There was an announcement earlier this week by IBM that they've come up with a PRAM that is 500x faster than Flash, with unlimited writes, using half the power. This blows away the PRAM mentioned in this article. The lesson: IBM's unreleased product will always be better than your unreleased product!
Oil/Coal/Wind/Solar/Geothermal involve extraction of potential energy that is "free." Free in that we humans put nothing into it. Sure, we have to extract it but that is actually a different step in the whole process. OIL/COAL are like chemical batteries that are given to us for free. (sorry wind/solar/geothermal can't be stored.) To keep it simple I'll not go into organic or sub-atomic power sources.
Technically true, but in practice, it doesn't help in the discussion (which was my entire point). There's nothing free about oil or coal; energy is used to extract it, process it, transport it, and store it. Energy will be used to remove the pollutants it produces (though not much of that happens right now).
We were trying to compare the costs (in real dollars) of oil vs hydrogen. The true costs of oil aren't (and can't) be calculated because the big benefit of moving to hydrogen is the lack of pollution -- the cost of which isn't yet being PAID for using oil.
So while you're technically true, it's only a game of semantics because one side of the game (oil/coal) isn't playing by the same rules.
AMD has a better architecture for somethings, less so for others, and for right now, and for probably the next 12-24 months, Intel has better performance (on the desktop). AMD's architectural superiority will go away once Intel gets an on-die memory controller and something to compete with HT - which is very conveniently timed by Intel to be around the time that advantage would actually come into play (on the desktop). For now, AMD may have architectural supriority, but it lacks the actual real-world performance advantage (in a big way). AMD is going to have to do a hell of a lot more than just a die-shrink to surpass Intel again, and Intel isn't sitting still. By the time AMD's 65nm process is mature, Intel will start to churn out 45nm chips, so it'll start all over again, and by then, Intel will be looking at on-die memory controller and their own HT tech. AMD is going to have to some up with something HUGE, and K8L ain't it.
Quite frankly, on a level playing field I think we're going to find out that Intel's Cores are not quite as good as a lot of people have been raving. AMD's architectures are just a whole lot better.
You know, that's what a lot of people said before the Core Duo came out, and they were proven quite wrong. I was as surprised as anyone, but I learned the lesson: wait for the actual chips to be tested.
Once Intel puts the memory controller on-die like AMD has, it's going to *really* hurt AMD. HyperTransport doesn't seem to have any advantage at all on the desktop, so AMD's only real tech advantage right now is that on-die mem controller. Perhaps once we all have 8+ core chips on our desktops, you might see some HT advantages, but I believe I read somewhere that Intel has plans for on-die memory controllers and an answer to HT in the wings for 2008, though obviously that's just rumour at this point.
Your comment didn't cover everything, and as I said in another, neither did my original one.
The problem with comparing H with oil is that the whole *reason* for switching to H is to avoid the carbon hit, so there's no reason to compare them until you calculate the carbon hit of oil. It's completely pointless.
I didn't say we must create a whole H economy to begin an estimate. I said until we actually decide WHICH H production technology, WHICH distribution system, WHICH storage systems (both at refuelling stations and onboard the vehicles), then we can't even estimate the costs. There are too many technologies in the labs with vastly different benefits, drawbacks, and costs for us to figure out which ones will be used in an H economy. The simple fact is, we *can't* calculate the costs of an H economy, because we don't know what technologies will be in use. We've already discussed the problems with calculating the costs of oil. So it's an impasse.
re: fuel cells
I'm not sure fuel cells will ever scale up to the point necessary for practical use in passenger vehicles. Even the inventor said it was only a demonstration technology, never meant to be put into widespread use. He may be wrong about that - where there's a will, there's a way, and all that, but it seems to me that Hydrogen internal combustion engines present a smaller technological problem than fuel cells.
re: other methods of energy production & use
There are multiple really great new solar technologies coming along (some using cheap glass, some using low-quality silicon (would no longer compete with the semiconductory industry for material), others with much higher efficiency ratings, some using concentrated solar power, etc.) that should see market use in 2007 (some of them in early 2007, with some CSP plants already being constructed in the American southwest, and one demonstration plant already in use, I think). Totally can't wait for this to become more widespread.
