Slashdot Mirror

None of the problems you listed are really true. Diesel locomotives are already hybrid vehicles, only using the gas engines to generate electricity to drive the motors that push the train. One could add the solar panelled cars on top of the existing system to boost the fuel economy, just as hobbyists have done with those solar powered prius'. So you get the benefits of "free" electricity from the sun as well as the speed and capacity of the diesel generators when needed.

"Gasoline is made up of carbon chains of different lengths ranging from C7H16 through C11H24"

I picked c11h24 so the math would be slightly in his favor. I dont think it affects the point much anyways.

Hey, that's a great description. So based off that information, lets consider the following: - The earth has a radius of 6375 km. - The elevator counterweight will be swinging at about 100,000 km above the surface of the earth (http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator1. htm) Although the angular of the counterweight would be the same as the base station, the linear velocity of the counterweight would be around (100,000 + 6375)/6375) = 16.7 times faster than the base station. The linear velocity of the earth at the equator is: 1674 km/h So the counterweight would need to be accelerated to 27955.8 km/h (an additional 26,282 km/hour from the starting velocity at the base station) The next step would be to calculate how many pounds of rocket fuel it would take to accelerate a 1kg of mass to 27955 km/hr. Otherwise the counterweight will continue to get more and more crooked as mass is elevated up the cable.

I was so surprised to see that explanation, that I looked up how lightning works to reassure myself that that isn't the standard explanation.

It isn't, but the explanation I found still says " the method of cloud charging still remains elusive" (http://science.howstuffworks.com/lightning.htm), and goes on to talk about a charge between cloud and earth, and "break down" of the air. They don't mention rain and they seem less convinced of their explanation than I do about mine so here it is:

How I thought lightning works:
Falling water droplets tend to lose electrons (this is why waterfalls produce the same euphoric feeling that negative ion generators do, according to their manuals), leaving negatively charged air above the rain. The falling positively charged droplets can then provide a path for the negative charge, so that rather than making a huge jump through the air, the charge "leaders" make a large number of very short jumps.

I probably shouldn't base my scientific knowledge on negative ion generator manuals, but when other sources say "actually we don't really know...", I tend to trust my own ideas. I probably also shouldn't use slashdot to field those ideas...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.ht m

>> 2. Lots of 3 prong outlets.

Consider makiing one of those outlets a ground-fault circuit interrupter. If the outlets are wired in a series, you only need one for the entire group. Unless you're close to the panel, I would recommend getting the GFCI outlets and not the breakers.

This will protect you from defective equipment from the customer and the occasional coffee spill.

That is exactly what I was thinking. If you need compressed gas for it to work where is the enegry coming from to compress it? I doubt any hand operated device will produce any results. If the system were engine driven and the vortex tube is so inefficent, then why not just use an engine to drive a compressor? Better yet run a generator to run a real more efficent refrigeration system? Maybe even a solar array to do away with fuel costs. the only benefit this presents is the elimination of moving parts so it is cheap and easy to produce. but then again getting compressed gas requires a device with moving parts that will be more costly and wear out over time.

And on another note there is a method of refrigeration that does not use any moving parts and works on gas(or anything that will burn I guess). Maybe this can also work with a solar mirror array?

ha!
That is nothing compared to the 256 GB USB disk from AtomChip(c) corporation!

Of course it is available only with the 6.8 Ghz computer!

You will get better quality from CCD sensors than CMOS ones, all other things being equal.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question362.h tm

I'd ask for six bullets. Why would you want to risk getting the empty chamber?

Okay, good idea, but I say 3 should do it. You can position the cylinder such that you think the hammer will strike the round in the center (the middle one). If you're off by more than one chamber then you either;
1. don't know how a revolver works and thus shouldn't be handling one.
or
2. weren't really trying, in which case you shouldn't bother going and being all dramatic and stuff. You could accidentally hurt yourself or someone else.

My $00.02, thanks for playing.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/ces20047.htm

And it's the exact same on as the one on this page, except that this one says "Photo courtesy CES". I bet AtomChips took the picture for CES and CES thought it was so good that it bought the rights to it.

I'll bite (even though #13486116 was funnier, I think he was probably meaning to reply to my sly comment...)

You never heard of Renewable Energy? It IS being used y'know... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy/

Or how about Hybrid Cars, eh? At least its a start. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car.htm

What I can't understand is why these aren't more available :(

DugUK

Sure looks like he didn't take his good time on researching carbon-14 and find out that to date dino-bones we aren't using carbon-14 that much.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm

Hard-core Christians complain that we aren't researching their opinions, but I see way too much that it is the same the other way around. If you believe in Carbon-14 then you have to agree that the other science behind the chemistry also works. And in that case that argument for the age of dinosaurs so fall apart for those Christians.

