Are you denying that ZnO has to be obtained prior to introduction as a fuel? Are you denying that most Zinc Oxide is produced from refinement of Zinc ores? Are you denying that the process cannot produce a 100% efficient fuel recycling method? Are you denying that almost all mining and smelting of zinc ores produces large quantities of carbon dioxide? If your answer to all these is no, then the only thing I don't understand is what you're opposed to in my post.
Obtaining zinc in any form requires mining of the raw materials and smelting - large amounts of CO2 output. The laboratory phase of converting ZnFeS or ZNOH2 or even Zinc Silicate into Zinc and their substituent parts is the end of the process, not the beginning. Obtaining these in the first place is a messy, dirty process.
That being said, the prospect of the reactor itself re-processing resultant zinc into zinc oxide as additional fuel is exciting (the temperatures required are far lower than this reactor produces), allowing fuel-re-use (although not unlimited, as it would reduce each cycle, and more ZnO will always need to be obtained on an ongoing basis). While I'm not an expert at this particular reaction, experience in related fields suggests to me that only around 50% of the fuel could be reclaimed, or less. I could be wrong with this figure - hopefully so.
PS. I'm not opposed to the tech at all, and it's a great innovation - there should be far more R&D bucks spent on solar energy forms. It's the most abundant form of free no-cost energy we have, but difficult to convert from its high-entropy form into electricity. I'm just extremely used to people at the end of a chain saying "we have a great carbon-free form of energy here!", seeking investment $$$, when all the ingredients that go into making it require high carbon output - at least in their modern forms.
This is a prime example. Fact is, all industrial scale Zinc Oxide production release vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The fact you can use the resultant fuel relatively free of carbon output is a moot point to me - it's already been spent producing the product. It's like burning coal to produce electricity - yay, you have electricity which is carbon free! But no, it's not really, due to its production method.
If they have a means of producing industrial quantities of ZnO without releasing CO2, great. If they have a means of purifying the ore without releasing vast quantities of carbon and other chemicals into the air and water, great. They don't have either of these yet, and this tech won't be feasible until these exist. I believe they will one day, but until then this is just a hopeful blip on the radar of future possibilities.
Because Pushing-Robot apparently can't read, I've gone and done some investigation myself. From what I've been reading, it seems the most common method is by burning zinc ores or through carbothermal reduction to produce zinc vapor which then is mixed with oxygen to produce a zinc oxide runoff. These generally both produce large carbon output.
Using the device itself to burn zinc ore (in order to produce zinc vapor and additional fuel) will still produce carbon dioxide as a by-product. You need purified zinc to avoid this, and there are no clean purification methods.
The wet chemical process still results in zinc carbonate which needs to be heated to be refined to zinc oxide, releasing the carbon.
Laboratory production by electrolyzing a solution of sodium bicarbonate with a zinc anode produces useful zinc hydroxide and hydrogen gas. However carbon and sodium are released as waste.
Is there a way this can actually be produced without releasing carbon, or is this reactor just shifting the problem elsewhere like so many "green" solutions?
The article doesn't answer my question. Neither does your smarmy response. Its re-usability is limited, at which stage more has to be acquired. Additionally, it has to be refined before being recycled once more, so this will require energy as well. Unless you're putting in an increasingly weakening and inefficient fuel, recycling the ZnO without filtering and purification. Either way, you've got to introduce new ZnO at frequent intervals. Multiply this by thousand of these stations all over the world, and you've got a constant mining and refinement operation to supply this fuel. So - what's the carbon output of obtaining, refinement and purification of the Zinc Oxide?
It's sad when wrong responses get +5 mods just because people like to think by modding a smart-ass comment they're also somehow clever.
From what I understand, nothing binding. Neither in civil nor criminal cases. For example, in a criminal case a warrant in either country is grounds for arrest in the other, however the prosecuting nation has to then win an extradition trial and the plaintiff be extradited for trial there. For civil cases it's pretty much a one-way street, due to the nature of the US Free Trade agreements. The US can push but doesn't have to "take" anything. This is part of the cost of doing business in the US, and everyone else pretty much has to take it as the US is still currently the centre of business power and currency in the world.
