It may be there now, but it hasn't always been there. I've got the most recent Mac version (1.0.3) up on my screen. There is no Word Count under Tools. Sorry.
For what I need (getting as close to that magazine article word count as possible) it's more than enough. It may not be so great for term papers (not that I would understand why it wouldn't be) but it hits the spot for 90% of users. Especially since I'd only ever used the Office 97 word count feature. The differences between those two is minor.
In Office 2000 SP2+, he comes back on next time you restart Office. I'm thinking this is one of those "features" that Microsoft added to make you upgrade.
Indeed. The core of the problem for businesses is that they have invested heavily into MS Office software. Converting all of their "documents" (really mini-programs or desktop publications that should have been done with a better program) is a time consuming and expensive task. When companies look at the cost of converting and the cost of an Office upgrade, they end up dipping their heads and purchasing Office.
I agree that OOo on Mac is pretty painful. But for some odd reason, I keep using it instead of OfficeX. If it *really* bothers you that much, you can try one of the builds at:
The only thing that matters to me is whether OO.o comes with Clippy or not!
Amazingly enough, OOo has this little exploding light bulb that's almost as annoying. Pops up every time OOo corrects a mistake, saves a document, or thinks you're looking at it weird. Its only positive attribute is that it isn't animated like Clippy.
OpenOffice is Good Enough(TM). Things are sometimes in places you don't expect them thanks to MS Office training (e.g. Word Count is in document properties), but once you're used to it, you'll use it by default.
Despite having Office X on my Mac, I use OpenOffice all the time now. It's amazing how much it grows on you despite the initially underwhelming first impressions.
Indeed. Boeing actually tested the waters by announcing a supersonic jetliner that would have a reduced sonic boom. The problem was that there was almost no interest in the project.
With Quantum Entanglement communications beginning to become a reality, the future may hold wireless devices that communicate world-wide. Imagine if you could take your phone, internet, and radio along with you to the middle of the African plains! Or more close to home, you'll have crystal clear communications via a single device, no matter where in the country or world you travel. Just plug in your matching hub to your home internet connection, and you're set! Not to mention that security is built into the design. It would be literally impossible for hackers to penetrate the line of communications.
The converse doesn't need to be true because alternative fuel is a subset of alternative energy.
It does need to be true for my statement to be wrong. I said that Bush was the first to invest government money into alternative fuels. Solar and Wind Alternative energies do not qualify in that statement.
I'm sorry I blew up at you. Some people around here can be denser than lead (often intentionally). After awhile it ends up getting to you. I wouldn't stick around if it wasn't a great place to meet some of the brightest minds across a variety of educated fields.
It's the "standard" figure I was given way back when. BTW, you've got your measurements wrong. A "food Calorie" is not the same as an English "calorie". A Calories (with a capital C) is 1000 calories. Thus:
If I'm not mistaken, E85 is tapping into an existing crop resource that would otherwise be regarded as waste.
According to their FAQ, we could produce about 2 billion gallons today. That gives us about 1.45% of the 137 billion gallons we need for a complete economic switchover.
The FFV option on cars to use this E85 or even E95 is a rather new standard.
I did read their info on it. Until vehicles are made with e85 in mind however, corrosion is likely to be an issue. I'm not sure if its much worse for the engine than the carbon deposits that gasoline produces, but it's certainly significant enough to replace the fuel transfer and injection components.
On the plus side, you can mix and match E85 or E95 with standard gasoline. So you don't need a separate tank or worry about running your tank low enough to switch over.
Indeed. As long as the car is able to resist the corrosive effects, it only needs the software to properly tune the engine for the current fuel mixture. The downside is that you'd need a relatively new car for conversion. Still, it's far better than having to buy a brand new hydrogen fuel cell car.:-)
As much as I'd like to support Ethanol fuels, I'm afraid that I can't. The problem isn't so much in their use or energy density, but rather the difficulties in producing them. You see, it takes a *LOT* of land to grow the grains needed for Ethanol. Some calculate as much as 137.5 million acres to produce the 103 billion gallons necessary to meet current consumption rates. Given that the number of farms is currently at 2,158,090, you'd need to add about 64 acres of land for each farm in the US.
Hmm... on second thought, that doesn't actually sound *too* bad. That's still a significant increase over current production. And all the vehicles would have to switched over. I have to wonder if we have the land for this? The amount of land farmed (~1 billion acres) has not changed since the 1930's. We'd be talking about a 14% increase in the amount of land farmed today. Not to mention that the numbers I just gave includes ALL agriculture, not just grain.
You didn't get the point. The fuel you bring is the same as now.
