Pray tell, what jurisdiction does CDC or NIH have to be "all over" anything? None whatsoever. NIH is a research establishment. CDC is essentially a federal health department that has jurisdiction nowhere (maybe in DC?). There are no standardized facilities that you refer to. A research lab is not a clinical facility. Just because a lab is set up to handle highly infectious diseases doesn't make it a place where you can treat people.
The experts in this area are doing just fine, working with shit that makes Ebola look like a seasonal allergy, at facilities that are set up for that. Those people are usually not MDs, there's zero reason for them to be MDs. They're biologists of various sorts.
Demonstrably, no infectious disease experts were in charge at the facility/facilities where the health workers got infected. So your point that experts are unreliable is entirely moot. There were no experts in charge to start with.
Who the heck would want to charge a standard 6 cell 12V automotive battery like that? Nobody. Because such a battery is only useful for starting an ICE engine and as a load buffer, not much else. That's why.
Nobody in their right mind would attach such a charger to existing circuits. Everywhere civilized you'll require a new pull of a dedicated circuit, with a dedicated breaker on the panel and a dedicated disconnect for it.
U.S. homes don't normally get 3 phase service. It also doesn't matter what the breakers for single-phase 120V circuits are, since this charger will be on a dedicated breaker, with a dedicated disconnect, and will run off 240V, not 120V. My home is an oddity as we get two-phase service: the line-to-neutral is 120V, but line-to-line is 208V, and the phases are 120deg apart, not 180deg apart as is with typical residential split-phase service.
Oooh, the British and their ring circuits. 21st century called. Hullo, anyone there?:) Alas, 20kW is completely fine, it wouldn't melt anything. 100A at 240V (not 220V) is 24kW at PF=1.0, and those chargers will be a resistive load, as far as the network is concerned. A practical domestic charger will do current balancing and will consume as much current as is "left over" on the supply side capacity. It'll basically regulate the meter current to the rated supply current.
We're talking electric car batteries with bus voltages of hundreds of Volts, and capacities expressed in tens of kWh. That's quite different than a typical 12V car battery.
Even for a regular 12V car battery, your figures are off by an order of magnitude. A 60Ah battery can be charged with 30x the current in two minutes, so 1800A at 12V. A battery designed for such charging is completely practical, but it'd be slightly larger and have slightly lower energy density. It'd use smaller cells and the cells would be connected in parallel banks for normal use, and in series for charging (with electronic switches, of course, allowing cell balancing). You'd be charging such a battery probably at 120V at 180A. I'd be pretty hot, close to boiling after you were done, but hey, want fast charging? Have fast charging:)
The energy is stored in the moment of inertia, so it being heavy without regard to geometry is not enough. In realistic implementations, you need composite flywheels where something dense is used at the edge, and something stiff and strong is used elsewhere.
It seems that you use your fingers and toes to count the $100+ software titles on Mac App Store. I tried finding some, and all I could come up with were Apple prosumer creative things, a non-Apple website editor, and another development tool or two. Heck, it's not even possible to sort by price in the damn store - that really pisses me off.
You can do pretty good Windows development with VS Express and nothing else. Windows SQL Server whaaat? Besides, VS Express comes with full, unencumbered compilers these days. You can use Eclipse if you wish a free, expandable IDE. Or Qt Creator.
I think that mobile app stores got it half right: the store simply asks for requisite permissions when installing an app. I've declined to try numerous "free" apps that apparently needed access to all of my private data for no good reason at all. It shouldn't be any different when installing Mac App Store apps. The only additional feature that I'd like to see is for the apps to define what subset(s) of permissions they can live with, so that the users would have an option of running apps with less permissions, with some loss in functionality.
Lolwut? Most "apps" I use daily at work start at tens of dollars and go up to $50k or so per seat. Some of the lower prices ones are actually quite popular - for example SmartGit/Hg and CadSoft Eagle. A $4.99 application can't be very good unless it's hugely popular, otherwise it won't support the development work needed to make it good. I'd argue that the cheap apps should be in fact in a separate "slum" section of the store where you have to explicitly navigate. It's rather sad, actually, that the Mac App Store doesn't have anything serious in the $50-$500 range. Never mind that the search is so broken that unless I knew the name of the app I looked for, I wouldn't find it anyway.
You really need to get a hackintosh. Go to tonymacx86 and read up the most recent recommended hardware. When installing, make sure you start with the latest Mavericks, and the early versions required bootloader trickery with integrated Intel graphics. The most recent release doesn't need anything special besides the usual multibeast treatment. I have one and I'm not looking back.
There's simply no hardware I could buy from Apple to give me the same functionality at any realistic price point - especially that I really like to reap benefits of all-in-one testing done during hardware and software development at Apple. The new Mac Pro is fine and dandy if you have all of your storage and PCIe cards in a single external enclosure, but that makes it just too expensive, and you're shelling lots of money to someone else but Apple, the warranty doesn't cover the enclosure, it's not tested and validated during the OS X development, etc. Even then, if you bump the tiny thunderbolt cable, you crash. It's not that hard to put it all in one case, as the "old" Mac Pro demonstrates. They could have slimmed it down and modernized it. With some clever engineering, a modern Mac Pro with drive caddies and card slots could have still been very, very compact.
