Are you trying to be deliberately dim? The section removed only contains the registers to control the gfx chip as there are restrictions on their release, everything else is there. Hardly very restrictive.
They have provided the spec sheet for the RPi SoC, it just has the gfx chip section removed (see the RPi blog). So hardly very different to the chip on the board you just wrote about.
Anyone who can't think of a use for these boards is lacking a serious amount of imagination.
1) Educational tool 2) Media center 3) Robotics controller (CNC tools, experimental robots) 4) Homebrew NAS 5) Cheap linux box 6) Point of sale machines 7) Disposable computer for test industries
and that was 1 minutes thought.
So many uses it's stupid...and the reason it is so damn useful is that it will be have good support and it is so damn cheap for the power you get.
Actually if you have ever ordered from Farnell and RS, you'll find that the shipping charge is about typical, especially for orders that require airfreight. Our company has accounts with both of them.
Re item 1) the tax is on individual components in the EU, but apparently excludes assembled PCBs. Hence (ignore also higher labour rates etc) it is more expensive to assemble the RPIs in the EU then get them made in china and shipped back. They spelled this out clearly on the blog. Its a stupid situation and one they have taken up with the UK minister for business.
enenews isn't exactly an unbiased source, it is heavily anti-nuclear. They regularly post cherry picked information from scientists who form very much the minority views. Given that the TMI accident was in 1979, ~33 years ago, any significant rises in observable cancers should already been apparent. I've encountered no evidence that this is the case.
God forbid you might like to use the board to teach C, C++, perl, python, pascal, BASIC,..... this thing is designed for kids in a classroom and for use at home on the TV.It is designed to be dirt cheap so breaking one isn't going to be a problem.
No-one said passive systems were easy, in fact they are quite difficult to design and required modern computational power to produce. That is the stark difference between the old designs and the new designs such as the AP1000 - computing power. We can now model the nuclear, thermal, chemical and structural processes to a degree that was impossible when the first and second generation nuclear designs were produced. This is one of the reasons we can much more confident in the generation III+ reactors.
I'm astonished you compared averages and attempted to use this to backup your argument. Go and have a look at the distribution of power produced by each of those coal plants. You'll see that the majority of the 42% comes from a few large scale coal plants, equivalent in scale to the nuclear installations.
Nuclear power would be great if humans didn't have irrational fear about things there don't bother to understand. If reactor construction had not stopped after the Chernobyl disaster, very few of these old, crappy designs would still be in use. Most of the problems in the modern nuclear industry are related to ancient systems that have had their lives extended due to the lack of replacement plant.
One thing you have to bare in mind is a lot of companies are utterly allergic to spending more money on something than they have to - they want to know they are passing the standard at minimal cost, rather than risking spending money on something that may be unnecessary - one reason all the standards have a good margin of safety. As a tesla could not meet the standard, it would not realistically be considered. A cheap LCR circuit, a charge pump and a solid state switch would cost a similar amount and do exactly what they want.
Generally, you will find that the low-level surge testing is done in-house during development, especially by the larger electronics companies. This would be the wack it, smell it test (or more precisely - measure to see if any inboard transients occur that will damage stuff you want kept alive). We cater for the higher threat level requirements where the cost of the test equipment starts to become prohibitive and the test experience is of significant value (we advise on mitigation). Even for this aspect of lightning testing Tesla coils are ill-suited. Contact ESD, surge and coupled transients all have well defined standards (all derived from experimental measurements of typical threats) which a Tesla would not be able to correctly produce.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't see how useful a commodity, tiny form factor computer (with great connectivity) that costs throw away money is then I really pity you.
Are you trying to be deliberately dim? The section removed only contains the registers to control the gfx chip as there are restrictions on their release, everything else is there. Hardly very restrictive.
They have provided the spec sheet for the RPi SoC, it just has the gfx chip section removed (see the RPi blog). So hardly very different to the chip on the board you just wrote about.
Anyone who can't think of a use for these boards is lacking a serious amount of imagination.