That's not necessarily true. You may be working on a gasoline version, but many fuel cells use pure hydrogen or difficult to obtain methanol. Methanol is difficult because we couldn't keep a large enough supply to continue to power vehicles. I don't remember the energy conversion ratios, but there's only a few watts of solar energy per acre of land. Thus it takes a long time and a lot of land for plants to accumulate the necessary energy densities. Nuclear power is a far better choice as an energy source. Using nuclear energy, we could manufacture hydrogen or complex fuel sources. (Hydrogen being cheaper and more efficient.)
The Fuel Cell/Reformer combination is about 65% thermally efficient vs a gasoline engine at about 18%
Hmm... 65% is a rather large figure to be throwing about. For the sake of argument however:
43 MJ/kg x 18% = 7.74 MJ/kg 15 MJ/kg x 65% = 9.75 MJ/kg
In which case it looks like you have a miracle technology on your hands. I'm not quite sure I believe that efficiency rating though. Thermal systems are notorious for being highly inefficient.
Do you have a link for this technology that confirms the efficiency figure?
You act as if the converse is true. An alternative energy source is not an alternative fuel.
What I think happened is that you made too strong of a statement, got called on it, and are reverting to semantics to backpedal your way out of it.
What happened is that not a single person on this **** board can figure out what FUEL is. FUEL is consumable energy storages. If the material is not consumed in the process, it is a battery. With fossil fuels, it just so happens that nature did the grunt work for us. Plants took the solar energy and converted it to fuel stores. Those plants (and many animals who ate them) decomposed and concentrated. Thus we get to dig up a nice FUEL that has an energy density of 43 MJ/kg.
Solar panels are not FUEL. They are devices that convert solar energy into usable energy. Windmills are not FUEL either. They are devices that convert wind into usable energy. You see where this is going?
Yeash. No one ever takes the time to know what the hell they're blathering about.
fossil fuels == a common energy storage for the solar energy that hits the Earth
fuel cells == fuel pods that process hydrogen storages to create electricity
hydrogen == A type of fuel that can be extracted from water. The second law of thermodynamics states that less energy will be extracted out of hydrogen than the amount that it took to extract the hydrogen from water.
solar energy == an energetic byproduct of a giant nuclear fusion reactor
solar panel == a device that converts solar energy into "useful" energy such as heat or electricity
1. That's rather indirect "funding" of new technologies. Bush proposed fairly direct funding.
2. They were created to develop alternative energy sources. I see no evidence that they have addressed the issue of alternative fuels. Particularly fuels suitable for use in automobiles.
You can use solar on cars and houses, you can use hydrogen power on cars and houses. I fail to see how this is insightful.
And I can power my car with 10,000 potato batteries too. Of course, it wouldn't be a feasible way to power it. Neither is solar power. Plus, neither one is a fuel. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. Bush is the first to promote alternative fuels. Alternative energy solutions like wind, solar, and nuclear provide other methods of generating energy to do things like create fuels.
I expect it to be resolved quite pleasantly with a fuel cell/fuel reformer combination and use Gasoline as the fuel or methanol or similar.
That doesn't solve our dependence on fossil fuels. Sorry to switch topics on you, but the environment is only half the problem. I do have to wonder though, what happens to the carbon in this process?
That should have been "Mr. Tambourine Maaaaannnnn!!!"
(For those who don't get the joke, go here and listen to Shatner's "Mr. Tambourine Man". As a bonus, download the "Seven" video after listening to MTM.)
However, notice that as long as electricity from the fuel cell is used to propel the vehicle, it becomes rediculously easy to implement recapturing of your kinetic energy through using dynamos instead of friction brakes.
Indeed. But efficiency only gets you so far. Let's pull up a few numbers and make up a few efficiencies. Here are the energy densities of our fuels:
Gasoline: 43 MJ/kg Fuel Cell: 15 MJ/kg
20-30% efficiency is quite common in machines. Let's say that we get 20% out of gas and 40% out of the fuel cell. That gives us the following "real" energy numbers:
Gasoline: 8.6 MJ/kg Fuel Cell: 6 MJ/kg
As you can see, the efficiency improvement helps, but it's still significantly less energetic. BTW, I have no idea if the numbers I've quoted above are for 100% efficiency or not. So the gap may be much wider than the (albeit fake) numbers I just gave.
Slashdot Mirror
And Tools-Word Count
(always been there)
It may be there now, but it hasn't always been there. I've got the most recent Mac version (1.0.3) up on my screen. There is no Word Count under Tools. Sorry.
For what I need (getting as close to that magazine article word count as possible) it's more than enough. It may not be so great for term papers (not that I would understand why it wouldn't be) but it hits the spot for 90% of users. Especially since I'd only ever used the Office 97 word count feature. The differences between those two is minor.