The pressure California has put to bear on the issue with legislation enacted this year has forced the industry to produce energy production methods the industry has been saying weren't feasible - but when push comes to shove, they did it. The same will be true of the auto industry - once legislators have the balls to actually make it a requirement, the industry will respond, as they've already shown they can, with much more efficient vehicles. It's just a matter of will.
>> It takes more energy to find, drill for, pump, process, and ship oil, than you ever get out of it.
> No it does not.
I wasn't complete with that line - when you take into account the pollution factor (not only of using it, but finding, drilling, transporting, and processing it), oil gets a LOT less energy efficient. The problem is, we can't (easily?) calculate what oil's true energy cost IS because we're still emitting so much exhaust, and since we haven't cleaned up after the use of fossil fuels, we don't know what those costs are (certainly the Kyoto Protocols have been costing a huge amount of money to no measureable effects as yet, which is pretty a pretty daunting thing to think about). Saying you know what oil's energy costs are compares well to the Republicans saying we've got a great economy going -- all the while deliberately not looking (and outright lying) about the mounting national debt. We've got an unbelievably huge carbon debt to pay.
If someone knows of some theoretical work on calculating the true costs of fossil fuel, I'd love to see it. But at this point, it would be HIGHLY theoretical -- rather like estimating the cost of Boston's Big Dig, only harder.:(
re: H
The true costs of H use can't really be calculated yet because we don't have an H infrastructure to calculate in any meaningful way. Until we HAVE a mass industry that is producing H, we can't calculate those costs. Until we HAVE a distribution system for this H, we can't calculate those costs. We don't know if we'll wind up using gaseous, liquid, or solid H (mixed with other chemicals like Sodium BoroHydride ala Milennium's 'PowerBall' technology), so we can't calculate the costs of any of that. Until we know what form of H we'd use, we don't know whether we'll need to expend great amounts of energy pressurizing or cooling the H in our cars, what the costs of the fuel tanks in our H cars will be, none of that. Comparing proven-false energy costs for oil with theoretical costs of just one potential path of H use is pretty ridiculous, though it's to be expected on book-smart people commonly found on Slashdot. I'd be willing to bet that if the 'Hydrogen economy' does come, we don't be using proton-exchange membrane fuel cell cars; it just doesn't scale (with current technological theories) to what we need. Hydrogen ICE may be the answer for cars, but the efficiency and storage problems are still pretty brutal. The last I heard, the Hydrogen version of Mazda's Renesis rotary engine produced about half the power as the gas version, with a quarter of the range. That was a few years ago, so I'm going to assume they've improved it some, but I don't know by how much.
The true costs of both fossil fuel and Hydrogen cannot be calculated at this time as far as I know, though I'm sure incomplete studies everyone likes to use (such as existing ones that don't take pollution cleanup into account) will continue to be trotted out for quite some time.
If something like this new H extraction technology turns out to be super-super-cheap, it's still but one tiny piece of the H economic equation. Distribution and storage are still huge questions to be answered, though I suspect carbon nanotube-lined fuel tanks may help with the onboard storage question. Distribution will be a biggie.
If we could get the energy density way (WAY) up with things like PowerBalls, that'd be pretty awesome. That's a very interesting technology there, and would make distribution potentially much cheaper than gas/diesel.
You missed my point. There's no point in asking, "will you get as much energy out of it as you will in producing the hydrogen fuel," because you can't. As I said, yeah, it's good to compare it to OTHER methods of hydrogen production, and then to other ICE fuels. But the whole, "this takes way more energy than you can get out of it" misses the point - ALL fuels do.
Monorail project is dead dead dead. (Yes, it's really dead; it's not getting better.) The only monorail we have now and are likely to have for the foreseeable future is the one made for the world fair in the 60's, which breaks down a lot these days.:(
The light rail lines, on the other hand, are doing quite well, and I think we'll see some of that start operating in 2007, though I could be wrong about the timing on that.
