they sometimes have to blow out helium which is VERY expensive. But with a fuel cell, the blimp actually gets heavier as flight goes one because they can hang onto the "exhaust" (water) and keep the blimp in equilibrium through the entire flight.

The military is of course interested too because fuel cell powered planes are VERY quiet (electric motor) and the technolgoy will allow for far greater range than batteries.

-S

Actually I think /. is a great place to get advice on how. The real problem is getting advice on what.
Might I suggest two general approaches?
First of all, talk to actual customers in fields where they spend money on this sort of thing. Use a group like the American Institute of Architects or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to reach the people who actually *do* flythroughs and renderings and see what they want from such a product. You may also find that talking to folk at a second-string engineering school (Stevens or RPI rather than MIT or CMU) you'll be able to get plenty of eager beta testers as unlike the more famous places, they don't get as many offers but they've got plenty of brains.
A variation on that would be to check out reviews of products in magazines like Architectural Record, and further, write to the relevant editors (not phone, you want to make it clear that you weren't just bored and calling on a lazy whim) and see what they've got to say.
This page will give you a solid start on relevant organizations and variables.
Secondly, the current situation of having to use five different programs to finish the job is a little silly. I continue to be amazed by the frequency with which I hear somebody say that they do the sketching on paper or with something like Illustrator, then do the technical work in something like AutoCAD, drop in some people from Poser, then export to something like Maya, fix the resulting problems and render there, and then do final changes in Photoshop. Meanwhile stereolithography outputting is moved to something like Lightyear or Buildstation.
Might I suggest a rigorous NURBS implementation with an intuitive basic functionality such that an item can be rough generated with a PowerGlove/Glasstron UI and make it all the way through the process right to render, animation, and outputting of models. I know that it's a lot to ask but, hey, you *said* that you were ambitious. In fact, I suspect that if you can do a system such that you sell a $50 crippleware version through places like Download.com and the serious version elsewhere, you'ld be able to build your user set quickly and also get to market faster.
A side note is that the ability to generate objects for systems like Adobe Atmospherewould finalize the build once-use many times paradigm that I'm talking about. After all, how much overlap is there between these communities? I'ld say considerable, and if gamers can then use the objects they created for one part of their lives in another, they'll be happy campers.
Best of luck to you,
Rustin (former techie for Sweets, Arch. Record, Design-Build, This Old House, Index, Woodworker, etc.)

No, they don't do that anymore. Too messy.

Now, they take you to a Jersey wrecking yard, toss you into the trunk of a toasted Caprice Classic, and then you get to ride through a Newell shredder.Ouch.

That's the leading Hoffa disappearance theory, too, BTW. If you've never seen a car shredder, lemme tell you, there'd be nothing left. These things can shred forged nodular iron crankshafts.

Disclaimer: I was the Chair of the club last year.

Louis Wu

Thinking is one of hardest types of work.

I recall (but can't support) that an early physicist was conducting experiments to determine the speed of light, but his numbers were way off. He checked his instruments several times, re-checked the procedure, and still couldn't find the problem. He forgot to measure the length of the room he was conducting his experiments in; the light beam he was measuring was bouncing off of the walls before he measured it again. If he had realized what was happening, he could have accounted for the reflections more precisely.

Engineering is sometimes more art than science, and more so on the edges of the envelope. The new, untried situations are where an engineer's intuition and experience can shine brightest. But that shine rarely illuminates the situation perfectly, and improvements can always be made. We can't test our space probes in environments which correspond in any way to the environments they will experience in service, so why not test one while it is in service?

As an example of why we need to test things where we will use them, take a bar of steel and bend it. Leave that bar of steel out in an Alaskan winter. Then bend it again. It won't behave the same: it will be more brittle, fatigue weakens the crystalline structure, and you won't want to trust it ever again. ASME has an entire division devoted to Arctic Engineering, and people have lived there for centuries.

One of the hallmarks of engineering in situations where there isn't extensive experience is the acquisition and application of test data. Even where we have experience, test data is a necessity if the applicable theories are not precise or reliable enough.

Fatigue (The gradual weakening of a part [usually metal] over time. Try to break a paper-clip, you probably can't. Bend it two dozen times, it will probably break.) is a good example of an area where we have decades of experience, and we still need good test data for many situations. We need this test data. Maybe not now, but when 15 people are in the third month of a 5 year Mars mission, they will want everything to have been thoroughly tested. We can start with Galileo.

I think that the Galileo mission should be extended, both for the science, and the engineering of future spacecraft.

Louis Wu

A lot of folks here complain about how obvious things are patented. Other people chime in that those things are obvious now, but weren't obvious when they were patented. That's a good point, but I think it's often not true, and that shouldn't surprise us. Every day we read about why that's the case.

The patent office tries to determine whether something is obvious to knowledgeable people in the relevant industry. But they're a US government agency, and they can't pay enough to keep knowledgeable software people on staff. Being a patent officer is not a glorious job. Do you know anyone working there? I don't. Know anyone who wants to? Me neither. How much would it cost to have clueful people on staff, or to consult some regularly? I know lots of people clueful about the software industry, and, not surprisingly, they're all working in the software industry. It's easy to find an exciting job that pays well. How can the PTO compete? They can't, of course. Worse yet, it was years before they even tried.

We've heard recently how hard it is to get corporate engineers to talk to corporate patent lawyers. There are people who base careers on patenting things their engineers thought were obvious. In many cases, I'd guess that there were engineers at other companies who also thought those things were obvious, but since no one spent $100k to have a lawyer go around and ask them, we get stuck with more stupid patents.

In April 1999, Q. Todd Dickinson (Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, USPTO) gave a speech, which I'll quote briefly here:

[O]ne of the reasons some have questioned the ability of the PTO to gauge software innovations is the lack of an organized, meaningfully complete library of prior art. In this sense, software has presented PTO with a very different challenge than, say, biotechnology. Patenting was at the ground level of biotechnology; the PTO has been watching biotech since its inception.

But by the time of the watershed Diamond vs. Diehr case and its clear mandate to issue patents in the software realm, there were already decades of programming under the industry's belt. Since then, PTO has embarked on an ambitious programs to catch-up - a program I am committed to continuing.

I hope they catch up soon, but I'm not optimistic. I don't think it's a question of building libraries; they'll never keep up. They need to stop relying on full time examiners and start asking people actually in the industry.

As for Google's patents, I haven't read them. I'm hoping it's more than just scoring relevancy based on how something is referenced. That's been obvious to me for a long time, and I was waiting for someone to build a search engine that way. There are a lot of people who think of a lot of neat patentable things, but who don't have the time/money/desire to patent them. No matter how many people think of the same thing though, it's still fair game for whoever bothers to apply for a monopoly.