The begalbone in your link lists for $89 MSRP. It has less memory and is a whole lot less popular than the Pi. So it's more expensive and has additional limitations. But if you like them, by all means, buy them and have fun.
But my point is that the Pi is supposed to be what it is. It is cheap, inexpensive, low cost, educational computing device that is as CHEAP as possible so it can be used by as many folks as possible......
their poor power regulation makes them just flaky enough to be totally unsuitable for use as anything other than as a nerd toy.
Last I looked, the Pi depends on the power regulation of the power supply being used. I've had no problems with my Pi's but I also have 2 Amp capable 5V supplies and I use short USB cables to power the thing. I've not had any stability problems.
ive never cared for the Pi for a few reasons, call me a hater but ive reasons..
Beagle board over the Pi? To each their own I guess. I like cheap myself....
This software/electrical engineer own two Pi's and I see why they are popular. They are CHEAP and reasonably well supported. They are also easy to setup and use in most suitable applications and they are CHEAP. I do not complain about lack of horse power or about the Pi's other limitations because it is CHEAP. My only complaint about the Pi is the card slot is way too easy to break, but you can replace the slot or just replace the Pi because it is CHEAP. Even being CHEAP, the Pi can be used to stream HD media, browse the web and a whole host of things you can imagine, just remember that it really can only do ONE thing at a time, but it's CHEAP too!
The Pi was designed around one major goal, to be CHEAP. That is where the Pi shines and the secret to it's success, it is inexpensive to get started and CHEAP to replace when it breaks.
Finally, unlike other projects running 2-3 times the price (Of which there are many and the Bebalboard is an example), the Pi is CHEAPer..
I'm not so sure. I seem to recall that my last CT scan involved only a table that moved me through the ring sensor in one direction. Judging by the sounds I was hearing there was something spinning around the ring. I assume this was the Xray source and a detector going round in there. So we do the same with containers being pulled by trucks by scaling up some. Sounds doable to me.
Does someone really think they are going to take a shipping containers worth of terrorist bad stuff and move it to a multimillion dollar turntable to scan it? To quote the original article
Nope, but perhaps it could be done as a container moves though a location on it's way out of the yard. No turntable required, just have them driven though... Of course you MIGHT want to give the drivers lead lined trucks or something....
True that.. We've been using X-Rays and Ultrasound in industrial processes for a LONG time, and some of these processes used the same technology in a CT scan where you post process the images to view things not easily seen in the original images.
One thing though... Most people are going to see the MRI machine these days anyway. CT scans involve X-Rays which are generally not seen as a good thing in large doses and CT Scans involve a lot of individual images so X-Ray exposure can be a factor. MRI has less radiation issues so unless you have magnetic materials in your body, you are getting an MRI..
The reactor designs I've seen for commercial power did not include the ability to refuel while running. I've only seen two up close with my own two eyes. Both where under construction and neither had fuel in them. I was no expert then and it's been three decades since. I can imagine ways to make refueling happen while operating, so I guess they have mastered that.
My "Cycle the power" is just a theory based on things I can surmise. Electrical producers like to run their nuke plants at constant outputs for days, weeks, or months, a luxury I'm assuming is not necessarily one the Navy has. Power producers can run deep into their fuel cycles and by slowly lowering the power output can keep the xenon poisoning at bay, For the Navy would be an unacceptably risky portion of the fuel cycle, due to the "non mission capable" should a reactor be shutdown too quickly. You just don't want to tow some ship home, because they can't restart their reactor.
The power generator will manage their fuel to get as much usable energy out of every ounce of fuel for two reasons. 1. It's cheaper to burn less fuel, 2. Refueling is an expensive operation. Ship reactors are a different story. The Navy is more interested in keeping the system operating without much regard to cost or efficiency. They want mission capable as much as possible so they are likely to refuel much sooner than a power plant.
Keep in mind too, that the Navy is not interested in making a profit. It's goal is to keep it's resources available (afloat, underway and mission capable) under the most difficult circumstances. They can afford to have many times the number of people operating a power plant and they utilize their people to keep their plants operating sans automation. The Navy is not interested in being efficient either. They routinely power cycle their plants and burn though more fuel than they other wise would. They also are not risk adverse. In time of war, they would have no problem pushing their reactors beyond the design limits if the mission demanded it.