The smaller a country, the more under pressure it is - NZ for example is highly reliant on US export trade for its very financial viability. That's why a 3-strikes rule has been successfully pushed through there by US media interests. In Australia, which is far less reliant on US export trade and does a large amount of its business with China, it's more resilient to strong-arm tactics, even at the government level.
But to answer your question - no. No ruling in NZ is binding in the US. An NZ court can't order US assets seized. The most a win in NZ does is help the prosecution case with material evidence if they ever proceed to trial in the US, however as far as legality is concerned, it has no direct impact in any US court.
As I'm not a kiwi, not sure how I'd test that. It was fresh on my mind as I'd read it recently, however I'm certain a quick Googling could find you some others, as I likewise have read hundreds of such cases throughout the years. Even as a singular example, while you describe it as "high tech as a buggy whip", you'd have to admit that if Franmara actually had to get a physical example of it in order to rip it off, the method isn't as obvious as you'd first believe.
Yeah, he's won the court action in New Zealand - which unfortunately has no effect on sales of the product in the US at all. It's just an example to illustrate the point though. OP was making out that inventors actually standing up for their rights makes them "patent trolls". While patent trolls do exist, that doesn't mean that every time an inventor sues someone, they're "trolling".:)
Except, nobody else got it to work. If I make a combustion engine which runs on phlegm, I'm not exempt from a patent because both engines and phlegm already exist. They didn't merely describe it, they created the technology, and got it to work where nobody else did. If it was that "obvious", why had no other manufacturer previously solved the issues? Fact is, most manufacturers have accepted this patent. Some fought it in court, and all eventually settled or lost. It's legitimate.
PS. CSIRO isn't a "troll". It's the research organization which actually invented this tech, and have been trying to license it for the last decade. They've reached agreements with over 30 major manufacturers for prior licensing. This is about as far from "patent troll" as you can get. Real patent trolls - compaines who acquire patents and sit on them for years waiting for tech to be adopted so they can then sue everyone, deserve your disdain. CSIRO doesn't.
The only reason it's taken so long to get success for its patents is because it's in Australia - many US companies simply ignore patents from international companies because the cost of suing someone in the US is generally too high if you're overseas. US companies willfully ignore thousands of original invention patents originating internationally. Another great example is Franmara's "Champagne Xpress". It's a champagne bottle opener which was invented by a New Zealander, Bryce Stewart. It was patented in the US in 2003. Franmara CEO Frank Chiorazzi asked for a sample of the invention, then offered Bryce $2500 to license it. The offer was flatly refused - nevertheless, Franmara began manufacturing and selling them in the US. They're now popularly used in restaurants nationwide. The original inventor doesn't get see a cent of the procedes from his invention or patent, and it's very difficult for a NZer to procede with a lawsuit against a major US company, despite obvious patent theft.
Realise, patent theft does occur, and trolls are not always the victims. In both cases above, the original inventors are, still holders of their original patents.
It's nothing to do with "standards" at all. It's solely about technology which makes wifi work indoors without signal echo. They came up with the solution to the issue, patented it, then everyone else adapted it without licensing the technology. This is actually a perfect usage of patent and exactly what it's for.
They're not stopping the treatment. They're going to make megabucks off it.
>> Conflict of interest statement: S.J., M.P.C., R. Majeti, and I.L.W. filed U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/321,215 entitled “Methods for Manipulating Phagocytosis Mediated by CD47."
They've already applied for the patent for treating cancers in this way. If granted, 17 years of income for a cancer cure which they control the market on would make them a trillion dollars. Each. Although, they could just be patenting it to prevent anyone else patenting it, although naturally whomever funded the study is going to want a sizeable return on their investment and it's fair enough they get it.
Don't wait! It works great in DosBox and is still extremely playable.:) Also, WC4 CD edition works in DosBox as well, though not the DVD version (at least, I didn't get it working).