1) Educational tool
2) Media center
3) Robotics controller (CNC tools, experimental robots)
4) Homebrew NAS
5) Cheap linux box
6) Point of sale machines
7) Disposable computer for test industries
and that was 1 minutes thought.
So many uses it's stupid...and the reason it is so damn useful is that it will be have good support and it is so damn cheap for the power you get.
Actually if you have ever ordered from Farnell and RS, you'll find that the shipping charge is about typical, especially for orders that require airfreight. Our company has accounts with both of them.
Wow, so bitter...did they bugger up a business plan of yours Mr AC?
Re item 1) the tax is on individual components in the EU, but apparently excludes assembled PCBs. Hence (ignore also higher labour rates etc) it is more expensive to assemble the RPIs in the EU then get them made in china and shipped back. They spelled this out clearly on the blog. Its a stupid situation and one they have taken up with the UK minister for business.
Well the solution is rather obvious, just keep turning it on and off again. You don't need to travel in one jump. No build up, no problem.
enenews isn't exactly an unbiased source, it is heavily anti-nuclear. They regularly post cherry picked information from scientists who form very much the minority views. Given that the TMI accident was in 1979, ~33 years ago, any significant rises in observable cancers should already been apparent. I've encountered no evidence that this is the case.
Have you been in a coma for the last 30 years?
Composite aircraft structures are generally x-rayed and/or ultrasound imaged to check there are no voids or defects before they are used.
God forbid you might like to use the board to teach C, C++, perl, python, pascal, BASIC,..... this thing is designed for kids in a classroom and for use at home on the TV.It is designed to be dirt cheap so breaking one isn't going to be a problem.
Bullcrap, why don't you go and watch the video of it being demo on their website. It's running an ARM version of ubuntu.
No-one said passive systems were easy, in fact they are quite difficult to design and required modern computational power to produce. That is the stark difference between the old designs and the new designs such as the AP1000 - computing power. We can now model the nuclear, thermal, chemical and structural processes to a degree that was impossible when the first and second generation nuclear designs were produced. This is one of the reasons we can much more confident in the generation III+ reactors.
I'm astonished you compared averages and attempted to use this to backup your argument. Go and have a look at the distribution of power produced by each of those coal plants. You'll see that the majority of the 42% comes from a few large scale coal plants, equivalent in scale to the nuclear installations.
indeed :P
wow so many typos today... there = they.
Nuclear power would be great if humans didn't have irrational fear about things there don't bother to understand. If reactor construction had not stopped after the Chernobyl disaster, very few of these old, crappy designs would still be in use. Most of the problems in the modern nuclear industry are related to ancient systems that have had their lives extended due to the lack of replacement plant.
I think you missed the sarcasm.
Great pictures, they remind me of the ITER construction site. I love heavy engineering.
Ignoring the massive earthquake, tsunami and the ancient reactor design of course...
Good. Glad to see a the US pushing ahead with a new generation of nuclear reactors. I hope we remain committed in the UK.
+1 funny
One thing you have to bare in mind is a lot of companies are utterly allergic to spending more money on something than they have to - they want to know they are passing the standard at minimal cost, rather than risking spending money on something that may be unnecessary - one reason all the standards have a good margin of safety. As a tesla could not meet the standard, it would not realistically be considered. A cheap LCR circuit, a charge pump and a solid state switch would cost a similar amount and do exactly what they want.
Generally, you will find that the low-level surge testing is done in-house during development, especially by the larger electronics companies. This would be the wack it, smell it test (or more precisely - measure to see if any inboard transients occur that will damage stuff you want kept alive). We cater for the higher threat level requirements where the cost of the test equipment starts to become prohibitive and the test experience is of significant value (we advise on mitigation). Even for this aspect of lightning testing Tesla coils are ill-suited. Contact ESD, surge and coupled transients all have well defined standards (all derived from experimental measurements of typical threats) which a Tesla would not be able to correctly produce.