You want a modern monorail in the U.S., go to Vegas.
Now we just have to figure out if the amount of energy needed to synthesize the blood protein (say, X liters of hydrogen in a fuel cell) is less than the energy of the hydrogen produced from this process...:)
This statement _really_ old, and completely misses the point.
It takes more energy to find, drill for, pump, process, and ship oil, than you ever get out of it. That ain't the point, either.
The POINT is to have a MOBILE fuel (or energy transfer medium, or whatever you want to call it; it's semantics at this point). Energy you can use to move your butt from one place to another in a vehicle.
Laptop computers aren't as powerful as desktop computers, AND they're a lot more expensive as well. That doesn't mean they're worse than desktop computers, just that that is how MOBILE computers work. Same thing with oil/hydrogen/what-have-you.
We expend energy to have a fuel (oil, hydrogen, natural gas) that we can take with us. No, it's not as energy efficient as plugging into the electric grid, but then again, I don't have an extension cord that long.:)
I'm sure it won't be less than the energy of the hydrogen produced by the process, but, what SHOULD we be comparing it to?
How much energy does it take to produce hydrogen via cracking natural gas? How much energy does it take to produce hydrogen via electrolysis? How much energy does it take to produce hydrogen via splitting water with a high-temp gas cooled nuclear reactor? How much energy does it take to produce hydrogen via some genetically-engineered seagrass or other plant?
The efficiency of whatever hydrogen fuel cell or Hydrogen internal combustion engine is another part of the 'efficiency' equation, but then you get to compare that to a fossil-fuel ICE and get to take into account the efficiencies and hard dollar costs of removing pollution from the exhaust, and from pollution mitigation efforts of the stuff that makes it out of the tailpipe, anyway.
Please, everyone, just stop it with the 'will it take more energy to get it into a portable form than you get from the portable energy'? Yes, it will always take more energy to put the energy source into a portable form. It's worth it because YOU'RE PUTTING IT IN A PORTABLE FORM.
Ahem. Hopefully I haven't been too obnoxious here, but this is just really getting old and tired (just like me).
So, all we gotta do is ship water up into orbit at $10,000 per pound and gain access to 24 hour light, then let the hydrogen ships drop back down where we can pick them up.
Or perhaps something more reasonable. If we do this, we can also probably eliminate salt mines with all the salt we'll be taking out of the water at the same time. Yay, no more salt mines!
Now all we need is some of those nifty carbon nanotube wall fuel tanks to store enough hydrogen to make a hydrogen-fueled passenger car a practically reality, and we're all set!
Oh yeah, and lots more highways; screw public transportation!
Guess someone should get on making hydrogen-powered buses and light rail for Seattle.
PC Power & Cooling. Don't bother with anything else. I have yet to have one die on me, and I've been using them for around ten years. Their Silencer models are awesome.
This poor bastard watched Episodes 1-3 first, and still wanted to watch 4-6? Yikes. If I had never seen Episodes 4-6, I don't think I would've watched any of them after seeing Episode 1. More power to the guy. Always good to end on a high note, right?
I think Prof's explanation of rational anarchy and personal responsibility is still one of the most inspirational and thought-provoking things I've ever read. The book is worth reading for that alone, IMO.
Oh, man, what a collection to get someone interested in RAH! Yeesh.
Okay, I agree with Starship Troopers (and for those who have only seen the movie - the movie is a *parody* of the book). It's sad, as I'd like to see a serious movie version, but with this stinker out there, it'll never happen.
I'd suggest newbies stay away from Friday, J.O.B., Glory Road, I Will Fear No Evil, etc. They all have their good, if not great, points, but these are not for a newbie to RAH, now way, no how.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is, for me, quintessential RAH. Puppet Masters is also good stuff.
If you want to read some RAH juveniles, I'd suggest Citizen of the Galaxy, Have Spacesuit Will Travel, Space Cadet, Red Planet, Between Planets, Door Into Summer, Time for the Stars, Rocketship Galileo, The Rolling Stones, Starman Jones, Farmer in the Sky, The Star Beast, Tunnel in the Sky. That's in no particular order, really.