Eh, on most of the games except Wing Commander Prophecy (which was made for a broader audience), you generally did only just barely succeed. There were some missions which were nigh on impossible without getting lucky.:)
No, they didn't. EA has been generally permissive (as in, not pursuing the small but extremely active community) for WC fan games throughout the years, but a Slashdot feature may change that.:\
The CO2 levels don't match our CO2 output. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is several magnitudes higher than our output. If you're referring simply to the increase in CO2 levels matching our CO2 output, it doesn't either. Simplified graphics of arrows with numbers in them claiming to be representative of the worldwide CO2 release and capture, made by proponents of specific agenda, isn't factual. BTW, melting-ice caps release far more CO2 then most countries. So, are they melting because of man-made CO2 or is this circular? Will enough CO2 release trigger a cooling period and subsequent capture, as in previous geological periods?
Or, a simpler way of asking the question - are you claiming that if all man-made sources of CO2 were removed, would the planet no longer go through warming/cooling cycles as it did before man existed? If so, where is the logic in that claim? Is it simply the acceleration of such cycles that you're concerned about or are you really claiming that the only climate change that can exist now is man-made?
Yeah, Outlooks entire handling of profiles causes me no end of hassles. Seriously - on a daily basis.:) Especially when someone needs a non-exchanged profile moved from one PC to another.. to an existing copy of Outlook. Please.. import/export functions which work would be lovely.
I wasn't trying to say there aren't problems in Office, I was simply trying to call OP out on his claims to elicit a response from him. You see, like with him, I frequently come across people saying how awful Vista was and when I ask them what problems they personally had with Vista, the most common response is "Oh, I never used that piece of crap". So, they're purely parroting hearsay and thus I find their opinion in pretty much any topic null and void.
When you put MS bashers on the spot, they frequently have nothing - thats all I was trying to do. Of course now he has lots of excellent suggestions to come back with.:)
The counter to that is generally natural forest fires, which occur less frequently with our intervention. In Australia where I live, a single largle uncontrolled forest fire puts as much CO2 into the atmosphere as ALL of our industry and vehicles on the road, annually. We have several of these a year.
And consider, most large forest fires we do our best to extinguish, and year round perform backburns and create fire breaks to make limit the extent of forest fires as much as possible. If naturally occurring forest fires were left to burn unchecked across the country, our pollution-based CO2 output would barely be a blip on the screen. I've only looked at the stats for Australia though, and I'm sure the pollution levels in LA are far worse than our busiest cities. And really, pollution is far worse because of the other chemicals it contains. Really, I'm just pointing out that pollution (in Australia) isn't even close to being the major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere.
What has happened this March has never happened in the records. The statement is that only once in the records has APRIL had the number of these 80+ days which MARCH this year had. March has never had it. Hopefully it won't happen again for another 140 years, but if it happens again next year, we may have issues.
Oh come on. Nobody argues with climate change. The debate is over MAN-MADE climate change. The climate has changed dozens of times through heating and cooling periods throughout history. This isn't even questioned.. except by some young-earther's.:\
Not going to happen. The footage isn't being "sent" anywhere. It's being used by the onboard software to provide personalized favourites channels, etc. The cameras also serve to make use of the onboard Skype and onboard Youtube recording. The article is largely FUD. The only concern is the security of preventing third party "hacks", although this would likely require physical access. Everything that isn't data storage should be write-protected, leaving only possible memory hacks and there's no indication that the video can be "requested" remotely anyway, but rather it has to be specifically pushed by the software. Samsung hasn't directly answered their questions to confirm if this is the case, but it *should* be expected. If they actually started spying on people, that'd be it for Samsung in the marketplace. As for serving targeted ads, this is more likely - consumers repeatedly sign away permission to be bombarded by targetted ads everywhere. TV will be no different.
