I am a chemist, and the number you have for the molar volume is quite simply wrong (at least at STP). O2 behaves reasonably close to an ideal gas, and does in fact have a molar volume around 24L at STP.
If you think carefully about the numbers you got: 9g to 9.7 mL gives you a density of ~1 g/mL, which is that of water, not that of any gas at atmospheric T/P.
As a previous poster mentioned, you're much closer to getting 50L of breathable air (at 25% O2). While not a very large amount (1 cubic meter is 1000 L), 100g of rock isn't a whole lot either.
The simple fact is that SiO2 is about 50% oxygen by mass, and you can get a LOT more moon rock than you can either liquid O2 or water.
Two, if you are going to transport a X litres of water up there just to break it down into oxygen, you might as well be efficient and transport X liters of compressed oxygen instead. Why bother with all the hydrogen if you're only interested in the O2?
Because the hydrogen makes a relatively small contribution to the overall mass (H:0 ratio in water is 1:8 by mass), and it's a LOT easier to carry around liquid or solid water than compressed oxygen. The extra mass of a tank suitable for carrying compressed O2 is much greater than the mass of hydrogen in an equivalent amount of water.
The fringe item I mentioned for post-docs covers benefits like health, etc. As you said, generally this doesn't apply for grad students, but tuition does, so it balances out.
The indirect costs are charged by the university for infrastructure and maintainance (heat, electricity, cleaning, etc.), as well as for administrative costs. They can also be used for capital expenditures by a school or department (revamping lab space, shared equipment, and so on).
My main point was just that actual cost of a graduate student to a research grant is generally twice the actually stipend, if not more. This is something that most people aren't aware of until they start thinking about running a research group of their own.
Graduate student stipends also vary alot geographically... in Boston and New York (at least in my experience... I went to a private school for grad school, and I'm faculty at a state school) stipends are currently in the 20's. Where it really starts costing a lot is when private school tuition is added on. I definitely agree that a $13k stipend with state-school tuition, even including overhead, is some pretty damn cheap labor (since it probably will total $25-30k).
Contrary to popular belief... graduate students are NOT particulary cheap, as they cost MUCH more than their stipend. Remember that research funds support tuition (which at a private institution can run $30k+, but is still $5k at public school). In addition, there are overhead costs that are typically 50% (roughly) of the salary for all supported employees. As a result, a grad student at a state-school costs $30-35k in direct costs, and $45-50k with overhead. At a private school, direct costs can easily be $60-70k, putting the total almost at $100k.
For post-docs, you don't have tuition, but you have to add on fringe (to cover benefits). This is typically 30-50% of the salary, so a post-doc at $35k is actually costing closer to $50k in direct costs, so $75k in total.
The title of that article it very misleading -- the robot suit they describe is just like the exoskeleton in the other article. It is not designed for a para- or quadriplegic, but rather to help someone else carry a person for a long time/distance.
Except if you live in a city where most streets are one way. This is the case almost everywhere in New York, as well as in downtown areas of many other cities.
Luckily, the atmosphere isn't composed of motor oil:)
For low pressure gases like are involved here, the approximation that all that matters for fluid forces is the number of molecules and the mass of each one (fluid density) is pretty reasonable. Given that N2, and O2, the major components of the atmosphere, aren't too far off in mass (28 vs 32 g/mol), it's reasonable to neglect the mass term even if there are differences in relative composition, so the basic couting of molecules isn't a terrible argument, and is definitely a reasonable level of science for a marketing blurb.
Sure, clearly there are a large number of economic factors which lead to discrepancies in labour costs around the world. I'm not totally convinced that the US trade deficit is the primary cause, although is certainly is a big problem that Americans ought to be concerned about.
My point was simply that I can't believe how many people fall for the "we can't sign the Kyoto Protocol because it is going to cost American jobs" argument. The reality is that the economic impact on the American economy as a whole would be minor.
... we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job to someone who gets paid US$22/month to do the same job.
Exactly, but contradictory to your overall point.