(Disclaimer: I believe in God, Jesus, and Science - The Bible has good things but it is too man made and narrow minded towards the real world, IMHO)

I gave up coffee about a year ago for health reasons. Mostly because I have a history of heart disease and diabetis in my family. I don't honestly know if coffee will increase my risk of those, but I figured caffiene is still a stimulant, I'm addicted to it.. so lets cut it out of my diet just for the heck of it.

So this article isn't without a bit of irony :)

Anyway the other day I was going on 3 hours of sleep so I decided to make myself a cup a coffee and I became curious as to the calorie content of a cup of black coffee, assuming there are any calories in black coffee. I came across this page:

http://www.dietbites.com/CalorieIndexDrinks.html

I'm not sure how reliable it is... but it claims that coffee renders Vitamin B inactive. Not being a nutritionalist or a doctor I did a bit of research on what the B vitamins are good for and found out that they're pretty essential.

According to this page: http://home.howstuffworks.com/vitamin-b.htm

"The B-complex vitamins are actually a group of eight vitamins, which include thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), pyridoxine (B6), folic acid (B9), cyanocobalamin (B12), pantothenic acid and biotin. These vitamins are essential for:

        * The breakdown of carbohydrates into glucose (this provides energy for the body)
        * The breakdown of fats and proteins (which aids the normal functioning of the nervous system)
        * Muscle tone in the stomach and intestinal tract
        * Skin
        * Hair
        * Eyes
        * Mouth
        * Liver"

So .. while the article may have some truth to it, it seems like it's a pretty big trade off. You gain some anti-oxidants but you lose your Vitamin B and Calcium absorption .. which really sucks.

It's new compared to conventional weapons. The problem most non-lethal technology is the fact that it's: a) Easier and cheaper to simply kill someone b) Bigger logistics footprint with non-lethal technology c) More energy required for effective non-lethals There is a demand for them, but the technology must first overcome engineering, legal, and support issues. As for the XADS, it seems nothing more than a fancy Van De Graaff http://science.howstuffworks.com/vdg.htm

Personally, I got more useful understanding out of this article at howstuffworks:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/plasma-displa y.htm

Everthing I know I learned here

Ever see a Diesel Locomotive?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question481.htm

I'm assuming you all have seen this [www.howstuffworks.com] already, but may I use it now as a point in the discussion at hand? Would it now be considered viral marketing on Lucasfilm's part to place a lightsaber how-to in an otherwise factually sound encyclopediac (sp?) site, or yet just another clever application of geek humor? Should our feelings on this Wiki entry == feelings about the HSW article?


--btw, I am a StarWars fan, and would love to get my hands on some Diatium power cells if given the chance!

Longer Explanation: One of the issues with this is the nature of a diesel engine. Diesels do not use spark plugs, but rely on the heat of the cylinder, combined with the heat generated by compressing the fuel-air mixture to produce combustion. When the engine is cold, small heated coils (glow plugs, like toaster wires sort of) add the needed ignition. This often means that a colder diesel engine takes some time to start. This is also why semis typically don't shut down their engines when they stop momentarily. This might be very problematic for a hybrid, where the diesel engine could be totally cold, then immediately needed due to demand.

Another explanation of diesel engines

My guess is CVTs are unlikely to become standard. Because in the near future, most cars that are driven with electric motors are likely to only require one gear ratio.

People talk about diesel cars being more efficient than hybrid petrol cars. Well, maybe they should start using diesel for hybrid cars. It's proven tech - it's already been done for years with trains. After that maybe there would be hydrocarbon fuel-cells (unless someone figures out some sort of "desktop" cold-fusion type of tech).

I'm guessing you have a Vue or a Civic or something -- a car with a normal drivetrain. In that case, you're right about the CVT efficiency. However, the CVT in the Prius is different because it doesn't use pulleys at all. Instead it uses a planetary gearset, which has all the advantages of a CVT and also all of the advantages of normal gears. It's too bad it's specific to the design of the hybrid system; I wish all automatics were like this.

I still prefer my stick shift, though!

... and based on a 37ft dia dish, 20,000 count we're talking 21,504,183 sqft of total collector area. Divide that into 500,000,000W, the projected peak output of the installation, and you end up with around 23W per sqft.

Typical solar panels give about 70 mW/sq.in, which equates to about 10 W/sq.ft.

It goes to show how much energy can be lost in absorption processes compared to reflective.

Wrong and Right

The top gear isn't necessarily the most fuel efficient.