Slashdot Mirror
Her piano Edge of Glory on Howard Stern is pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_GMgkcc2KM
Are you denying that ZnO has to be obtained prior to introduction as a fuel? Are you denying that most Zinc Oxide is produced from refinement of Zinc ores? Are you denying that the process cannot produce a 100% efficient fuel recycling method? Are you denying that almost all mining and smelting of zinc ores produces large quantities of carbon dioxide? If your answer to all these is no, then the only thing I don't understand is what you're opposed to in my post.
Obtaining zinc in any form requires mining of the raw materials and smelting - large amounts of CO2 output. The laboratory phase of converting ZnFeS or ZNOH2 or even Zinc Silicate into Zinc and their substituent parts is the end of the process, not the beginning. Obtaining these in the first place is a messy, dirty process.
That being said, the prospect of the reactor itself re-processing resultant zinc into zinc oxide as additional fuel is exciting (the temperatures required are far lower than this reactor produces), allowing fuel-re-use (although not unlimited, as it would reduce each cycle, and more ZnO will always need to be obtained on an ongoing basis). While I'm not an expert at this particular reaction, experience in related fields suggests to me that only around 50% of the fuel could be reclaimed, or less. I could be wrong with this figure - hopefully so.
PS. I'm not opposed to the tech at all, and it's a great innovation - there should be far more R&D bucks spent on solar energy forms. It's the most abundant form of free no-cost energy we have, but difficult to convert from its high-entropy form into electricity. I'm just extremely used to people at the end of a chain saying "we have a great carbon-free form of energy here!", seeking investment $$$, when all the ingredients that go into making it require high carbon output - at least in their modern forms.
This is a prime example. Fact is, all industrial scale Zinc Oxide production release vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The fact you can use the resultant fuel relatively free of carbon output is a moot point to me - it's already been spent producing the product. It's like burning coal to produce electricity - yay, you have electricity which is carbon free! But no, it's not really, due to its production method.
If they have a means of producing industrial quantities of ZnO without releasing CO2, great. If they have a means of purifying the ore without releasing vast quantities of carbon and other chemicals into the air and water, great. They don't have either of these yet, and this tech won't be feasible until these exist. I believe they will one day, but until then this is just a hopeful blip on the radar of future possibilities.
What's the carbon output of obtaining and refinement Sphalerite?
As I understand, it's produced largely by open-cast mining and smelting operations. Plenty of carbon involved.
Because Pushing-Robot apparently can't read, I've gone and done some investigation myself. From what I've been reading, it seems the most common method is by burning zinc ores or through carbothermal reduction to produce zinc vapor which then is mixed with oxygen to produce a zinc oxide runoff. These generally both produce large carbon output.
Using the device itself to burn zinc ore (in order to produce zinc vapor and additional fuel) will still produce carbon dioxide as a by-product. You need purified zinc to avoid this, and there are no clean purification methods.
The wet chemical process still results in zinc carbonate which needs to be heated to be refined to zinc oxide, releasing the carbon.
Laboratory production by electrolyzing a solution of sodium bicarbonate with a zinc anode produces useful zinc hydroxide and hydrogen gas. However carbon and sodium are released as waste.
Is there a way this can actually be produced without releasing carbon, or is this reactor just shifting the problem elsewhere like so many "green" solutions?
The article doesn't answer my question. Neither does your smarmy response. Its re-usability is limited, at which stage more has to be acquired. Additionally, it has to be refined before being recycled once more, so this will require energy as well. Unless you're putting in an increasingly weakening and inefficient fuel, recycling the ZnO without filtering and purification. Either way, you've got to introduce new ZnO at frequent intervals. Multiply this by thousand of these stations all over the world, and you've got a constant mining and refinement operation to supply this fuel. So - what's the carbon output of obtaining, refinement and purification of the Zinc Oxide?
It's sad when wrong responses get +5 mods just because people like to think by modding a smart-ass comment they're also somehow clever.
That's what I was thinking.. What's the carbon output of obtaining, refinement and purification of the Zinc Oxide?