The reason jobs are being lost to overseas has to do entirely with labour costs, and nothing to do to with pollution controls. The factor of 160 in wages (your numbers, not mine) is vastly higher than the few percent losses in efficiency from using cleaner production processes.
Feel free to debate whether developing countries should be exempt based on the enviromental benefits gain in including them (if they would even sign on, which is unlikely) vs the issues of supporting developing economies. However, the "we can't afford to lose jobs" argument is fundamentally flawed.
The attack on China doesn't hold water either. Yes, China is a developing country and you simply can't argue it any other way. Sure, they are the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gases, but they have four times the population of the US. The US produces ten times more CO2 per capita than China (same site you linked to).
Yes, there's a lot of nuance, which you conveniently ignored, and I'm afraid it's NOT that simple.
As someone who works in the field of computional biophysics, these are completely different projects. Folding@Home is designed to study the mechanism of protein folding, and uses molecular dynamics as the tool to do this. The goal of the studies is to understand at a basic scientific level just how it is that proteins fold.
This project is designed to predict the structure of large numbers of proteins for which we know the sequence, but not the structure. The algorithms for predicting protein structure are distinct from molecular dynamics, since the end goal is very different. I believe that the particular method they are using is Rosetta, developed by at the University of Washington, with the the Institute for Systems Biology is affiliated.
Basically it boils down to the difference between protein folding (which implies studying the mechanism) and protein structure prediction. The second is solvable to reasonable accuracy with modern methods (although not perfect), but not cheap, so a grid computing approach is a nice way to tackle the problem.
The folding@home problem is MUCH more difficult, needing the distributed computing framework to study the folding of ONE small protein.
> It's not much different from recording a song off > the radio onto your cassette tape. I've actually > downloaded music that was obviously recorded in > this way.
Youngster.
When I was in high school this was way everyone got music without paying for it. Direct recording onto the tape deck of your audio system gave pretty decent copies (relative to the radio broadcast anyways). No one I knew would ever record on a separate tape recorder though, if that's what you're suggesting.
I'd have to say though... it's a little odd to be sharing digital copies of these kind of recordings online.
Combustion of hydrocarbons (using octane above), and hydrogen BOTH produce water. Granted, hydrogen combustion may produce more water per energy output, but there's not real reason the water has to be released as anything other than liquid either.
>If I were at the same latitude in Canada as I am >now in Finland, I'd be somewhere around the level >of Hudson's Bay, with only a few Inuit to keep me >company.
Canada is a big country... and if you were on the Pacific Coast, you would find that is a LOT milder than around Hudson's Bay.
The Gulf Stream does play a big role in modulating Europe's climate, but AFAIK relatively cool, but very wet, air masses off of the Pacific are what do it in the Pacific Northwest.
I used to live in Vancouver, and now am in Boston, and I can assure you that winter here is way colder than back in Vancouver, despite being 7degrees south (~800km) further south.
First, educated != IQ, which is what this site discusses. Secondly, while IQ is a dubious value to start with, IQ values converted from SAT scores are completely ludicrous.
Actually, it's Middle English. Old English is the language spoken prior to the Norman conquest, and thus prior to incorporation of many French words to the language. Middle English occupies an interesting position in the evolution of the language, before the Germanic and French rooted words were merged into a consistent pronunciation scheme (refered to as The Great Vowel Shift).
In fact, they do emit light. They are fluorescent, meaning that they absorb photons of one wavelength (in this case in the UV band, I believe) and re-emit photons of a different wavelength (in the visible). They won't glow in the absence of any UV, but they most certainly can emit visible light even in the dark.
There is most certainly elephant polo (in Thailand as well, actually, but very likely elsewhere as well). I saw an article on it in the in-flight magazine on a recent Northwest Airlines flight).
Slashdot Mirror
nope ... queens addresses are just like that.
108-20 37th ave just means that it's on 37th ave near 108th st. corona is mostly 2 or 3-family units.