In Office 2000 SP2+, he comes back on next time you restart Office. I'm thinking this is one of those "features" that Microsoft added to make you upgrade.
Indeed. The core of the problem for businesses is that they have invested heavily into MS Office software. Converting all of their "documents" (really mini-programs or desktop publications that should have been done with a better program) is a time consuming and expensive task. When companies look at the cost of converting and the cost of an Office upgrade, they end up dipping their heads and purchasing Office.
:-/
Nobody does lock-in like Microsoft.
I agree that OOo on Mac is pretty painful. But for some odd reason, I keep using it instead of OfficeX. If it *really* bothers you that much, you can try one of the builds at:
http://www.neooffice.org/
It's semi-beta stuff, but it's supposed to be all of OpenOffice without X11.
The only thing that matters to me is whether OO.o comes with Clippy or not!
Amazingly enough, OOo has this little exploding light bulb that's almost as annoying. Pops up every time OOo corrects a mistake, saves a document, or thinks you're looking at it weird. Its only positive attribute is that it isn't animated like Clippy.
Or you could download it. What's the educational discount for, anyway? Knock 50 cents off a preprinted CD?
OpenOffice is Good Enough(TM). Things are sometimes in places you don't expect them thanks to MS Office training (e.g. Word Count is in document properties), but once you're used to it, you'll use it by default.
Despite having Office X on my Mac, I use OpenOffice all the time now. It's amazing how much it grows on you despite the initially underwhelming first impressions.
CNET
Don't ask.
RISC
Reduced Instruction Set Computer
DSP
Digital Signal Processing
ASIC
Application-specific integrated circuit
Indeed. Boeing actually tested the waters by announcing a supersonic jetliner that would have a reduced sonic boom. The problem was that there was almost no interest in the project.
With Quantum Entanglement communications beginning to become a reality, the future may hold wireless devices that communicate world-wide. Imagine if you could take your phone, internet, and radio along with you to the middle of the African plains! Or more close to home, you'll have crystal clear communications via a single device, no matter where in the country or world you travel. Just plug in your matching hub to your home internet connection, and you're set! Not to mention that security is built into the design. It would be literally impossible for hackers to penetrate the line of communications.
:-)
It's a nice dream anyway.
The converse doesn't need to be true because alternative fuel is a subset of alternative energy.
It does need to be true for my statement to be wrong. I said that Bush was the first to invest government money into alternative fuels. Solar and Wind Alternative energies do not qualify in that statement.
I'm sorry I blew up at you. Some people around here can be denser than lead (often intentionally). After awhile it ends up getting to you. I wouldn't stick around if it wasn't a great place to meet some of the brightest minds across a variety of educated fields.
200 watts is pretty high output for a human.
It's the "standard" figure I was given way back when. BTW, you've got your measurements wrong. A "food Calorie" is not the same as an English "calorie". A Calories (with a capital C) is 1000 calories. Thus:
2000 Cal/day == 418KJ/day == 17.4KJ/hour == 290 watts
If I'm not mistaken, E85 is tapping into an existing crop resource that would otherwise be regarded as waste.
According to their FAQ, we could produce about 2 billion gallons today. That gives us about 1.45% of the 137 billion gallons we need for a complete economic switchover.
The FFV option on cars to use this E85 or even E95 is a rather new standard.
I did read their info on it. Until vehicles are made with e85 in mind however, corrosion is likely to be an issue. I'm not sure if its much worse for the engine than the carbon deposits that gasoline produces, but it's certainly significant enough to replace the fuel transfer and injection components.
On the plus side, you can mix and match E85 or E95 with standard gasoline. So you don't need a separate tank or worry about running your tank low enough to switch over.
Indeed. As long as the car is able to resist the corrosive effects, it only needs the software to properly tune the engine for the current fuel mixture. The downside is that you'd need a relatively new car for conversion. Still, it's far better than having to buy a brand new hydrogen fuel cell car.
As much as I'd like to support Ethanol fuels, I'm afraid that I can't. The problem isn't so much in their use or energy density, but rather the difficulties in producing them. You see, it takes a *LOT* of land to grow the grains needed for Ethanol. Some calculate as much as 137.5 million acres to produce the 103 billion gallons necessary to meet current consumption rates. Given that the number of farms is currently at 2,158,090, you'd need to add about 64 acres of land for each farm in the US.
Hmm... on second thought, that doesn't actually sound *too* bad. That's still a significant increase over current production. And all the vehicles would have to switched over. I have to wonder if we have the land for this? The amount of land farmed (~1 billion acres) has not changed since the 1930's. We'd be talking about a 14% increase in the amount of land farmed today. Not to mention that the numbers I just gave includes ALL agriculture, not just grain.