Remember it's not just how many revolutions the crankshaft is making, but also how much fuel per revolution is being put in (how far the accelerator is depressed)

It all depends on what type of car you drive, in a small light aerodynamic car, as you go faster, the point at which the extra power needed to push air out of the way is greater than the extra efficiency gained by going further for a fixed amount of power required to overcome the engines friction is a much higher speed than that of a large heavy american style car.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

Hell, you didn't even need a mod chip. There was an add-on called the Game Wizard that plugged into the parallel port at the back of the PS1 that also offered the ability to play copied and import CDs, along with a few other utilities:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/gadget224.htm

P.

Ya learn something every day - thanks. I had always thought the shuttle pilot was just a backup for the landing computers, but that's not true. It appears that the landing computers give up control at 25 miles out.

Copyright has some very loose grey areas in the arena of performance. That's why college a capella groups get away with what they do. But performance is different from recording. The moment a group goes to record and or distribute, then things change and rights must be negotiated, even for interpreted covers.

This is completely incorrect. Performance royalties are covered through tracking by "the big three." Namely, ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC (it's complicated, but is well-explained here).

Covers are under mechincal royalty licenses, and cannot be controlled. Once a song has been published (which remains the writer's perogative), then a cover song can be made using the government-mandated royalty rate (currently it's, I believe, $.08 per copy for songs under five minutes, or $.0155 per minute per copy for song covers over five minutes, whichever is greater). Artists cannot, in fact, block covers of their songs for any reason. You can read more about making cover songs here.

The only way a cover could be blocked is if it's being translated into another medium (by that I mean synced to video, in which case the original artist must be compensated through a completely negotiable licensing agreement).

Really, the entire system is insane.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-injection.htm

Once humans stop natural selection and start applying our own standards of selection, camoflauge becomes a neutral trait: we, not camoflauge, protect the flock or the field.

A quick glance at wikipedia's article and on howstuffworks shows just why Stirling Engines won't be replacing car ACs anytime soon.


--
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org :
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing and Pong! the Movie !

Yeah, it's kinda hard to read it when it's slashdotted -it would've been nice if the submitter had included the phase "map showing that he was issued a ticket for going one way down a two way street."

As for speeding, yeah, it's a great revenue source since people are impatient, but it is a highly dangerous activity - KE grows with the square of the speed, American roads are 11 inches compared to the Autobahn's 29 - they're not made to be driven at high speeds by people who don't even know the rules.

The combined effects of the speed limit and speed cameras produced a 91% reduction in accidents in the study area.

Fuel economy is another reason to drive 55.

"Hillary Clinton (who makes ~$162k http://people.howstuffworks.com/question449.htm) has decided that it's in her best interest to waste her time (and our tax dollars). I'm sure that the FTC has better things to do than to investigate RockStar Entertainment..."

Perhaps the next version of GTA should instruct its gameplayers on how to turn a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into more than $100,000 in profit without any knowledge of that investment...or even better...how to shoot a person in the head, put the gun in the wrong hand, drag the body through a forest, dump it, and then have the law enforcement professionals deem it a suicide. I'm just saying! :)

Or maybe just a GTA game involving making contributions to elected officials to get what you ultimately want legally.

Hopefully, Take Two/Rockstar and possibly the ESA itself can give some campaign contributions to anyone running against Hillary for her Senate seat. Maybe Ralph Nader can jump into the race and shave off 2% of *her* votes... :)

In other news...

Hillary Clinton (who makes ~$162k http://people.howstuffworks.com/question449.htm) has decided that it's in her best interest to waste her time (and our tax dollars). I'm sure that the FTC has better things to do than to investigate RockStar Entertainment... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4682533.stm

wow... that's so wrong.

resistance is like the size of a pipe that water is flowing through, consider voltage like water pressure and the current like the flow of the water. the smaller the pipe is, the more pressure you need to pass the water through at the same speed.

For the next blurb to make sense, I need to say that while transformers step up Voltage, the power calc is the same on both sides of it (V*I on one side == V*I on other side)

Power lines are actually really low impedance (resistance in AC) wires, but due to their astounding length they have pretty high resistance. To reduce power loss in power lines, the electrical companies step up the Voltage using a transformer. They do this because if you up the voltage in the middle step, (the power lines) the loss in power is much less, as the current delivered to the end user is much less than that going through the lines.

Thus ends your /. tutorial on power line transmission. For more basic information, along with images, check the howstuffworks article on power distrobution: http://science.howstuffworks.com/power.htm

Estimating 131 billion gallons of gasoline used per year in the United States, a total cost of the Iraq war to date of $181 billion over two years--that comes out to $0.69 per gallon.

It might also help the U.S. trade deficit (just over just over $50 billion per month) if you weren't importing 2.4 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East (at $50 per barrel, that's $3.6 billion per month).

"Fuel cels are a good idea for any kind of fuel."

