This thinking shows that you have absolutely no clue about how real functional process safety engineering is done. Fail safe means that when you have a certain number of failures (for a nuke plant probably two), things are still safe. So you can have, say, a concurrent turbine trip and a pump failure in a primary circuit, and things should end up in a safe state. Fail safe doesn't imply passive safety, it's only your fantasy and a view that's not shared by those who actually deal with functional safety. Passive safety may be a means of achieving functional safety of a process system, but it's by no means the ultimate cure-it-all in spite of what clueless fools spout left right and center. Passive safety isn't a fix for bad functional safety engineering. Fukushima was was an example of the latter. You can't tell a-priori that some passive safety in the system would not have prevented other problems. For all I know passively safe reactor might have prompted "savings" in other aspects of the design, say putting it lower and closer to the ocean, for example.
That's idiotic. Not all explosions in a thermal power plant (a nuke powerplant is thermal, duh) will result in a meltdown of the reactor core. If a secondary loop would, say, crack and explode, you isolate it and keep going with what's left. It's plenty to cope with decay heat that's always 10% less than full rated power, even immediately after the rods hit the bottom stops.
Voltage dropping was helpful when a lot of the load was resistive (incandescent lightbulbs, linear regulators in most low-voltage equipment, etc.). As the voltage dropped, the power demand dropped as well. These days, the switching power supplies are negative resistances and as the voltage drops the power demand doesn't drop. In fact, due to typically lower efficiencies with lower input voltage, the power demand goes up as the input voltage drops! From what I imagine, one fine day the U.S. grid won't be able to cope gracefully with such loads in presence of lowered generating capacity. That day isn't very far away. Every data center and every plant where servo drives or induction motors are used is already such a negative resistance load. Due to switch to fluorescent lightbulbs and brushless drives in appliances, never mind all the IT/entertainment tech in homes, homes are becoming such a load as well. I have checked the effective differential impedance of my home with AC working and a bunch of other things turned on, and it is negative -- I don't recall the exact complex value. There were about 3 extra Watts wasted due to inefficiencies per every Volt of voltage drop over a constant-power ideal, going from 135V to 105V (I used a buck/boost transformer to vary the voltage going to the panel). That was an average over 1 minute with A/C going full blast, the computers on, cellphones charging, TV on, freezer and fridge compressors going, and both washer and dryer operating. The dryer has a tight digital temperature controller and will present a roughly fixed load in spite of lower input voltage. Of course mechanical thermostats acted the same way, but with an order of magnitude slower response.
This is perhaps the most informative post of the day. If someone thinks things are bad with reporting in the nuclear industry in the U.S., feel free to look up similarly detailed reports for fossil mining of any sort. Hint: it doesn't exist, or prove me wrong.
The 1979 TMI was nothing much. I never understood why people talk of it like it was Fukushima or something. Yes, Fukushima was bad, Chernobyl was bad, criticality events in the labs are bad. Every other nuclear accident out there is really nothing to lose any sleep over.
OK, perhaps "starve yourself" is taking it too far. Eating less. That's all. Whatever you feel like, eat half of it. Portions served in most U.S., um, eating establishments, are humongous. Split it in half for dinner and breakfast or lunch the next day. Easy. No lethargy involved, you're still living your normal life.
I don't think U.S. Constitution applies in Canada. In many countries copyright is not set up to promote anything. Besides, you're presuming a whole lot. Namely that the book authors and publisher were competent. As far as I'm concerned, they were stupid as shit, and that's all there's to it. For all I know they could have crowdsourced the pictures of all the art they needed. You know, for fame and such, and the book could have been collaboartively done, etc.
The technology is quickly getting to a point where you'll be able to take quite amazing pictures using nothing more but a hand-held custom camera. These days you can illuminate the scene with infrared light and use that for realtime motion tracking augmentation to a built-in inertial reference platform. This is used to stabilize a longer-exposure done on the main imager. Even in poor light on modern imaging chips it won't take longer than a couple seconds to get enough light to have decent noise. Of course obstructions may be a problem, but you can always take multiple exposures from slightly different angles and then reproject the images and stich them up. No biggie.