From what I understand, nothing binding. Neither in civil nor criminal cases. For example, in a criminal case a warrant in either country is grounds for arrest in the other, however the prosecuting nation has to then win an extradition trial and the plaintiff be extradited for trial there. For civil cases it's pretty much a one-way street, due to the nature of the US Free Trade agreements. The US can push but doesn't have to "take" anything. This is part of the cost of doing business in the US, and everyone else pretty much has to take it as the US is still currently the centre of business power and currency in the world.
The smaller a country, the more under pressure it is - NZ for example is highly reliant on US export trade for its very financial viability. That's why a 3-strikes rule has been successfully pushed through there by US media interests. In Australia, which is far less reliant on US export trade and does a large amount of its business with China, it's more resilient to strong-arm tactics, even at the government level.
But to answer your question - no. No ruling in NZ is binding in the US. An NZ court can't order US assets seized. The most a win in NZ does is help the prosecution case with material evidence if they ever proceed to trial in the US, however as far as legality is concerned, it has no direct impact in any US court.
As I'm not a kiwi, not sure how I'd test that. It was fresh on my mind as I'd read it recently, however I'm certain a quick Googling could find you some others, as I likewise have read hundreds of such cases throughout the years. Even as a singular example, while you describe it as "high tech as a buggy whip", you'd have to admit that if Franmara actually had to get a physical example of it in order to rip it off, the method isn't as obvious as you'd first believe.
Yeah, he's won the court action in New Zealand - which unfortunately has no effect on sales of the product in the US at all. It's just an example to illustrate the point though. OP was making out that inventors actually standing up for their rights makes them "patent trolls". While patent trolls do exist, that doesn't mean that every time an inventor sues someone, they're "trolling". :)
Except, nobody else got it to work. If I make a combustion engine which runs on phlegm, I'm not exempt from a patent because both engines and phlegm already exist. They didn't merely describe it, they created the technology, and got it to work where nobody else did. If it was that "obvious", why had no other manufacturer previously solved the issues? Fact is, most manufacturers have accepted this patent. Some fought it in court, and all eventually settled or lost. It's legitimate.
PS. CSIRO isn't a "troll". It's the research organization which actually invented this tech, and have been trying to license it for the last decade. They've reached agreements with over 30 major manufacturers for prior licensing. This is about as far from "patent troll" as you can get. Real patent trolls - compaines who acquire patents and sit on them for years waiting for tech to be adopted so they can then sue everyone, deserve your disdain. CSIRO doesn't.
The only reason it's taken so long to get success for its patents is because it's in Australia - many US companies simply ignore patents from international companies because the cost of suing someone in the US is generally too high if you're overseas. US companies willfully ignore thousands of original invention patents originating internationally. Another great example is Franmara's "Champagne Xpress". It's a champagne bottle opener which was invented by a New Zealander, Bryce Stewart. It was patented in the US in 2003. Franmara CEO Frank Chiorazzi asked for a sample of the invention, then offered Bryce $2500 to license it. The offer was flatly refused - nevertheless, Franmara began manufacturing and selling them in the US. They're now popularly used in restaurants nationwide. The original inventor doesn't get see a cent of the procedes from his invention or patent, and it's very difficult for a NZer to procede with a lawsuit against a major US company, despite obvious patent theft.
Realise, patent theft does occur, and trolls are not always the victims. In both cases above, the original inventors are, still holders of their original patents.
It's nothing to do with "standards" at all. It's solely about technology which makes wifi work indoors without signal echo. They came up with the solution to the issue, patented it, then everyone else adapted it without licensing the technology. This is actually a perfect usage of patent and exactly what it's for.
They're not stopping the treatment. They're going to make megabucks off it.
>> Conflict of interest statement: S.J., M.P.C., R. Majeti, and I.L.W. filed U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/321,215 entitled “Methods for Manipulating Phagocytosis Mediated by CD47."
They've already applied for the patent for treating cancers in this way. If granted, 17 years of income for a cancer cure which they control the market on would make them a trillion dollars. Each. Although, they could just be patenting it to prevent anyone else patenting it, although naturally whomever funded the study is going to want a sizeable return on their investment and it's fair enough they get it.