You probably have a Lion-compatible MBP, with something like AMD X1xxx graphics, right? If there's a 64 bit graphics driver kext for it in Lion, then you can run Mountain Lion via tiamo's boot.efi - simply copy the driver over from Lion. It'll work fine (BTDT). For original Mac Pro, it's even easier, all you need is the new boot.efi, a compatible graphics card, and you can boot Mavericks. Read here for details. In all cases, though, don't use Mavericks or Yosemite without an SSD for the OS itself. Even a 100GB SSD will be sufficient. I have nothing but stellar performance on "old" machines that were the first ones that still support Mavericks, but without an SSD it's essentially unusable.
Look, I'll buy you a beer if Rossi's tech pans out, as in resulting in furthering our understanding at least of chemical process engineering with something refreshingly new:)
I don't think we really agree on what "rewriting" means. GR and QM reduce the errors of existing theories, in specific circumstances where they are worth applying. At the end of the day, both Newtonian and GR formulas provide numerical answers to certain questions about reality. Those answers differ less in some circumstances, more in other circumstances. There's no single truth.
Look, a normal setup for equipment-to-line tests always requires a LISN. Sorry for forgetting to mention it. You can do whatever you want with HF into what is effectively an open circuit, you'll be wasting power. You really don't need anything fancy when the "line" is open circuit at just a few kHz. Instrument grade current transformers have tens if not hundreds of MHz of bandwidth, it's the DC roll-off that's the problem:) These days if all you want is to do 1 million multiplies per second, you don't need a DSP. Any half-decent microcontroller will do it:) As I've said, for someone who isn't totally green, a 1MHz bandwidth power meter is two weeks of work, tops. It's not that hard anymore. The components these days are wonderful.
What a fantasy. All that happened was bad timing, they've run out of money everywhere all at once. Buran had a few quite nifty advances in its manufacturing tech over the way the american shuttles were made. They built a 3D CAD system to design the thing, for crying out loud.
Slashdot Mirror
Hinterland. Nuff said :)
That's just so wrong.
Pray tell, what jurisdiction does CDC or NIH have to be "all over" anything? None whatsoever. NIH is a research establishment. CDC is essentially a federal health department that has jurisdiction nowhere (maybe in DC?). There are no standardized facilities that you refer to. A research lab is not a clinical facility. Just because a lab is set up to handle highly infectious diseases doesn't make it a place where you can treat people.
The experts in this area are doing just fine, working with shit that makes Ebola look like a seasonal allergy, at facilities that are set up for that. Those people are usually not MDs, there's zero reason for them to be MDs. They're biologists of various sorts.
Demonstrably, no infectious disease experts were in charge at the facility/facilities where the health workers got infected. So your point that experts are unreliable is entirely moot. There were no experts in charge to start with.
How does that work when you've got more then one material?
Who the heck would want to charge a standard 6 cell 12V automotive battery like that? Nobody. Because such a battery is only useful for starting an ICE engine and as a load buffer, not much else. That's why.
Nobody in their right mind would attach such a charger to existing circuits. Everywhere civilized you'll require a new pull of a dedicated circuit, with a dedicated breaker on the panel and a dedicated disconnect for it.
U.S. homes don't normally get 3 phase service. It also doesn't matter what the breakers for single-phase 120V circuits are, since this charger will be on a dedicated breaker, with a dedicated disconnect, and will run off 240V, not 120V. My home is an oddity as we get two-phase service: the line-to-neutral is 120V, but line-to-line is 208V, and the phases are 120deg apart, not 180deg apart as is with typical residential split-phase service.
And of course his voltage is 240V, not 220V.
Oooh, the British and their ring circuits. 21st century called. Hullo, anyone there? :) Alas, 20kW is completely fine, it wouldn't melt anything. 100A at 240V (not 220V) is 24kW at PF=1.0, and those chargers will be a resistive load, as far as the network is concerned. A practical domestic charger will do current balancing and will consume as much current as is "left over" on the supply side capacity. It'll basically regulate the meter current to the rated supply current.
Gas stations make pitiful margins on the gasoline. Single cents per gallon, in the U.S.
We're talking electric car batteries with bus voltages of hundreds of Volts, and capacities expressed in tens of kWh. That's quite different than a typical 12V car battery.
Even for a regular 12V car battery, your figures are off by an order of magnitude. A 60Ah battery can be charged with 30x the current in two minutes, so 1800A at 12V. A battery designed for such charging is completely practical, but it'd be slightly larger and have slightly lower energy density. It'd use smaller cells and the cells would be connected in parallel banks for normal use, and in series for charging (with electronic switches, of course, allowing cell balancing). You'd be charging such a battery probably at 120V at 180A. I'd be pretty hot, close to boiling after you were done, but hey, want fast charging? Have fast charging :)
The energy is stored in the moment of inertia, so it being heavy without regard to geometry is not enough. In realistic implementations, you need composite flywheels where something dense is used at the edge, and something stiff and strong is used elsewhere.
