They are not splitting water at all. They are just encouraging individual H atoms (H+ ions, or basically protons) to combine into H2 molecules.
Normally, even pure water has a whole lot of individual H+ ions floating around in it, and the same number of OH- ions. Those H+ don't combine into H2 because that would require extra electrons, which are stuck in the OH- ions. That's why you can create H2 using an electric current which delivers the missing electrons so the H can pair up. (This doesn't work very efficiently in pure water, but a bit of catalyst helps a lot.)
Acidic solutions have more H+ (along with negative ions from the acid, like for example HSO4-), basic solutions have less H+ (and more OH-)
Apparently the researchers are using a basic solution (high pH, lots of OH- and less H+), and then using photons to liberate electrons from the OH- to allow H+ to combine into H2.
This works best in a basic solution because the problem is not so much the number of H+, but rather the number of OH- ions that can be persuaded to give up an electron by nudging them with a photon. In an acidic solution, most of the eligible electrons are stuck in the negative ions from the acid which are much more possessive of their electrons.
The big novelty is apparently that they can get the OH- to give electrons to the H+ and let them combine into H2, rather than combining back into H2O.
Why would sensors and IoT devices use more power than a calculator of old?
Because nowadays even the simplest device has to run Linux. Engineers who knew how to make a simple and efficient calculator without some high level resource-intensive OS appear to have gone extinct.
I sure hope these will be balloon based (like little airships), making no noise. Otherwise they will hopefully be banned very quickly. An Amazon delivery drone is one thing, but a continuously flying noisy drone providing cell service is quite another.
Do they also take into account the energy required to produce fossil fuel? It's not like gasoline comes out of the ground ready to pour into a car.
The calculation they are probably doing is:
(energy to produce hydrogen or electricity for 100 km) / (energy in a liter of gasoline)
What they should do is take that figure and then divide it by (energy to produce one liter of gasoline + energy in a liter of gasoline) / (energy in a liter of gasoline).
I bet you'll get a much lower figure then (for both hydrogen and electric cars).
It's crazy that half the weight of a 2-ton pure EV is its batteries (with current technology) just to give it a barely acceptable range (followed by several hours to recharge).
Most owners of electric cars let it charge at home overnight, or at work, and they usually only use a fraction of the available battery capacity. The only time charging time is an issue is when you're making a long trip, and then a Tesla supercharger will fill you up from empty in about an hour. Not several hours.
Some of the smaller, cheaper electric cars do have anemic range (and long charging times), but they are hardly the state of the art. And even they do just fine for many city dwellers who don't need more than that.
We have plenty of renewable sources for electricity in Europe, and getting more each day. Sure, the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine and the water doesn't always flow, but it sure does reduce the amount of coal and natural gas required. And fortunately a few countries still have enough intelligence to invest in nuclear power (rather than keeping aging nuclear plants running way past their projected life time, hoping they don't blow up some day).
Anyway, the amount of energy required to simply produce the fuel for a regular ICE car (before burning the fuel!) is about the same as that required to recharge an electric vehicle to drive the same distance. So when you've filled up your gas car, you've already lost the comparison and you haven't even burnt the stuff yet.
I don't have the numbers for hydrogen cars, but I hear most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels since hydrolysis is way too inefficient to be cost-effective, so it will probably be in the same ball park if not worse. OK, at least it doesn't cause local pollution anymore, but as far as our reliance on fossil fuels is concerned, it's hardly an improvement.
It didn't sound very "happy" when I tried that, but it does indeed comply. Around 140 km/h was the point where even the tiniest bit of acceleration provoked lots of noise with very high rpms. Fuel consumption higher than my old Mercedes, too. If you like to drive fast, don't buy a Prius for the environment's sake. If you do a lot of city driving, though, they are pretty good.
Yes, the whole mission is ready to go, but we just need someone to unblock the funds, you could help us out by sending a small sum to Nigeria via Western Union and then we'll give you a 50% cut in the proceeds!
Actually, it doesn't surprise me that cattails are so good for batteries. Did you ever stroke a cat during very dry weather? Sparks come off after just a few strokes. Excellent battery material! I missed my calling to become a scientist...
I don't get it. I thought the whole idea was that a hash was quick to calculate, but it was hard to find a nonce that yielded a correct hash since there are so many nonces to try. So once your approximate hardware finds a nonce, why don't you just check it on a regular processor before sending it to the network? Sending off a possibly bad block to the network seems like a lazy (not to say sleazy) thing to do.
Hey, I've got an even better idea to increase profits: just send loads of random blocks to the network. All the miners will be too busy checking your incorrect blocks to do any mining themselves and at some point you're bound to stumble onto a correct block!
Recent models can measure rotations as well as accelerations. The gyroscopes do drift a little bit, but the orientation vector is kept aligned in the long term using average acceleration (gravity), GPS position changes (horizontal speed vector direction), and the built-in compass (not very accurate, but it helps).
Anyway, I doubt these researchers were using an iPhone, they probably had much better (and more expensive) sensors.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not fossil fuel, the Lord placed it there to fool us into thinking it came from fossils. It's Holy Fuel!
Hey, I've written software that uses libraries that are used by the CIA!
Just to name one: the standard C library.
I hope you're right, but I wouldn't say the US is "too smart" to vote for Trump. After all, they elected George W Bush not once but twice!
They are not splitting water at all. They are just encouraging individual H atoms (H+ ions, or basically protons) to combine into H2 molecules.
Normally, even pure water has a whole lot of individual H+ ions floating around in it, and the same number of OH- ions. Those H+ don't combine into H2 because that would require extra electrons, which are stuck in the OH- ions. That's why you can create H2 using an electric current which delivers the missing electrons so the H can pair up. (This doesn't work very efficiently in pure water, but a bit of catalyst helps a lot.)