Electric power generation is about efficiency and safety. It's more efficient to automate and not pay operators, so they automate their plants, and operate within very narrow operating parameters. They are risk adverse and would rather scram a reactor and go off line than risk operating outside of their design limits.
The navy does have an enviable safety record. But what you really are saying is that the safety of nuclear power is really something to be trumpeted. Except for some research accidents, the worst US event in history was Three Mile Island and that was pretty much nothing. When you put Japan into the mix, things get more interesting, but who can really complain about that? The earthquake was well beyond design limits and even then the damage, while significant, is going to be manageable. It's just going to take a few decades for things to radioactively cool.
Yea, the OP did make some assumptions about the understanding of the reader and basic heat engine operations.
Most power plants have a boiler that converts the working fluid to a gas. This gas is piped at high pressure though a turbine which drives a generator. This lowers the temperature and pressure of the gas which is then sent to a condenser where the gas is converted back to a liquid. This liquid is pumped into the boiler and the cycle starts over.
What they are talking about is the place where they take the working fluid from a low pressure gas to a liquid by removing heat. This takes place in a condenser. A condenser has cold surfaces that are exposed to the low pressure vapor. These cold surfaces have liquid condense on them that then runs off to be pumped back into the boiler. Apparently being able to get the liquid off the cold surfaces quickly makes the transfer of heat more efficient and faster.
Of course, the real question about their theory here is if the process they claim can be engineered to happen and provide more energy savings than it consumes. So far they have not been very successful doing this on an industrial scale.
The way I read this it was about heat transfer. If you can get the water droplets off the "cold" side sooner, you don't have to transfer heat through them. So you want the condensed liquid to go away so you can keep as much surface area in contact with the vapor as possible.
I'm not sure how this makes a closed system more water efficient.
True that... The law IS in effect and if the president's rhetoric reflects his actual position will remain in effect for at least 3 years and 4 months.
I was addressing the idea that the house should just stand down and let the funding for the ACA flow dispute their objections. As long as everybody is working within their constitutional authority you are free to advance your views using any means available. If the republicans want to go to the mat on this, they have the right (if not the moral obligation) to do so, just like the president has the right (as well as the moral obligation) to veto laws he doesn't feel are good ideas.
Actually, the military is already going to be paid. The bill that funds paying the military was passed by the house and senate and signed by the president days ago. See H.R. 3210 which became law 9/30/13.
since misappropriating a law that deals with the government's budgetary process in order to combat a law that would otherwise pass through the legislature strikes me as corruption.
So, you are saying that the ACA would be able to pass if it where suggested today? I think it's fairly clear that it would NOT make it out of the house if they tried to pass it today. When it passed, It was rushed though the Senate because the special election for Ted Kennedy's seat was poised to make it impossible for the bill to get a filibuster proof cloture vote. This bill pretty much got though both chambers by the skin of it's teeth on very partisan votes.
There have been TWO congressional elections since, and support for the ACA has been clearly down in the house in both of them.
If he is *IN* the Navy, he will be paid on time. If he is a civilian, there may be a delay but eventually he will be paid.
At least until the 17th when the debt ceiling arrives.... After that it is anybodies guess what bills will be paid...
This government "shutdown" thing is just a warm up act, the real show will start on the 17th (or whenever the Treasury decides they've run out of money.) To mix metaphors, this whole thing is a game of musical chairs. On the 17th, the music stops for the last time. Problem is, there will be 500+ in congress and 1 from the White-house all looking to sit in that last chair. The main show then starts.
Grab your popcorn, turn on the TV and set up all your favorite news outlets so you can easily switch between them... The fun begins.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wondering... Does that come in triplicate carbon copies?
The begalbone in your link lists for $89 MSRP. It has less memory and is a whole lot less popular than the Pi. So it's more expensive and has additional limitations. But if you like them, by all means, buy them and have fun.
But my point is that the Pi is supposed to be what it is. It is cheap, inexpensive, low cost, educational computing device that is as CHEAP as possible so it can be used by as many folks as possible......
their poor power regulation makes them just flaky enough to be totally unsuitable for use as anything other than as a nerd toy.