It seems that you use your fingers and toes to count the $100+ software titles on Mac App Store. I tried finding some, and all I could come up with were Apple prosumer creative things, a non-Apple website editor, and another development tool or two. Heck, it's not even possible to sort by price in the damn store - that really pisses me off.
You can do pretty good Windows development with VS Express and nothing else. Windows SQL Server whaaat? Besides, VS Express comes with full, unencumbered compilers these days. You can use Eclipse if you wish a free, expandable IDE. Or Qt Creator.
I think that mobile app stores got it half right: the store simply asks for requisite permissions when installing an app. I've declined to try numerous "free" apps that apparently needed access to all of my private data for no good reason at all. It shouldn't be any different when installing Mac App Store apps. The only additional feature that I'd like to see is for the apps to define what subset(s) of permissions they can live with, so that the users would have an option of running apps with less permissions, with some loss in functionality.
Lolwut? Most "apps" I use daily at work start at tens of dollars and go up to $50k or so per seat. Some of the lower prices ones are actually quite popular - for example SmartGit/Hg and CadSoft Eagle. A $4.99 application can't be very good unless it's hugely popular, otherwise it won't support the development work needed to make it good. I'd argue that the cheap apps should be in fact in a separate "slum" section of the store where you have to explicitly navigate. It's rather sad, actually, that the Mac App Store doesn't have anything serious in the $50-$500 range. Never mind that the search is so broken that unless I knew the name of the app I looked for, I wouldn't find it anyway.
To address some of your concerns:
You really need to get a hackintosh. Go to tonymacx86 and read up the most recent recommended hardware. When installing, make sure you start with the latest Mavericks, and the early versions required bootloader trickery with integrated Intel graphics. The most recent release doesn't need anything special besides the usual multibeast treatment. I have one and I'm not looking back.
There's simply no hardware I could buy from Apple to give me the same functionality at any realistic price point - especially that I really like to reap benefits of all-in-one testing done during hardware and software development at Apple. The new Mac Pro is fine and dandy if you have all of your storage and PCIe cards in a single external enclosure, but that makes it just too expensive, and you're shelling lots of money to someone else but Apple, the warranty doesn't cover the enclosure, it's not tested and validated during the OS X development, etc. Even then, if you bump the tiny thunderbolt cable, you crash. It's not that hard to put it all in one case, as the "old" Mac Pro demonstrates. They could have slimmed it down and modernized it. With some clever engineering, a modern Mac Pro with drive caddies and card slots could have still been very, very compact.
You probably have a Lion-compatible MBP, with something like AMD X1xxx graphics, right? If there's a 64 bit graphics driver kext for it in Lion, then you can run Mountain Lion via tiamo's boot.efi - simply copy the driver over from Lion. It'll work fine (BTDT). For original Mac Pro, it's even easier, all you need is the new boot.efi, a compatible graphics card, and you can boot Mavericks. Read here for details. In all cases, though, don't use Mavericks or Yosemite without an SSD for the OS itself. Even a 100GB SSD will be sufficient. I have nothing but stellar performance on "old" machines that were the first ones that still support Mavericks, but without an SSD it's essentially unusable.
Look, I'll buy you a beer if Rossi's tech pans out, as in resulting in furthering our understanding at least of chemical process engineering with something refreshingly new :)
Wonderful - that's how it should be. For $7k more I'm sure you could have easily traveled the world, then! Good luck!
I don't disagree, but the pricing sheet you mention is from Australia...
I forgot the ever important link.
I don't think we really agree on what "rewriting" means. GR and QM reduce the errors of existing theories, in specific circumstances where they are worth applying. At the end of the day, both Newtonian and GR formulas provide numerical answers to certain questions about reality. Those answers differ less in some circumstances, more in other circumstances. There's no single truth.
Look, decent baloney requires tight process controls, or you have shit baloney. It's still baloney at the end of the day, though.
Sorry, you've lost me.
Look, a normal setup for equipment-to-line tests always requires a LISN. Sorry for forgetting to mention it. You can do whatever you want with HF into what is effectively an open circuit, you'll be wasting power. You really don't need anything fancy when the "line" is open circuit at just a few kHz. Instrument grade current transformers have tens if not hundreds of MHz of bandwidth, it's the DC roll-off that's the problem :) These days if all you want is to do 1 million multiplies per second, you don't need a DSP. Any half-decent microcontroller will do it :) As I've said, for someone who isn't totally green, a 1MHz bandwidth power meter is two weeks of work, tops. It's not that hard anymore. The components these days are wonderful.
Apparently they tconcluded that Soyuz is better
What a fantasy. All that happened was bad timing, they've run out of money everywhere all at once. Buran had a few quite nifty advances in its manufacturing tech over the way the american shuttles were made. They built a 3D CAD system to design the thing, for crying out loud.