I'll have to ponder it a bit more.
You didn't get the point. The fuel you bring is the same as now.
That's not necessarily true. You may be working on a gasoline version, but many fuel cells use pure hydrogen or difficult to obtain methanol. Methanol is difficult because we couldn't keep a large enough supply to continue to power vehicles. I don't remember the energy conversion ratios, but there's only a few watts of solar energy per acre of land. Thus it takes a long time and a lot of land for plants to accumulate the necessary energy densities. Nuclear power is a far better choice as an energy source. Using nuclear energy, we could manufacture hydrogen or complex fuel sources. (Hydrogen being cheaper and more efficient.)
The Fuel Cell/Reformer combination is about 65% thermally efficient vs a gasoline engine at about 18%
Hmm... 65% is a rather large figure to be throwing about. For the sake of argument however:
43 MJ/kg x 18% = 7.74 MJ/kg
15 MJ/kg x 65% = 9.75 MJ/kg
In which case it looks like you have a miracle technology on your hands. I'm not quite sure I believe that efficiency rating though. Thermal systems are notorious for being highly inefficient.
Do you have a link for this technology that confirms the efficiency figure?
An alternate fuel IS an alternate energy source
You act as if the converse is true. An alternative energy source is not an alternative fuel.
What I think happened is that you made too strong of a statement, got called on it, and are reverting to semantics to backpedal your way out of it.
What happened is that not a single person on this **** board can figure out what FUEL is. FUEL is consumable energy storages. If the material is not consumed in the process, it is a battery. With fossil fuels, it just so happens that nature did the grunt work for us. Plants took the solar energy and converted it to fuel stores. Those plants (and many animals who ate them) decomposed and concentrated. Thus we get to dig up a nice FUEL that has an energy density of 43 MJ/kg.
Solar panels are not FUEL. They are devices that convert solar energy into usable energy. Windmills are not FUEL either. They are devices that convert wind into usable energy. You see where this is going?
Yeash. No one ever takes the time to know what the hell they're blathering about.
Energy generation != fuel
fuel == method for storing and retrieving energy
fossil fuels == a common energy storage for the solar energy that hits the Earth
fuel cells == fuel pods that process hydrogen storages to create electricity
hydrogen == A type of fuel that can be extracted from water. The second law of thermodynamics states that less energy will be extracted out of hydrogen than the amount that it took to extract the hydrogen from water.
solar energy == an energetic byproduct of a giant nuclear fusion reactor
solar panel == a device that converts solar energy into "useful" energy such as heat or electricity
Understand?
Might want to recheck that.
It was under your sibling post.
I stand corrected, but with two caveats:
1. That's rather indirect "funding" of new technologies. Bush proposed fairly direct funding.
2. They were created to develop alternative energy sources. I see no evidence that they have addressed the issue of alternative fuels. Particularly fuels suitable for use in automobiles.
You can use solar on cars and houses, you can use hydrogen power on cars and houses. I fail to see how this is insightful.
And I can power my car with 10,000 potato batteries too. Of course, it wouldn't be a feasible way to power it. Neither is solar power. Plus, neither one is a fuel. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. Bush is the first to promote alternative fuels. Alternative energy solutions like wind, solar, and nuclear provide other methods of generating energy to do things like create fuels.
I expect it to be resolved quite pleasantly with a fuel cell/fuel reformer combination and use Gasoline as the fuel or methanol or similar.
That doesn't solve our dependence on fossil fuels. Sorry to switch topics on you, but the environment is only half the problem. I do have to wonder though, what happens to the carbon in this process?
That should have been "Mr. Tambourine Maaaaannnnn!!!"
(For those who don't get the joke, go here and listen to Shatner's "Mr. Tambourine Man". As a bonus, download the "Seven" video after listening to MTM.)
However, notice that as long as electricity from the fuel cell is used to propel the vehicle, it becomes rediculously easy to implement recapturing of your kinetic energy through using dynamos instead of friction brakes.
Indeed. But efficiency only gets you so far. Let's pull up a few numbers and make up a few efficiencies. Here are the energy densities of our fuels:
Gasoline: 43 MJ/kg
Fuel Cell: 15 MJ/kg
20-30% efficiency is quite common in machines. Let's say that we get 20% out of gas and 40% out of the fuel cell. That gives us the following "real" energy numbers:
Gasoline: 8.6 MJ/kg
Fuel Cell: 6 MJ/kg
As you can see, the efficiency improvement helps, but it's still significantly less energetic. BTW, I have no idea if the numbers I've quoted above are for 100% efficiency or not. So the gap may be much wider than the (albeit fake) numbers I just gave.