Don't pretend that your definition of "creativity" is the same as copyright law's. Just because you produce something that wasn't there before doesn't make it subject to copyright law protection, not in the U.S. at least. There are plenty of things that you can make that weren't there before that won't be subject to copyright protection, and making faithful scans or photographs of flat art is one of them. What usually happens is that even though the photograph may not be subject to any protection, the terms under which the museums let the photographer take the photographs mandate that the museums retain the rights. This is a contractual obligation and doesn't need copyright law to stand. The museums then decide on what terms they let anyone get access to said photographs. In a contract you sign with the museum (or a licensing agency), you, again, contractually oblige not to disseminate copies except in a set of predetermined circumstances. This doesn't need copyright law to have standing either. If someone copies that picture from you, though, then it's fair game as long as you didn't facilitate it (or whatever other terms of the contract there may be as to safeguarding of the picture). Once those pictures end up somewhere where others have access to them, they may often be legally copied even if everyone pretends it isn't so. One usually doesn't sign contracts when buying books, so that pretty much means that apart from inapplicable copyright law there's nothing else stopping you from copying. Of course copying dithered printed reproductions is somewhat silly, you'd need quite high resolution scanners to do a good job of it, and then you probably want to retain the dithered color separation unaltered for reprinting, ideally at similar scale.
If you gain weight, you eat too much. What's true is that higher testosterone levels may change the amount of what I refer to "eating normally".;) I'm not saying that hormonal imbalance doesn't change your calorie needs, merely that if you gain weight you eat too much for your calorie needs. Perhaps it's subtle. Blaming hormonal imbalance on weight gain is like blaming rainy weather for getting wet. Use an umbrella, eat less, simple.
I sympathize. I find McDonalds food, at least in the U.S., to be so bad as to be inedible. Somehow the stuff I get in Europe, especially east of Berlin, is better.
Dude, those bacteria must be some pretty vile creatures then. They are converting all this "absorbed/used" energy into what? Heat? Energy of chemical bonds in something that is dumped out? What? Where does that energy magically disappear, and will you sell me some of those bacteria, because I have a whole bunch of uses for them!
Oh, so you're saying that hormonal imbalance makes you produce storable fats from, I dunno, zero point free energy?
If you starve yourself, you lose weight. If you eat normally, you retain proper body weight. If you eat too much, you gain weight. It's as simple as that. Portion sizes in the U.S. are outrageous and everyone got used to it. It's that simple.
How the heck will heating up gasoline improve anything? In a modern engine all of the gasoline is combusted, there's no need to heat it up. There's a misconception that somehow the gasoline droplets are too big and they don't all combust. That's bullshit. By the time the compression stroke is over, there's no liquid gasoline anywhere but perhaps on the cylinder walls, it's all gaseous. End of story. Whatever is on the cylinder walls will be reabsorbed by the oil and then will evaporate and get sucked back into the engine via crankcase ventilation system. That's like ICE 101. I'd have hoped everyone knows it by now...
The patents are expired by now, and you know, they are public knowledge. Go and build one yourself. Or better yet, stop spewing crap. Patent numbers or it didn't happen.
Why are you obsessed with cold fusion? Hot fusion can be done easily in amateur conditions, although of course so far with negative energy budget, but it's not hard at all.
Pressure at the tap is, say, 2 bar or 200 kPa. I'd guess the flow at the entrance to my house is at least 10 gpm, or about 0.5 L/s (that should be very conservative). The hydraulic power is thus about 200kPa*0.5L/s = 100W. Assuming a decent turbine and generator, you could probably extract about 50 W.
So, in an hour I trade off 600 gallons of water consumption for 0.05 kWh of electric energy. Nope, it won't work, not even close, even if my flow rate estimate was an order of magnitude too low. IIRC I pay about the same per gallon as per kWh.
So yes, stealing power from the phone company, assuming you need to use the phone anyway, is probably better.
I second that. My wife is the same. There's a class of antibiotics that she simply cannot take, and it doesn't matter what bacteria supplements she'd take orally, even in huge doses -- in about 24 hours she gets GI distress, and in about a week she's in sepsis. BTDT, now we know.