If you do get a book of his that has also been made into a movie, make sure you get the "pre-movie" edition, just in case. I'll admit that the movie version of Puppet Masters wasn't bad, but it wasn't the book, by any stretch. Don't get me started on the movie version of Starship Troopers. Any good will Verhoeven (sp?) had from RoboCop was utterly burnt up when he did that to one of my favourite RAH books.
I think you should keep RAH the writer separate from (some of) RAH's characters. I really think that RAH was much more of a rational anarchist (ala Professor Bernardo de la Paz) than a Libertarian. I think Wikipedia has a good bit on this, but it may have been somewhere else I read about this.
Slashdot Mirror
There was an announcement earlier this week by IBM that they've come up with a PRAM that is 500x faster than Flash, with unlimited writes, using half the power. This blows away the PRAM mentioned in this article. The lesson: IBM's unreleased product will always be better than your unreleased product!
Ingredients of FiOS include an unknown glowing substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.
Hence the name FiOS: Found in Outer Space.
Dude, it's *all* pixels!
Also: FiOS may stick to certain types of skin.
Do not taunt FiOS.
Oil/Coal/Wind/Solar/Geothermal involve extraction of potential energy that is "free." Free in that we humans put nothing into it. Sure, we have to extract it but that is actually a different step in the whole process.
OIL/COAL are like chemical batteries that are given to us for free. (sorry wind/solar/geothermal can't be stored.) To keep it simple I'll not go into organic or sub-atomic power sources.
Technically true, but in practice, it doesn't help in the discussion (which was my entire point). There's nothing free about oil or coal; energy is used to extract it, process it, transport it, and store it. Energy will be used to remove the pollutants it produces (though not much of that happens right now).
We were trying to compare the costs (in real dollars) of oil vs hydrogen. The true costs of oil aren't (and can't) be calculated because the big benefit of moving to hydrogen is the lack of pollution -- the cost of which isn't yet being PAID for using oil.
So while you're technically true, it's only a game of semantics because one side of the game (oil/coal) isn't playing by the same rules.
AMD has a better architecture for somethings, less so for others, and for right now, and for probably the next 12-24 months, Intel has better performance (on the desktop). AMD's architectural superiority will go away once Intel gets an on-die memory controller and something to compete with HT - which is very conveniently timed by Intel to be around the time that advantage would actually come into play (on the desktop). For now, AMD may have architectural supriority, but it lacks the actual real-world performance advantage (in a big way). AMD is going to have to do a hell of a lot more than just a die-shrink to surpass Intel again, and Intel isn't sitting still. By the time AMD's 65nm process is mature, Intel will start to churn out 45nm chips, so it'll start all over again, and by then, Intel will be looking at on-die memory controller and their own HT tech. AMD is going to have to some up with something HUGE, and K8L ain't it.
Quite frankly, on a level playing field I think we're going to find out that Intel's Cores are not quite as good as a lot of people have been raving. AMD's architectures are just a whole lot better.
You know, that's what a lot of people said before the Core Duo came out, and they were proven quite wrong. I was as surprised as anyone, but I learned the lesson: wait for the actual chips to be tested.
Once Intel puts the memory controller on-die like AMD has, it's going to *really* hurt AMD. HyperTransport doesn't seem to have any advantage at all on the desktop, so AMD's only real tech advantage right now is that on-die mem controller. Perhaps once we all have 8+ core chips on our desktops, you might see some HT advantages, but I believe I read somewhere that Intel has plans for on-die memory controllers and an answer to HT in the wings for 2008, though obviously that's just rumour at this point.
Your comment didn't cover everything, and as I said in another, neither did my original one.
The problem with comparing H with oil is that the whole *reason* for switching to H is to avoid the carbon hit, so there's no reason to compare them until you calculate the carbon hit of oil. It's completely pointless.