Eh?

How do you convert ethanol (any non hydrogen fuel) into hydrogen in order to power the fuel cell?

I'll tell you. You use a stage called the reformer stage which produces hydrogen for the fuel cell itself, plus CO2. This reformation stage however destroys the overall efficiency of the cell, generally bringing it screaming back down to similar levels to an internal combustion engine, marginally better, about 25%.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm

Meanwhile... The restrictive Carnot cycle allows CCGTs to reach 60% efficiency.

He's referring to the octane rating of gasoline.

First link in google: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm

We need more Ozone way up in the sky. Near earth it is bad as it creates smog. A link for you: http://science.howstuffworks.com/ozone-pollution.h tm

Here you go

The ammonia-absorption cycle has been used for nearly 100 years in refrigerators powered by heat.

I think the downside is that leaking ammonia is capable of catching fire. That, and ammonia is used to make everything from fertilizer to explosives to crystal meth. Widespread knowledge of its versatility is discouraged.

Here's one you can make yourself.

Here's a link to a prototype in France that will go 200Km on a fill up.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=ai r-car.htm&url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/22 81011.stm
It doesn't actually use liquid nitrogen, because the maker is including an electric compressor that you can plug in overnight (or at work) and fill up the car overnight.

But I think liguid nitrogen is the eventual way to go. Nitrogen is inert, relatively easy to transport, and predictable in its expansion and compression. Who want's flake of frozen CO2 gumming up the works, for example.

The other big attractor for liguid nitrogen is it's ability to be used for bulk transport of energy from producer regions to user areas. North Dakota is often called the Saudi Arabia of Wind Energy, but no has figured out how to get the power from North Dakota to somewhere that people actually live. Liquid nitrogen could solve that. A pressurized pipeline could carry liquid nitrogen from collection areas in North Dakota to the the highly urbanized areas around Minneapolis. Liquid nitrogen could be stored for use in peak periods, provide direct airconditioning for large buildings, and even be used to generate electricity using an compressed air motor. Imagine a huge power plant whose only emission is cool nitrogen gas (which already makes up 70% of the atmosphere).

The only technological hurdles are transporting massive amounts of a supercooled/pressurized gas, which isn't anything too difficult to imagine. After all, we already move around a lot of oil and natural gas using pipelines, and liguid nitrogen has the advantage of being non-corrosive and non-flammable.

Rather than trying to make hydrogen out of natural gas, or from Nuke power, why not use the direct mechanical energy of wind power to mechanically compress air from the atmosphere and transfer that power without conversion losses? Plus, this would have the additional benefit of importing fresh, clean air from rural wind production areas to crowded urban areas that could really use it!

"In fact, it is well-known in the city that Mayor Michael Bloomberg rides the subway every day."

Mike: "First thing every morning, I wake up and go jogging before I take the subway to work."

"The mayor, who takes the subway from his upper East Side home to City Hall..."

Here is a Tablet PC with a monocrome screen. It comes with infinite battery life and one *free* paint application.

Agreed, in that instance the top gear rule I mentioned would take precedence. This is more general theory, as mentioned in an earlier post the specifics of these numbers will vary greatly between vehicles. But generally there is a public misconception that slower = better fuel economy; I'm just pointing out that it's not that simple and there are actual variables that can be measured to determine the most efficient speed and it's not as slow as most people think (top gear rule again). But that point where aerodynamic drag catches up with rolling friction absolutely plays a part in the most efficient speed. If you google around a bit you can find more information about the subject. Here's a site that explains it similar to the way I did:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

"people aren't aerodynamic" - depends on the bike I guess. On my YZF, when I'm in full tuck it's pretty aerodynamic. Also drag coefficients can be misleading, keep in mind it has to be multiplied by frontal surface area to get the actual drag - so while people might not be aerodynamic, they don't have a lot of surface area either compared to a car.

The second is one of seven SI base units. It is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at zero kelvins.

The definition is made in terms of the most accurate way we have of measuring it - with the atomic clock. There's a description of how they work here.

In the future the definition may change - there are developments to produce "optical clocks" which are more accurate even than atomic clocks. Read about them here or here (subscription required). Of course, any new definition will be chosen to be compatible with the previous definitions, to within the accuracy afforded by those definitions.

"Since any competent pen tester (or system administrator) with a need for these types of tools can write them, there is no reason for us to distribute them here."

Ah so, it is true then, Jedis do build their own light sabers.

Disclaimer: I've seen this link on /. before but I'm too lame to look for it.

Although it's not likely that this was a bad tap, afterall, why not capture packets at the ISP, rather than the bottom of the sea?

Carnivore for crabs anyone?

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/carnivore.htm

The Swash Plate Assembly is the key component.