Last I looked, the Pi depends on the power regulation of the power supply being used. I've had no problems with my Pi's but I also have 2 Amp capable 5V supplies and I use short USB cables to power the thing. I've not had any stability problems.
and the second one is used as a secondary computer, with the raspbian distribution and an amazon kindle used as a display :-)
Pardon my ignorance.. But how do you use a Kindle as a display for a PI?
ive never cared for the Pi for a few reasons, call me a hater but ive reasons..
Beagle board over the Pi? To each their own I guess. I like cheap myself....
This software/electrical engineer own two Pi's and I see why they are popular. They are CHEAP and reasonably well supported. They are also easy to setup and use in most suitable applications and they are CHEAP. I do not complain about lack of horse power or about the Pi's other limitations because it is CHEAP. My only complaint about the Pi is the card slot is way too easy to break, but you can replace the slot or just replace the Pi because it is CHEAP. Even being CHEAP, the Pi can be used to stream HD media, browse the web and a whole host of things you can imagine, just remember that it really can only do ONE thing at a time, but it's CHEAP too!
The Pi was designed around one major goal, to be CHEAP. That is where the Pi shines and the secret to it's success, it is inexpensive to get started and CHEAP to replace when it breaks.
Finally, unlike other projects running 2-3 times the price (Of which there are many and the Bebalboard is an example), the Pi is CHEAPer..
That won't work the way you think it would.
I'm not so sure. I seem to recall that my last CT scan involved only a table that moved me through the ring sensor in one direction. Judging by the sounds I was hearing there was something spinning around the ring. I assume this was the Xray source and a detector going round in there. So we do the same with containers being pulled by trucks by scaling up some. Sounds doable to me.
I've had cars like that.... One specific 65 VW Bug comes to mind... Cheap car, but you always had to b doing something to it...
Good luck with that car Joey.. Hopefully if you work hard, it will get better...
Does someone really think they are going to take a shipping containers worth of terrorist bad stuff and move it to a multimillion dollar turntable to scan it? To quote the original article
Nope, but perhaps it could be done as a container moves though a location on it's way out of the yard. No turntable required, just have them driven though... Of course you MIGHT want to give the drivers lead lined trucks or something....
Already there I think... Right next to the radiation detectors.. We've been doing this for YEARS at the airport for baggage....
True that.. We've been using X-Rays and Ultrasound in industrial processes for a LONG time, and some of these processes used the same technology in a CT scan where you post process the images to view things not easily seen in the original images.
One thing though... Most people are going to see the MRI machine these days anyway. CT scans involve X-Rays which are generally not seen as a good thing in large doses and CT Scans involve a lot of individual images so X-Ray exposure can be a factor. MRI has less radiation issues so unless you have magnetic materials in your body, you are getting an MRI..
The reactor designs I've seen for commercial power did not include the ability to refuel while running. I've only seen two up close with my own two eyes. Both where under construction and neither had fuel in them. I was no expert then and it's been three decades since. I can imagine ways to make refueling happen while operating, so I guess they have mastered that.
My "Cycle the power" is just a theory based on things I can surmise. Electrical producers like to run their nuke plants at constant outputs for days, weeks, or months, a luxury I'm assuming is not necessarily one the Navy has. Power producers can run deep into their fuel cycles and by slowly lowering the power output can keep the xenon poisoning at bay, For the Navy would be an unacceptably risky portion of the fuel cycle, due to the "non mission capable" should a reactor be shutdown too quickly. You just don't want to tow some ship home, because they can't restart their reactor.
The power generator will manage their fuel to get as much usable energy out of every ounce of fuel for two reasons. 1. It's cheaper to burn less fuel, 2. Refueling is an expensive operation. Ship reactors are a different story. The Navy is more interested in keeping the system operating without much regard to cost or efficiency. They want mission capable as much as possible so they are likely to refuel much sooner than a power plant.
Not during our lives. It's going to take a long time before things cool off enough to allow approaching the facility close enough to decommission it.
Hopefully we won't be seeing weekly updates on /. though..
Um... Except perhaps when such controls need to be operated quickly in the case of an emergency, like the next earthquake.
You have 10 seconds before the end of the world if you don't enter the 24 char password with upper case, lower case, numbers and special characters...