I didn't say we must create a whole H economy to begin an estimate. I said until we actually decide WHICH H production technology, WHICH distribution system, WHICH storage systems (both at refuelling stations and onboard the vehicles), then we can't even estimate the costs. There are too many technologies in the labs with vastly different benefits, drawbacks, and costs for us to figure out which ones will be used in an H economy. The simple fact is, we *can't* calculate the costs of an H economy, because we don't know what technologies will be in use. We've already discussed the problems with calculating the costs of oil. So it's an impasse.
re: fuel cells
I'm not sure fuel cells will ever scale up to the point necessary for practical use in passenger vehicles. Even the inventor said it was only a demonstration technology, never meant to be put into widespread use. He may be wrong about that - where there's a will, there's a way, and all that, but it seems to me that Hydrogen internal combustion engines present a smaller technological problem than fuel cells.
re: other methods of energy production & use
There are multiple really great new solar technologies coming along (some using cheap glass, some using low-quality silicon (would no longer compete with the semiconductory industry for material), others with much higher efficiency ratings, some using concentrated solar power, etc.) that should see market use in 2007 (some of them in early 2007, with some CSP plants already being constructed in the American southwest, and one demonstration plant already in use, I think). Totally can't wait for this to become more widespread.
The pressure California has put to bear on the issue with legislation enacted this year has forced the industry to produce energy production methods the industry has been saying weren't feasible - but when push comes to shove, they did it. The same will be true of the auto industry - once legislators have the balls to actually make it a requirement, the industry will respond, as they've already shown they can, with much more efficient vehicles. It's just a matter of will.
>> It takes more energy to find, drill for, pump, process, and ship oil, than you ever get out of it.
:(
> No it does not.
I wasn't complete with that line - when you take into account the pollution factor (not only of using it, but finding, drilling, transporting, and processing it), oil gets a LOT less energy efficient. The problem is, we can't (easily?) calculate what oil's true energy cost IS because we're still emitting so much exhaust, and since we haven't cleaned up after the use of fossil fuels, we don't know what those costs are (certainly the Kyoto Protocols have been costing a huge amount of money to no measureable effects as yet, which is pretty a pretty daunting thing to think about). Saying you know what oil's energy costs are compares well to the Republicans saying we've got a great economy going -- all the while deliberately not looking (and outright lying) about the mounting national debt. We've got an unbelievably huge carbon debt to pay.
If someone knows of some theoretical work on calculating the true costs of fossil fuel, I'd love to see it. But at this point, it would be HIGHLY theoretical -- rather like estimating the cost of Boston's Big Dig, only harder.
re: H
The true costs of H use can't really be calculated yet because we don't have an H infrastructure to calculate in any meaningful way. Until we HAVE a mass industry that is producing H, we can't calculate those costs. Until we HAVE a distribution system for this H, we can't calculate those costs. We don't know if we'll wind up using gaseous, liquid, or solid H (mixed with other chemicals like Sodium BoroHydride ala Milennium's 'PowerBall' technology), so we can't calculate the costs of any of that. Until we know what form of H we'd use, we don't know whether we'll need to expend great amounts of energy pressurizing or cooling the H in our cars, what the costs of the fuel tanks in our H cars will be, none of that. Comparing proven-false energy costs for oil with theoretical costs of just one potential path of H use is pretty ridiculous, though it's to be expected on book-smart people commonly found on Slashdot. I'd be willing to bet that if the 'Hydrogen economy' does come, we don't be using proton-exchange membrane fuel cell cars; it just doesn't scale (with current technological theories) to what we need. Hydrogen ICE may be the answer for cars, but the efficiency and storage problems are still pretty brutal. The last I heard, the Hydrogen version of Mazda's Renesis rotary engine produced about half the power as the gas version, with a quarter of the range. That was a few years ago, so I'm going to assume they've improved it some, but I don't know by how much.
The true costs of both fossil fuel and Hydrogen cannot be calculated at this time as far as I know, though I'm sure incomplete studies everyone likes to use (such as existing ones that don't take pollution cleanup into account) will continue to be trotted out for quite some time.
