I don't think it's that simple. First, I believe this experiment used acetone for the liquid medium, and I'm not certain that it's behavior in a steam turbine system is satisfactory. Second, there is the question of energy density. Sure, they're seeing bubbles that exhibit sonoluminescence, but are they seeing enough bubbles to heat the fluid to the point that it can drive a steam turbine?
And even if they are, which I don't think is the case (the flashes last only 35 picoseconds), will the system be efficient enough to exceed break-even? I can boil water on my electric stove to drive a steam turbine, but not at sufficient power to run the stove.
That's a cool idea, but what would be the efficiency of that process? Earlier experiments used a 14MeV neutron beam to generate microscopic nucleation points which sonoluminescent fusion expanded and collapsed, releasing 2.5 MeV neutrons. I'm not ready to say "bubble fusion" can't be used to generate power, but I think it's important to consider it an area for pure research at the moment without any immediate application. This problably will not lead to fusion power plants, unfortunately.
That doesn't, mean the subject should be ignored, just that folks shouldn't get their hopes up over this process. (Added for the benefit of clueless ACs who might have difficulty with reading and comprehension.)
While these results are fascinating, and the research is worthwhile in its own right as pure science, I wonder if this is at all useful for generating power. Is there any way to capture the energy released? I'd imagine most of the energy produced would be wasted and difficult to extract.
And magma is a liquid. Geologically, when large quantities of ice melts and the weight of all that frozen water goes away, the land masses under them bob upwards.
But...I wonder what happens to those land masses without ice to begin with?
Then why, as a recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out, did Senate Democrats propose a bill "exempting climate programs from having to pass scientific scrutiny? The legislative language excuses any "research and data collection, or information analysis conducted by or for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" (the agency charged with monitoring climate change) from the Data Quality Act, a new law that requires sound science in policymaking. This is the sole exemption in the bill....our sources say it was included at the request of Democrats on the Senate subcommittee that wrote the spending bill in question, but that now the exemption is getting the attention of Chairman Judd Gregg, who says he intends to remove it. Let's hope so. Surely those who claim to believe most in climate change aren't afraid to subject their theories to even basic tests of scientific accuracy. Or are they?"
Why is Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick", a central pillar of the GCMs around which so much support for the climate models has been built, increasingly under scrutiny for procedural flaws and sloppy statistics that damage the validity of the proposal. In an interview with German climate modeller Hans von Storch this week in Der Spiegal, von Storch says, "The Mann graph indicates that it was never warmer during the last thousand years than it is today. In a near perfect slope the curve declines from the Middle Ages up to 1800, only to shoot up sharply with the beginning of fossil-fuel burning. Mann's calculations rest, inter alia, on analyses of tree rings and corals. We were able to show in a publication in 'Science' that this graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: rubbish."
He also says, quite correctly, "...Mann rejects any reproach most forcefully. His defensiveness is understandable. Nobody likes to see his own child die. But we must respect our credibility as research scientists. Otherwise we play into the hands of those sceptics of global climate change who imagine a conspiracy between science and politics."
There is a difference between science and ideology. Science always has room for new data, skepticism, and paradigm shifts. Ideology doesn't. So the science of anthropogenic global warming isn't settled.
What lying? This is but one study that was only recently announced. Coke's position precede's this study and may yet prove to be accurate. And while there may be other bitter flavors available, caffeine might very well prove to be cheaper, more shelf-stable, easier to obtain, etc.
They weren't necessarily doing this just to be evil.
Someone mod the parent up, please. There have been a lot of hand-wringing alarmists making claims about how damaging these things are, and I've often suspected the issue had little scientific merit behind it. I had one person complain that since LASER stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation, that the light itself was radioactive and therefore could cause cancer!
Servo Magazine had a feature last month on the Robosapien. Apparently, the designer felt very strongly about letting users hack the device, so he left plenty of space to add capabilities. The current issue of the magazine has a hacking contest for the toy. See Hack-a-Sapien contest.
You got me on the HTML vs. UBB screw-up, but "verbose?" Coming from someone who writes in sentence fragments and can't punctuate? Don't worry, though, if you study really hard and do all the reading homework Ms. Crenshaw assigns, you'll eventually be able to read stuff grown-ups write.
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, friend, but you have that exactly reversed. Hot rocks and heating pads put the animal at greater risk than an incandescent bulb, since they tend to have uneven heating and can get extremely hot when they malfunction. On the other hand, an incandescent bulb mimics something the reptile has been programmed by nature to respond to: the Sun. When the animal overheats, it moves to shade, and when it gets cool again, it goes back under the lamp.
Check with a reputable herp vet, or look for Melissa Kaplan's website for reptiles in general or green iguanas in particular, and you'll find lots of good reasons to stay away from heating a reptile from underneath.
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
100+ watt CRTs have better color and timing characteristics than LCDs. A 100 watt incandescent light bulb puts out heat that can be useful for more than just illumination...for example in reptile cages.