Keep in mind too, that the Navy is not interested in making a profit. It's goal is to keep it's resources available (afloat, underway and mission capable) under the most difficult circumstances. They can afford to have many times the number of people operating a power plant and they utilize their people to keep their plants operating sans automation. The Navy is not interested in being efficient either. They routinely power cycle their plants and burn though more fuel than they other wise would. They also are not risk adverse. In time of war, they would have no problem pushing their reactors beyond the design limits if the mission demanded it.
Electric power generation is about efficiency and safety. It's more efficient to automate and not pay operators, so they automate their plants, and operate within very narrow operating parameters. They are risk adverse and would rather scram a reactor and go off line than risk operating outside of their design limits.
The navy does have an enviable safety record. But what you really are saying is that the safety of nuclear power is really something to be trumpeted. Except for some research accidents, the worst US event in history was Three Mile Island and that was pretty much nothing. When you put Japan into the mix, things get more interesting, but who can really complain about that? The earthquake was well beyond design limits and even then the damage, while significant, is going to be manageable. It's just going to take a few decades for things to radioactively cool.
Yea, the OP did make some assumptions about the understanding of the reader and basic heat engine operations.
Most power plants have a boiler that converts the working fluid to a gas. This gas is piped at high pressure though a turbine which drives a generator. This lowers the temperature and pressure of the gas which is then sent to a condenser where the gas is converted back to a liquid. This liquid is pumped into the boiler and the cycle starts over.
What they are talking about is the place where they take the working fluid from a low pressure gas to a liquid by removing heat. This takes place in a condenser. A condenser has cold surfaces that are exposed to the low pressure vapor. These cold surfaces have liquid condense on them that then runs off to be pumped back into the boiler. Apparently being able to get the liquid off the cold surfaces quickly makes the transfer of heat more efficient and faster.
Of course, the real question about their theory here is if the process they claim can be engineered to happen and provide more energy savings than it consumes. So far they have not been very successful doing this on an industrial scale.
The way I read this it was about heat transfer. If you can get the water droplets off the "cold" side sooner, you don't have to transfer heat through them. So you want the condensed liquid to go away so you can keep as much surface area in contact with the vapor as possible.
I'm not sure how this makes a closed system more water efficient.
True that... The law IS in effect and if the president's rhetoric reflects his actual position will remain in effect for at least 3 years and 4 months.
I was addressing the idea that the house should just stand down and let the funding for the ACA flow dispute their objections. As long as everybody is working within their constitutional authority you are free to advance your views using any means available. If the republicans want to go to the mat on this, they have the right (if not the moral obligation) to do so, just like the president has the right (as well as the moral obligation) to veto laws he doesn't feel are good ideas.
Actually, the military is already going to be paid. The bill that funds paying the military was passed by the house and senate and signed by the president days ago. See H.R. 3210 which became law 9/30/13.
Why would NASA send Maven to Mars? Are they building Java apps up there or something?
http://maven.apache.org/
Never believed NASA was a waste.... Until now...
since misappropriating a law that deals with the government's budgetary process in order to combat a law that would otherwise pass through the legislature strikes me as corruption.
So, you are saying that the ACA would be able to pass if it where suggested today? I think it's fairly clear that it would NOT make it out of the house if they tried to pass it today. When it passed, It was rushed though the Senate because the special election for Ted Kennedy's seat was poised to make it impossible for the bill to get a filibuster proof cloture vote. This bill pretty much got though both chambers by the skin of it's teeth on very partisan votes.
There have been TWO congressional elections since, and support for the ACA has been clearly down in the house in both of them.
Who says it's for monitoring folks on EARTH?
NSA is a proactive organization you know.. It may be a few years out, but *somebody* must be planning a trip and the NSA KNOWS about it..
If he is *IN* the Navy, he will be paid on time. If he is a civilian, there may be a delay but eventually he will be paid.
At least until the 17th when the debt ceiling arrives.... After that it is anybodies guess what bills will be paid...
This government "shutdown" thing is just a warm up act, the real show will start on the 17th (or whenever the Treasury decides they've run out of money.) To mix metaphors, this whole thing is a game of musical chairs. On the 17th, the music stops for the last time. Problem is, there will be 500+ in congress and 1 from the White-house all looking to sit in that last chair. The main show then starts.
Grab your popcorn, turn on the TV and set up all your favorite news outlets so you can easily switch between them... The fun begins.
Your sarcasm is duly noted..
Linus Torvalds agrees with you...