I am a chemist, and the number you have for the molar volume is quite simply wrong (at least at STP). O2 behaves reasonably close to an ideal gas, and does in fact have a molar volume around 24L at STP.
If you think carefully about the numbers you got:
9g to 9.7 mL gives you a density of ~1 g/mL, which is that of water, not that of any gas at atmospheric T/P.
As a previous poster mentioned, you're much closer to getting 50L of breathable air (at 25% O2). While not a very large amount (1 cubic meter is 1000 L), 100g of rock isn't a whole lot either.
The simple fact is that SiO2 is about 50% oxygen by mass, and you can get a LOT more moon rock than you can either liquid O2 or water.
Two, if you are going to transport a X litres of water up there just to break it down into oxygen, you might as well be efficient and transport X liters of compressed oxygen instead. Why bother with all the hydrogen if you're only interested in the O2? Because the hydrogen makes a relatively small contribution to the overall mass (H:0 ratio in water is 1:8 by mass), and it's a LOT easier to carry around liquid or solid water than compressed oxygen. The extra mass of a tank suitable for carrying compressed O2 is much greater than the mass of hydrogen in an equivalent amount of water.
The fringe item I mentioned for post-docs covers benefits like health, etc. As you said, generally this doesn't apply for grad students, but tuition does, so it balances out.
... in Boston and New York (at least in my experience ... I went to a private school for grad school, and I'm faculty at a state school) stipends are currently in the 20's. Where it really starts costing a lot is when private school tuition is added on. I definitely agree that a $13k stipend with state-school tuition, even including overhead, is some pretty damn cheap labor (since it probably will total $25-30k).
The indirect costs are charged by the university for infrastructure and maintainance (heat, electricity, cleaning, etc.), as well as for administrative costs. They can also be used for capital expenditures by a school or department (revamping lab space, shared equipment, and so on).
My main point was just that actual cost of a graduate student to a research grant is generally twice the actually stipend, if not more. This is something that most people aren't aware of until they start thinking about running a research group of their own.
Graduate student stipends also vary alot geographically
Contrary to popular belief ... graduate students are NOT particulary cheap, as they cost MUCH more than their stipend. Remember that research funds support tuition (which at a private institution can run $30k+, but is still $5k at public school). In addition, there are overhead costs that are typically 50% (roughly) of the salary for all supported employees. As a result, a grad student at a state-school costs $30-35k in direct costs, and $45-50k with overhead. At a private school, direct costs can easily be $60-70k, putting the total almost at $100k.
For post-docs, you don't have tuition, but you have to add on fringe (to cover benefits). This is typically 30-50% of the salary, so a post-doc at $35k is actually costing closer to $50k in direct costs, so $75k in total.
The title of that article it very misleading -- the robot suit they describe is just like the exoskeleton in the other article. It is not designed for a para- or quadriplegic, but rather to help someone else carry a person for a long time/distance.
Except if you live in a city where most streets are one way. This is the case almost everywhere in New York, as well as in downtown areas of many other cities.
I think that the point is that 3/4 of the revenue is through online ticket sales. Nothing is getting spun off in this scenario.
Luckily, the atmosphere isn't composed of motor oil :)
For low pressure gases like are involved here, the approximation that all that matters for fluid forces is the number of molecules and the mass of each one (fluid density) is pretty reasonable. Given that N2, and O2, the major components of the atmosphere, aren't too far off in mass (28 vs 32 g/mol), it's reasonable to neglect the mass term even if there are differences in relative composition, so the basic couting of molecules isn't a terrible argument, and is definitely a reasonable level of science for a marketing blurb.
Sure, clearly there are a large number of economic factors which lead to discrepancies in labour costs around the world. I'm not totally convinced that the US trade deficit is the primary cause, although is certainly is a big problem that Americans ought to be concerned about.
My point was simply that I can't believe how many people fall for the "we can't sign the Kyoto Protocol because it is going to cost American jobs" argument. The reality is that the economic impact on the American economy as a whole would be minor.