While I agree that most applications don't [b]need[/b] 1 GHz processors, the simple fact is that there is often just one [i]critical[/i] application (which varies from user to user) that does need the extra power. Video editing, 3D graphics rendering, CAD, and something as simple as most games will make any shopper seek the most powerful system they can afford.
Hold on a second. The Professor isn't exactly an intellectual slouch. I doubt he'd have trouble deducing the fate of the skinny screw-up and it wouldn't take him long to realize that he's got something the Skipper quite possibly wants: Ginger. Now what does he do? Since the Skipper represents the closest thing to the authorities the island has, he certainly can't go that route, so he has to take his personal defense into his own hands. He can kill the Skipper outright and then lay claim to both Ginger and Mary Ann, or he can compromise the Skipper in some way so that the old sailor can no longer even consider causing the academic any harm.
Since the former is risky, considering the Skipper is probably a superior tactician, I'd see the Professor taking the latter route. He could easily build a still and turn the ruined captain of the S.S. Minnow into a lush, but given Jonas Grumby's history in the Navy, he just might have a clue how to operate such a device on his own and the Professor would still be at risk. Instead, Roy Hinkley must fall back on his skills as a chemist and botanist. He must create narcotics that require his expertise to produce on an on-demand basis. By making the Skipper chemically dependent upon him, the Professor now has a commodity the Skipper requires and a tight little monopoly upon the supply; thus ensuring that Jonas Grumby will comply with his bidding. Easy access to Mary Ann is then a given, and Professor Hinkley can then set about populating the island with intelligent progeny.
Hold on a second. Wasn't MIT's media lab doing this a decade ago? I thought I remember something about Negropronte exchanging information between computers with a simple handshake.
Simon, I'm afraid I object to your description of a "single photon beam". If there's only one photon, let's call it something else, because a beam suggests a lot more than a single photon.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's that simple. First, I believe this experiment used acetone for the liquid medium, and I'm not certain that it's behavior in a steam turbine system is satisfactory. Second, there is the question of energy density. Sure, they're seeing bubbles that exhibit sonoluminescence, but are they seeing enough bubbles to heat the fluid to the point that it can drive a steam turbine?
And even if they are, which I don't think is the case (the flashes last only 35 picoseconds), will the system be efficient enough to exceed break-even? I can boil water on my electric stove to drive a steam turbine, but not at sufficient power to run the stove.
That's a cool idea, but what would be the efficiency of that process? Earlier experiments used a 14MeV neutron beam to generate microscopic nucleation points which sonoluminescent fusion expanded and collapsed, releasing 2.5 MeV neutrons. I'm not ready to say "bubble fusion" can't be used to generate power, but I think it's important to consider it an area for pure research at the moment without any immediate application. This problably will not lead to fusion power plants, unfortunately.
That doesn't, mean the subject should be ignored, just that folks shouldn't get their hopes up over this process. (Added for the benefit of clueless ACs who might have difficulty with reading and comprehension.)
While these results are fascinating, and the research is worthwhile in its own right as pure science, I wonder if this is at all useful for generating power. Is there any way to capture the energy released? I'd imagine most of the energy produced would be wasted and difficult to extract.
Sorry about that. I went back in time and brought one of my predecessors with me since I couldn't beat you up on my own.
And magma is a liquid. Geologically, when large quantities of ice melts and the weight of all that frozen water goes away, the land masses under them bob upwards.
But...I wonder what happens to those land masses without ice to begin with?
Forget that! I want several RoboRaptors hunting my wife's cats.
That'll teach them to climb up on my desk when I'm not around.
The tsunami was caused by an earthquake, not global warming.
"They also laughed at Bozo the clown." -- Carl Sagan
Sure we do ... it's just that some people would rather pretend it didn't happen.
[beat]
Brilliant!
If it's so useful, then why doesn't it make sense to reimburse and reward the person who discovered it?
Then why, as a recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out, did Senate Democrats propose a bill "exempting climate programs from having to pass scientific scrutiny? The legislative language excuses any "research and data collection, or information analysis conducted by or for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" (the agency charged with monitoring climate change) from the Data Quality Act, a new law that requires sound science in policymaking. This is the sole exemption in the bill. ...our sources say it was included at the request of Democrats on the Senate subcommittee that wrote the spending bill in question, but that now the exemption is getting the attention of Chairman Judd Gregg, who says he intends to remove it. Let's hope so. Surely those who claim to believe most in climate change aren't afraid to subject their theories to even basic tests of scientific accuracy. Or are they?"
Why is Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick", a central pillar of the GCMs around which so much support for the climate models has been built, increasingly under scrutiny for procedural flaws and sloppy statistics that damage the validity of the proposal. In an interview with German climate modeller Hans von Storch this week in Der Spiegal, von Storch says, "The Mann graph indicates that it was never warmer during the last thousand years than it is today. In a near perfect slope the curve declines from the Middle Ages up to 1800, only to shoot up sharply with the beginning of fossil-fuel burning. Mann's calculations rest, inter alia, on analyses of tree rings and corals. We were able to show in a publication in 'Science' that this graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: rubbish."