Slashdot Mirror
This thinking shows that you have absolutely no clue about how real functional process safety engineering is done. Fail safe means that when you have a certain number of failures (for a nuke plant probably two), things are still safe. So you can have, say, a concurrent turbine trip and a pump failure in a primary circuit, and things should end up in a safe state. Fail safe doesn't imply passive safety, it's only your fantasy and a view that's not shared by those who actually deal with functional safety. Passive safety may be a means of achieving functional safety of a process system, but it's by no means the ultimate cure-it-all in spite of what clueless fools spout left right and center. Passive safety isn't a fix for bad functional safety engineering. Fukushima was was an example of the latter. You can't tell a-priori that some passive safety in the system would not have prevented other problems. For all I know passively safe reactor might have prompted "savings" in other aspects of the design, say putting it lower and closer to the ocean, for example.
That's idiotic. Not all explosions in a thermal power plant (a nuke powerplant is thermal, duh) will result in a meltdown of the reactor core. If a secondary loop would, say, crack and explode, you isolate it and keep going with what's left. It's plenty to cope with decay heat that's always 10% less than full rated power, even immediately after the rods hit the bottom stops.
Never mind that you don't want any water droplets reaching the turbines at all. They'd erode the blades in no time. Gaseous water is key ;)
Voltage dropping was helpful when a lot of the load was resistive (incandescent lightbulbs, linear regulators in most low-voltage equipment, etc.). As the voltage dropped, the power demand dropped as well. These days, the switching power supplies are negative resistances and as the voltage drops the power demand doesn't drop. In fact, due to typically lower efficiencies with lower input voltage, the power demand goes up as the input voltage drops! From what I imagine, one fine day the U.S. grid won't be able to cope gracefully with such loads in presence of lowered generating capacity. That day isn't very far away. Every data center and every plant where servo drives or induction motors are used is already such a negative resistance load. Due to switch to fluorescent lightbulbs and brushless drives in appliances, never mind all the IT/entertainment tech in homes, homes are becoming such a load as well. I have checked the effective differential impedance of my home with AC working and a bunch of other things turned on, and it is negative -- I don't recall the exact complex value. There were about 3 extra Watts wasted due to inefficiencies per every Volt of voltage drop over a constant-power ideal, going from 135V to 105V (I used a buck/boost transformer to vary the voltage going to the panel). That was an average over 1 minute with A/C going full blast, the computers on, cellphones charging, TV on, freezer and fridge compressors going, and both washer and dryer operating. The dryer has a tight digital temperature controller and will present a roughly fixed load in spite of lower input voltage. Of course mechanical thermostats acted the same way, but with an order of magnitude slower response.
Exactly. Antineutrinos FTW :)
This is perhaps the most informative post of the day. If someone thinks things are bad with reporting in the nuclear industry in the U.S., feel free to look up similarly detailed reports for fossil mining of any sort. Hint: it doesn't exist, or prove me wrong.
The 1979 TMI was nothing much. I never understood why people talk of it like it was Fukushima or something. Yes, Fukushima was bad, Chernobyl was bad, criticality events in the labs are bad. Every other nuclear accident out there is really nothing to lose any sleep over.
OK, perhaps "starve yourself" is taking it too far. Eating less. That's all. Whatever you feel like, eat half of it. Portions served in most U.S., um, eating establishments, are humongous. Split it in half for dinner and breakfast or lunch the next day. Easy. No lethargy involved, you're still living your normal life.
I don't think U.S. Constitution applies in Canada. In many countries copyright is not set up to promote anything. Besides, you're presuming a whole lot. Namely that the book authors and publisher were competent. As far as I'm concerned, they were stupid as shit, and that's all there's to it. For all I know they could have crowdsourced the pictures of all the art they needed. You know, for fame and such, and the book could have been collaboartively done, etc.
The technology is quickly getting to a point where you'll be able to take quite amazing pictures using nothing more but a hand-held custom camera. These days you can illuminate the scene with infrared light and use that for realtime motion tracking augmentation to a built-in inertial reference platform. This is used to stabilize a longer-exposure done on the main imager. Even in poor light on modern imaging chips it won't take longer than a couple seconds to get enough light to have decent noise. Of course obstructions may be a problem, but you can always take multiple exposures from slightly different angles and then reproject the images and stich them up. No biggie.