Acidic solutions have more H+ (along with negative ions from the acid, like for example HSO4-), basic solutions have less H+ (and more OH-)
Apparently the researchers are using a basic solution (high pH, lots of OH- and less H+), and then using photons to liberate electrons from the OH- to allow H+ to combine into H2.
This works best in a basic solution because the problem is not so much the number of H+, but rather the number of OH- ions that can be persuaded to give up an electron by nudging them with a photon. In an acidic solution, most of the eligible electrons are stuck in the negative ions from the acid which are much more possessive of their electrons.
The big novelty is apparently that they can get the OH- to give electrons to the H+ and let them combine into H2, rather than combining back into H2O.
If you lived on Titan, you might see things the other way around.
Why would sensors and IoT devices use more power than a calculator of old?
Because nowadays even the simplest device has to run Linux. Engineers who knew how to make a simple and efficient calculator without some high level resource-intensive OS appear to have gone extinct.
These AIs are certainly going to be very suspicious of butlers.
Elon probably just forgot a decoupler somewhere so he clicked "revert to vehicle assembly".
Or maybe the staging sequence got messed up, although they should have been able to fix that on the launch pad.
Why do you need a moon for life to exist? Because otherwise women can't menstruate?
Sure, the moon has some useful effects for life (tides,...), but it doesn't really seem to be a requirement.
I sure hope these will be balloon based (like little airships), making no noise. Otherwise they will hopefully be banned very quickly. An Amazon delivery drone is one thing, but a continuously flying noisy drone providing cell service is quite another.
Make that four. Thanks for your contribution!
Do they also take into account the energy required to produce fossil fuel? It's not like gasoline comes out of the ground ready to pour into a car.
The calculation they are probably doing is:
(energy to produce hydrogen or electricity for 100 km) / (energy in a liter of gasoline)
What they should do is take that figure and then divide it by
(energy to produce one liter of gasoline + energy in a liter of gasoline) / (energy in a liter of gasoline).
I bet you'll get a much lower figure then (for both hydrogen and electric cars).
It's crazy that half the weight of a 2-ton pure EV is its batteries (with current technology) just to give it a barely acceptable range (followed by several hours to recharge).
Most owners of electric cars let it charge at home overnight, or at work, and they usually only use a fraction of the available battery capacity. The only time charging time is an issue is when you're making a long trip, and then a Tesla supercharger will fill you up from empty in about an hour. Not several hours.
Some of the smaller, cheaper electric cars do have anemic range (and long charging times), but they are hardly the state of the art. And even they do just fine for many city dwellers who don't need more than that.
We have plenty of renewable sources for electricity in Europe, and getting more each day. Sure, the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine and the water doesn't always flow, but it sure does reduce the amount of coal and natural gas required. And fortunately a few countries still have enough intelligence to invest in nuclear power (rather than keeping aging nuclear plants running way past their projected life time, hoping they don't blow up some day).
Anyway, the amount of energy required to simply produce the fuel for a regular ICE car (before burning the fuel!) is about the same as that required to recharge an electric vehicle to drive the same distance. So when you've filled up your gas car, you've already lost the comparison and you haven't even burnt the stuff yet.
I don't have the numbers for hydrogen cars, but I hear most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels since hydrolysis is way too inefficient to be cost-effective, so it will probably be in the same ball park if not worse. OK, at least it doesn't cause local pollution anymore, but as far as our reliance on fossil fuels is concerned, it's hardly an improvement.
It didn't sound very "happy" when I tried that, but it does indeed comply. Around 140 km/h was the point where even the tiniest bit of acceleration provoked lots of noise with very high rpms. Fuel consumption higher than my old Mercedes, too. If you like to drive fast, don't buy a Prius for the environment's sake. If you do a lot of city driving, though, they are pretty good.
Yes, the whole mission is ready to go, but we just need someone to unblock the funds, you could help us out by sending a small sum to Nigeria via Western Union and then we'll give you a 50% cut in the proceeds!
Neither do cats.
Actually, it doesn't surprise me that cattails are so good for batteries. Did you ever stroke a cat during very dry weather? Sparks come off after just a few strokes. Excellent battery material! I missed my calling to become a scientist...
And when the pollen is from cattails, people with cat allergies will complain too. Not to mention PETA who will be up in arms as well.
Maybe his memory is not what it used to be.
I don't get it. I thought the whole idea was that a hash was quick to calculate, but it was hard to find a nonce that yielded a correct hash since there are so many nonces to try. So once your approximate hardware finds a nonce, why don't you just check it on a regular processor before sending it to the network? Sending off a possibly bad block to the network seems like a lazy (not to say sleazy) thing to do.
Hey, I've got an even better idea to increase profits: just send loads of random blocks to the network. All the miners will be too busy checking your incorrect blocks to do any mining themselves and at some point you're bound to stumble onto a correct block!
I am sure this is very novel concept in this galaxy.
Maybe that's why all those other more advanced civilisations in this galaxy got extinct already.
(Where is everybody?)
Four arms would create symmetry.
Better increase funding for deodorant research then.
Recent models can measure rotations as well as accelerations. The gyroscopes do drift a little bit, but the orientation vector is kept aligned in the long term using average acceleration (gravity), GPS position changes (horizontal speed vector direction), and the built-in compass (not very accurate, but it helps).
Anyway, I doubt these researchers were using an iPhone, they probably had much better (and more expensive) sensors.
As long as they get paid enough, get enough vacation,...