Yeast converts sugars to carbon dioxide and alcohol.
One more time. Yeast converts sugars to carbon dioxide and alcohol.
Sugars come from starches such as grain flours and the like. The plants that produce the sugars/starches fix the carbon from the atmosphere using a magical process called photosynthesis. During this magical process the carbon dioxide in the air is converted to sugary molecules via the Calvin Cycle.
Obviously the process is complicated and takes a great deal of time, but the process itself is carbon neutral because all the carbon dioxide emitted was first fixed through a photosynthetic process.
This says nothing, however, about the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the fossil fuels used to heat the fires involved in the brewing process or the transportation of alcohol to the masses; not to mention the carbon dioxide emitted as the merry masses imbibe:-)
God forbid that we should stop drinking alcohol during troubled times!!!
I would recommend, as both accessible and highly enjoyable, "Journey Through Genius" by William Dunham. Also recommended is the fine historical account of the development of mathematics, "Mathematics and the Physical World" by Morris Kline. A good book for teaching students about problem solving is the very excellent "How to Solve It" by G. Polya.
I'm sure there are many more fine books for math students but these are my picks.
One additional comment: you should have the students read in groups and report what the read to the class;)
Here's the link to the Patent that describes the invention. Interestingly the patent is drawn to the process rather than the device/product/composition which would be a stronger patent (it's harder to prove someone is using your process to produce hydrogen, rather than your product to produce hydrogen). This is probably the case because the chemicals used are not unique or new but are rather being applied in a new way.
Serous health issues are always very personal. Even within ones family sometimes. It may be that he's most concerned about protecting his family from knowing that he's not all that well. Different circumstance dictate different degrees of disclosure but I bet this is what it is.
Say for example your in the market for a new home. You plan on spending $250K to $350k. You find a great house for $300K. --> 30 yr mortgage @ 5% is ~ $1610 per month. (bankrate.com/mortgage calc...) Now say you find decide to have a full solar array installed as part of the cost of your new home. Let's say your a real geek and decide to get the mother of all solar arrays for $50k. Your home now costs $350K --> 30 yr mortgage @ 5% is ~ $1880 per month. The difference is $270 per month. Loyd Case's March bill is $348.26 and his June bill is $11.34; that's a difference of ~$337. Your solarage may vary:-) Now you begin to see the real cost-as-a-percentage -of-your-home. Which is probably closer to zero even before consideration any grants/rebates/etc. from the government. (which is composed of oil zealots, by the way)
Since you have the MOASA you'll probably pay 0. You may decide to sell it the excess to your neighbors if possible. That's probably too much trouble. You being the uber geek that you are will probably decide to use those excess Kwh's to power you garage electrolyzer whereby producing your own hydrogen gas which powers you fuel cell car. And since you have finally achieved the uber uber geekdom that you have always aspired to you can live happily ever after.
Just a few years ago a large football-sized hole was discovered in the Davis-Besse Nuclear power plant. The plant was closed for two years to undergo repairs. This seems to indicate that the safety issues are still a major concern, at least for those living near a nuclear plant:?)
A nuclear plant designed to be much safer and more efficient seems to be the answer, however, I for one am still convinced that nuclear energy is not the panacea that proponents claim it to be. Nuclear waste sticks around for quite a while and taxpayer subsidies are vital to the industry (their is no nuclear industry without taxpayer subsidies). If we consider how long it takes to bring a new nuclear plant online (est. 5-10 years), then the prospects seem even more grim.
Bring into consideration the prospects of a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists and the prospects for expansion of the nuclear industry seem more and more gloomy...
With renewable energy coming into favor as fuel prices continue to rise it's just a matter of time before clean renewable energies from solar, biomass, wind, etc. are cost competitive with nuclear. What will happen when nuclear plants are made obsolete by new technology??? We can be assured that the nuclear industry won't be around when that happens. The US tax payers, who are subsidizing the industry in the first place, will be left with the bill...
We are at the cusp of a new generation of technology that people cannot imagine. Faith is needed to support the research in physics/chemistry/biology/mathematics/computer science/engineering that will make commercialization of this technology possible. Supporting known, antiquated technology of the past is the easy way out. Keep the faith and call you congress person and tell them to support the education of future scientist/engineers/mathematicians. The money it takes to empower the next Einstein is pennies compared to the cost of a single nuclear plant. Keep the faith...
Slashdot Mirror
They're in need of some serious help here. Ok Microsoft, I feel so bad for your social ineptitude that this one's for free.
Windows 7 themed jello shots, strippers and potato cannons.