Don't wait! It works great in DosBox and is still extremely playable. :) Also, WC4 CD edition works in DosBox as well, though not the DVD version (at least, I didn't get it working).
Eh, on most of the games except Wing Commander Prophecy (which was made for a broader audience), you generally did only just barely succeed. There were some missions which were nigh on impossible without getting lucky. :)
No, they didn't. EA has been generally permissive (as in, not pursuing the small but extremely active community) for WC fan games throughout the years, but a Slashdot feature may change that. :\
The CO2 levels don't match our CO2 output. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is several magnitudes higher than our output. If you're referring simply to the increase in CO2 levels matching our CO2 output, it doesn't either. Simplified graphics of arrows with numbers in them claiming to be representative of the worldwide CO2 release and capture, made by proponents of specific agenda, isn't factual. BTW, melting-ice caps release far more CO2 then most countries. So, are they melting because of man-made CO2 or is this circular? Will enough CO2 release trigger a cooling period and subsequent capture, as in previous geological periods?
Or, a simpler way of asking the question - are you claiming that if all man-made sources of CO2 were removed, would the planet no longer go through warming/cooling cycles as it did before man existed? If so, where is the logic in that claim? Is it simply the acceleration of such cycles that you're concerned about or are you really claiming that the only climate change that can exist now is man-made?
Yeah, Outlooks entire handling of profiles causes me no end of hassles. Seriously - on a daily basis. :) Especially when someone needs a non-exchanged profile moved from one PC to another.. to an existing copy of Outlook. Please.. import/export functions which work would be lovely.
I wasn't trying to say there aren't problems in Office, I was simply trying to call OP out on his claims to elicit a response from him. You see, like with him, I frequently come across people saying how awful Vista was and when I ask them what problems they personally had with Vista, the most common response is "Oh, I never used that piece of crap". So, they're purely parroting hearsay and thus I find their opinion in pretty much any topic null and void.
When you put MS bashers on the spot, they frequently have nothing - thats all I was trying to do. Of course now he has lots of excellent suggestions to come back with. :)
The counter to that is generally natural forest fires, which occur less frequently with our intervention. In Australia where I live, a single largle uncontrolled forest fire puts as much CO2 into the atmosphere as ALL of our industry and vehicles on the road, annually. We have several of these a year.
And consider, most large forest fires we do our best to extinguish, and year round perform backburns and create fire breaks to make limit the extent of forest fires as much as possible. If naturally occurring forest fires were left to burn unchecked across the country, our pollution-based CO2 output would barely be a blip on the screen. I've only looked at the stats for Australia though, and I'm sure the pollution levels in LA are far worse than our busiest cities. And really, pollution is far worse because of the other chemicals it contains. Really, I'm just pointing out that pollution (in Australia) isn't even close to being the major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere.
What has happened this March has never happened in the records. The statement is that only once in the records has APRIL had the number of these 80+ days which MARCH this year had. March has never had it. Hopefully it won't happen again for another 140 years, but if it happens again next year, we may have issues.
Oh come on. Nobody argues with climate change. The debate is over MAN-MADE climate change. The climate has changed dozens of times through heating and cooling periods throughout history. This isn't even questioned.. except by some young-earther's. :\
Not going to happen. The footage isn't being "sent" anywhere. It's being used by the onboard software to provide personalized favourites channels, etc. The cameras also serve to make use of the onboard Skype and onboard Youtube recording. The article is largely FUD. The only concern is the security of preventing third party "hacks", although this would likely require physical access. Everything that isn't data storage should be write-protected, leaving only possible memory hacks and there's no indication that the video can be "requested" remotely anyway, but rather it has to be specifically pushed by the software. Samsung hasn't directly answered their questions to confirm if this is the case, but it *should* be expected. If they actually started spying on people, that'd be it for Samsung in the marketplace. As for serving targeted ads, this is more likely - consumers repeatedly sign away permission to be bombarded by targetted ads everywhere. TV will be no different.
This is coming.