Don't pretend that your definition of "creativity" is the same as copyright law's. Just because you produce something that wasn't there before doesn't make it subject to copyright law protection, not in the U.S. at least. There are plenty of things that you can make that weren't there before that won't be subject to copyright protection, and making faithful scans or photographs of flat art is one of them. What usually happens is that even though the photograph may not be subject to any protection, the terms under which the museums let the photographer take the photographs mandate that the museums retain the rights. This is a contractual obligation and doesn't need copyright law to stand. The museums then decide on what terms they let anyone get access to said photographs. In a contract you sign with the museum (or a licensing agency), you, again, contractually oblige not to disseminate copies except in a set of predetermined circumstances. This doesn't need copyright law to have standing either. If someone copies that picture from you, though, then it's fair game as long as you didn't facilitate it (or whatever other terms of the contract there may be as to safeguarding of the picture). Once those pictures end up somewhere where others have access to them, they may often be legally copied even if everyone pretends it isn't so. One usually doesn't sign contracts when buying books, so that pretty much means that apart from inapplicable copyright law there's nothing else stopping you from copying. Of course copying dithered printed reproductions is somewhat silly, you'd need quite high resolution scanners to do a good job of it, and then you probably want to retain the dithered color separation unaltered for reprinting, ideally at similar scale.
If you gain weight, you eat too much. What's true is that higher testosterone levels may change the amount of what I refer to "eating normally". ;)
I'm not saying that hormonal imbalance doesn't change your calorie needs, merely that if you gain weight you eat too much for your calorie needs. Perhaps it's subtle. Blaming hormonal imbalance on weight gain is like blaming rainy weather for getting wet. Use an umbrella, eat less, simple.
That's obvious, but the magic undigested-energy-disintegrating colon bacteria are just that, magic.
Hey, maybe you have a helpful tapeworm companion.
I sympathize. I find McDonalds food, at least in the U.S., to be so bad as to be inedible. Somehow the stuff I get in Europe, especially east of Berlin, is better.
Dude, those bacteria must be some pretty vile creatures then. They are converting all this "absorbed/used" energy into what? Heat? Energy of chemical bonds in something that is dumped out? What? Where does that energy magically disappear, and will you sell me some of those bacteria, because I have a whole bunch of uses for them!
Uh-huh, and limiting their caloric intake is obviously out of the question then. Yep. Straight-o.
They are used worldwide.
Oh, so you're saying that hormonal imbalance makes you produce storable fats from, I dunno, zero point free energy?
If you starve yourself, you lose weight. If you eat normally, you retain proper body weight. If you eat too much, you gain weight. It's as simple as that. Portion sizes in the U.S. are outrageous and everyone got used to it. It's that simple.
Kudos. It's the same conclusion that I got to. At least two people out there who are not scared of media BS on HFCS.
How the heck will heating up gasoline improve anything? In a modern engine all of the gasoline is combusted, there's no need to heat it up. There's a misconception that somehow the gasoline droplets are too big and they don't all combust. That's bullshit. By the time the compression stroke is over, there's no liquid gasoline anywhere but perhaps on the cylinder walls, it's all gaseous. End of story. Whatever is on the cylinder walls will be reabsorbed by the oil and then will evaporate and get sucked back into the engine via crankcase ventilation system. That's like ICE 101. I'd have hoped everyone knows it by now...
The patents are expired by now, and you know, they are public knowledge. Go and build one yourself. Or better yet, stop spewing crap. Patent numbers or it didn't happen.
Why are you obsessed with cold fusion? Hot fusion can be done easily in amateur conditions, although of course so far with negative energy budget, but it's not hard at all.
Pressure at the tap is, say, 2 bar or 200 kPa. I'd guess the flow at the entrance to my house is at least 10 gpm, or about 0.5 L/s (that should be very conservative). The hydraulic power is thus about 200kPa*0.5L/s = 100W. Assuming a decent turbine and generator, you could probably extract about 50 W.
So, in an hour I trade off 600 gallons of water consumption for 0.05 kWh of electric energy. Nope, it won't work, not even close, even if my flow rate estimate was an order of magnitude too low. IIRC I pay about the same per gallon as per kWh.
So yes, stealing power from the phone company, assuming you need to use the phone anyway, is probably better.
I second that. My wife is the same. There's a class of antibiotics that she simply cannot take, and it doesn't matter what bacteria supplements she'd take orally, even in huge doses -- in about 24 hours she gets GI distress, and in about a week she's in sepsis. BTDT, now we know.