Exactly, but contradictory to your overall point.
The reason jobs are being lost to overseas has to do entirely with labour costs, and nothing to do to with pollution controls. The factor of 160 in wages (your numbers, not mine) is vastly higher than the few percent losses in efficiency from using cleaner production processes.
Feel free to debate whether developing countries should be exempt based on the enviromental benefits gain in including them (if they would even sign on, which is unlikely) vs the issues of supporting developing economies. However, the "we can't afford to lose jobs" argument is fundamentally flawed.
The attack on China doesn't hold water either. Yes, China is a developing country and you simply can't argue it any other way. Sure, they are the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gases, but they have four times the population of the US. The US produces ten times more CO2 per capita than China (same site you linked to).
Yes, there's a lot of nuance, which you conveniently ignored, and I'm afraid it's NOT that simple.
As someone who works in the field of computional biophysics, these are completely different projects. Folding@Home is designed to study the mechanism of protein folding, and uses molecular dynamics as the tool to do this. The goal of the studies is to understand at a basic scientific level just how it is that proteins fold.
This project is designed to predict the structure of large numbers of proteins for which we know the sequence, but not the structure. The algorithms for predicting protein structure are distinct from molecular dynamics, since the end goal is very different. I believe that the particular method they are using is Rosetta, developed by at the University of Washington, with the the Institute for Systems Biology is affiliated.
Basically it boils down to the difference between protein folding (which implies studying the mechanism) and protein structure prediction. The second is solvable to reasonable accuracy with modern methods (although not perfect), but not cheap, so a grid computing approach is a nice way to tackle the problem.
The folding@home problem is MUCH more difficult, needing the distributed computing framework to study the folding of ONE small protein.
> It's not much different from recording a song off
... it's a little odd to be sharing digital copies of these kind of recordings online.
> the radio onto your cassette tape. I've actually
> downloaded music that was obviously recorded in
> this way.
Youngster.
When I was in high school this was way everyone got music without paying for it. Direct recording onto the tape deck of your audio system gave pretty decent copies (relative to the radio broadcast anyways). No one I knew would ever record on a separate tape recorder though, if that's what you're suggesting.
I'd have to say though
1 C8H18 + 12.5 O2 -> 8 C02 + 9 H20
1 H2 + 0.5 02 -> 0 C02 + 1 H20
Combustion of hydrocarbons (using octane above), and hydrogen BOTH produce water. Granted, hydrogen combustion may produce more water per energy output, but there's not real reason the water has to be released as anything other than liquid either.
>If I were at the same latitude in Canada as I am
... and if you were on the Pacific Coast, you would find that is a LOT milder than around Hudson's Bay.
>now in Finland, I'd be somewhere around the level
>of Hudson's Bay, with only a few Inuit to keep me
>company.
Canada is a big country
The Gulf Stream does play a big role in modulating Europe's climate, but AFAIK relatively cool, but very wet, air masses off of the Pacific are what do it in the Pacific Northwest.
I used to live in Vancouver, and now am in Boston, and I can assure you that winter here is way colder than back in Vancouver, despite being 7degrees south (~800km) further south.
First, educated != IQ, which is what this site discusses. Secondly, while IQ is a dubious value to start with, IQ values converted from SAT scores are completely ludicrous.
Actually, it's Middle English. Old English is the language spoken prior to the Norman conquest, and thus prior to incorporation of many French words to the language. Middle English occupies an interesting position in the evolution of the language, before the Germanic and French rooted words were merged into a consistent pronunciation scheme (refered to as The Great Vowel Shift).
In fact, they do emit light. They are fluorescent, meaning that they absorb photons of one wavelength (in this case in the UV band, I believe) and re-emit photons of a different wavelength (in the visible). They won't glow in the absence of any UV, but they most certainly can emit visible light even in the dark.
There is most certainly elephant polo (in Thailand as well, actually, but very likely elsewhere as well). I saw an article on it in the in-flight magazine on a recent Northwest Airlines flight).