He also says, quite correctly, "...Mann rejects any reproach most forcefully. His defensiveness is understandable. Nobody likes to see his own child die. But we must respect our credibility as research scientists. Otherwise we play into the hands of those sceptics of global climate change who imagine a conspiracy between science and politics." There is a difference between science and ideology. Science always has room for new data, skepticism, and paradigm shifts. Ideology doesn't. So the science of anthropogenic global warming isn't settled.
What lying? This is but one study that was only recently announced. Coke's position precede's this study and may yet prove to be accurate. And while there may be other bitter flavors available, caffeine might very well prove to be cheaper, more shelf-stable, easier to obtain, etc.
They weren't necessarily doing this just to be evil.
Someone mod the parent up, please. There have been a lot of hand-wringing alarmists making claims about how damaging these things are, and I've often suspected the issue had little scientific merit behind it. I had one person complain that since LASER stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation, that the light itself was radioactive and therefore could cause cancer!
- Qrio isn't commercially available yet.
- Robosapiens costs about $99 at BestBuy
So heck, considering the status of Qrio, I could almost get away with saying ED209 could kick Qrio's butt.Servo Magazine had a feature last month on the Robosapien. Apparently, the designer felt very strongly about letting users hack the device, so he left plenty of space to add capabilities. The current issue of the magazine has a hacking contest for the toy. See Hack-a-Sapien contest.
You got me on the HTML vs. UBB screw-up, but "verbose?" Coming from someone who writes in sentence fragments and can't punctuate? Don't worry, though, if you study really hard and do all the reading homework Ms. Crenshaw assigns, you'll eventually be able to read stuff grown-ups write.
Sorry, friend, but you have that exactly reversed. Hot rocks and heating pads put the animal at greater risk than an incandescent bulb, since they tend to have uneven heating and can get extremely hot when they malfunction. On the other hand, an incandescent bulb mimics something the reptile has been programmed by nature to respond to: the Sun. When the animal overheats, it moves to shade, and when it gets cool again, it goes back under the lamp.
Check with a reputable herp vet, or look for Melissa Kaplan's website for reptiles in general or green iguanas in particular, and you'll find lots of good reasons to stay away from heating a reptile from underneath.
100+ watt CRTs have better color and timing characteristics than LCDs. A 100 watt incandescent light bulb puts out heat that can be useful for more than just illumination...for example in reptile cages.
While I agree that most applications don't [b]need[/b] 1 GHz processors, the simple fact is that there is often just one [i]critical[/i] application (which varies from user to user) that does need the extra power. Video editing, 3D graphics rendering, CAD, and something as simple as most games will make any shopper seek the most powerful system they can afford.
Hold on a second. The Professor isn't exactly an intellectual slouch. I doubt he'd have trouble deducing the fate of the skinny screw-up and it wouldn't take him long to realize that he's got something the Skipper quite possibly wants: Ginger. Now what does he do? Since the Skipper represents the closest thing to the authorities the island has, he certainly can't go that route, so he has to take his personal defense into his own hands. He can kill the Skipper outright and then lay claim to both Ginger and Mary Ann, or he can compromise the Skipper in some way so that the old sailor can no longer even consider causing the academic any harm.
Since the former is risky, considering the Skipper is probably a superior tactician, I'd see the Professor taking the latter route. He could easily build a still and turn the ruined captain of the S.S. Minnow into a lush, but given Jonas Grumby's history in the Navy, he just might have a clue how to operate such a device on his own and the Professor would still be at risk. Instead, Roy Hinkley must fall back on his skills as a chemist and botanist. He must create narcotics that require his expertise to produce on an on-demand basis. By making the Skipper chemically dependent upon him, the Professor now has a commodity the Skipper requires and a tight little monopoly upon the supply; thus ensuring that Jonas Grumby will comply with his bidding. Easy access to Mary Ann is then a given, and Professor Hinkley can then set about populating the island with intelligent progeny.
Two questions:
Why did you post this as an Anonymous Coward? It's pretty good stuff and you deserve credit for it.
Why don't I ever have moderation points when I need them?
Hold on a second. Wasn't MIT's media lab doing this a decade ago? I thought I remember something about Negropronte exchanging information between computers with a simple handshake.
"I can't wait for Rutan to finally snatch the Xprize... almost looks like a fait-accompli."
Yeah! What could possibly go wrong?
Wait. I don't think I should have said that.
In some parallel realities, it's just an acceptable alternet spelling.
Simon, I'm afraid I object to your description of a "single photon beam". If there's only one photon, let's call it something else, because a beam suggests a lot more than a single photon.
How about a photon torpedo?
[whistles innocently]