...strippers with Windows 7 themed jubblies. So hideous...but I cannot look away :)
$$$$ 13,000 Cash Cabs $$$$
Cash Cab
Yeast converts sugars to carbon dioxide and alcohol.
One more time. Yeast converts sugars to carbon dioxide and alcohol.
Sugars come from starches such as grain flours and the like. The plants that produce the sugars/starches fix the carbon from the atmosphere using a magical process called photosynthesis. During this magical process the carbon dioxide in the air is converted to sugary molecules via the Calvin Cycle.
Obviously the process is complicated and takes a great deal of time, but the process itself is carbon neutral because all the carbon dioxide emitted was first fixed through a photosynthetic process.
This says nothing, however, about the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the fossil fuels used to heat the fires involved in the brewing process or the transportation of alcohol to the masses; not to mention the carbon dioxide emitted as the merry masses imbibe :-)
God forbid that we should stop drinking alcohol during troubled times!!!
I would recommend, as both accessible and highly enjoyable, "Journey Through Genius" by William Dunham. Also recommended is the fine historical account of the development of mathematics, "Mathematics and the Physical World" by Morris Kline. A good book for teaching students about problem solving is the very excellent "How to Solve It" by G. Polya.
I'm sure there are many more fine books for math students but these are my picks.
One additional comment: you should have the students read in groups and report what the read to the class ;)
Let's not forget that Lithium only has 3 electrons, 2s1 and 1s2. With this is mind it's not all that surprising.
Here's the link to the Patent that describes the invention. Interestingly the patent is drawn to the process rather than the device/product/composition which would be a stronger patent (it's harder to prove someone is using your process to produce hydrogen, rather than your product to produce hydrogen). This is probably the case because the chemicals used are not unique or new but are rather being applied in a new way.
Serous health issues are always very personal. Even within ones family sometimes. It may be that he's most concerned about protecting his family from knowing that he's not all that well. Different circumstance dictate different degrees of disclosure but I bet this is what it is.
This is not necessarily the case...
Say for example your in the market for a new home. You plan on spending $250K to $350k. You find a great house for $300K. --> 30 yr mortgage @ 5% is ~ $1610 per month. (bankrate.com/mortgage calc...) Now say you find decide to have a full solar array installed as part of the cost of your new home. Let's say your a real geek and decide to get the mother of all solar arrays for $50k. Your home now costs $350K --> 30 yr mortgage @ 5% is ~ $1880 per month. The difference is $270 per month. Loyd Case's March bill is $348.26 and his June bill is $11.34; that's a difference of ~$337. Your solarage may vary :-) Now you begin to see the real cost-as-a-percentage -of-your-home. Which is probably closer to zero even before consideration any grants/rebates/etc. from the government. (which is composed of oil zealots, by the way)
Since you have the MOASA you'll probably pay 0. You may decide to sell it the excess to your neighbors if possible. That's probably too much trouble. You being the uber geek that you are will probably decide to use those excess Kwh's to power you garage electrolyzer whereby producing your own hydrogen gas which powers you fuel cell car. And since you have finally achieved the uber uber geekdom that you have always aspired to you can live happily ever after.
enufsaid.
Just a few years ago a large football-sized hole was discovered in the Davis-Besse Nuclear power plant. The plant was closed for two years to undergo repairs. This seems to indicate that the safety issues are still a major concern, at least for those living near a nuclear plant :?)
A nuclear plant designed to be much safer and more efficient seems to be the answer, however, I for one am still convinced that nuclear energy is not the panacea that proponents claim it to be. Nuclear waste sticks around for quite a while and taxpayer subsidies are vital to the industry (their is no nuclear industry without taxpayer subsidies). If we consider how long it takes to bring a new nuclear plant online (est. 5-10 years), then the prospects seem even more grim.
Bring into consideration the prospects of a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists and the prospects for expansion of the nuclear industry seem more and more gloomy...
With renewable energy coming into favor as fuel prices continue to rise it's just a matter of time before clean renewable energies from solar, biomass, wind, etc. are cost competitive with nuclear. What will happen when nuclear plants are made obsolete by new technology??? We can be assured that the nuclear industry won't be around when that happens. The US tax payers, who are subsidizing the industry in the first place, will be left with the bill...
We are at the cusp of a new generation of technology that people cannot imagine. Faith is needed to support the research in physics/chemistry/biology/mathematics/computer science/engineering that will make commercialization of this technology possible. Supporting known, antiquated technology of the past is the easy way out. Keep the faith and call you congress person and tell them to support the education of future scientist/engineers/mathematicians. The money it takes to empower the next Einstein is pennies compared to the cost of a single nuclear plant. Keep the faith...