If something like this new H extraction technology turns out to be super-super-cheap, it's still but one tiny piece of the H economic equation. Distribution and storage are still huge questions to be answered, though I suspect carbon nanotube-lined fuel tanks may help with the onboard storage question. Distribution will be a biggie.
If we could get the energy density way (WAY) up with things like PowerBalls, that'd be pretty awesome. That's a very interesting technology there, and would make distribution potentially much cheaper than gas/diesel.
You missed my point. There's no point in asking, "will you get as much energy out of it as you will in producing the hydrogen fuel," because you can't. As I said, yeah, it's good to compare it to OTHER methods of hydrogen production, and then to other ICE fuels. But the whole, "this takes way more energy than you can get out of it" misses the point - ALL fuels do.
Monorail project is dead dead dead. (Yes, it's really dead; it's not getting better.) The only monorail we have now and are likely to have for the foreseeable future is the one made for the world fair in the 60's, which breaks down a lot these days. :(
The light rail lines, on the other hand, are doing quite well, and I think we'll see some of that start operating in 2007, though I could be wrong about the timing on that.
You want a modern monorail in the U.S., go to Vegas.
Now we just have to figure out if the amount of energy needed to synthesize the blood protein (say, X liters of hydrogen in a fuel cell) is less than :)
:)
the energy of the hydrogen produced from this process...
This statement _really_ old, and completely misses the point.
It takes more energy to find, drill for, pump, process, and ship oil, than you ever get out of it. That ain't the point, either.
The POINT is to have a MOBILE fuel (or energy transfer medium, or whatever you want to call it; it's semantics at this point). Energy you can use to move your butt from one place to another in a vehicle.
Laptop computers aren't as powerful as desktop computers, AND they're a lot more expensive as well. That doesn't mean they're worse than desktop computers, just that that is how MOBILE computers work. Same thing with oil/hydrogen/what-have-you.
We expend energy to have a fuel (oil, hydrogen, natural gas) that we can take with us. No, it's not as energy efficient as plugging into the electric grid, but then again, I don't have an extension cord that long.
I'm sure it won't be less than the energy of the hydrogen produced by the process, but, what SHOULD we be comparing it to?
How much energy does it take to produce hydrogen via cracking natural gas?
How much energy does it take to produce hydrogen via electrolysis?
How much energy does it take to produce hydrogen via splitting water with a high-temp gas cooled nuclear reactor?
How much energy does it take to produce hydrogen via some genetically-engineered seagrass or other plant?
The efficiency of whatever hydrogen fuel cell or Hydrogen internal combustion engine is another part of the 'efficiency' equation, but then you get to compare that to a fossil-fuel ICE and get to take into account the efficiencies and hard dollar costs of removing pollution from the exhaust, and from pollution mitigation efforts of the stuff that makes it out of the tailpipe, anyway.
Please, everyone, just stop it with the 'will it take more energy to get it into a portable form than you get from the portable energy'? Yes, it will always take more energy to put the energy source into a portable form. It's worth it because YOU'RE PUTTING IT IN A PORTABLE FORM.
Ahem. Hopefully I haven't been too obnoxious here, but this is just really getting old and tired (just like me).
And now I'm hungry.
Don't anyone tell the Machines about this, otay?
So, all we gotta do is ship water up into orbit at $10,000 per pound and gain access to 24 hour light, then let the hydrogen ships drop back down where we can pick them up.
Or perhaps something more reasonable. If we do this, we can also probably eliminate salt mines with all the salt we'll be taking out of the water at the same time. Yay, no more salt mines!
Now all we need is some of those nifty carbon nanotube wall fuel tanks to store enough hydrogen to make a hydrogen-fueled passenger car a practically reality, and we're all set!
Oh yeah, and lots more highways; screw public transportation!
Guess someone should get on making hydrogen-powered buses and light rail for Seattle.
If you're going to include fictional characters, then not having Willow on the list is a freaking crime. Geez.
People actually let their browsers remember their passwords? I have never trusted my browser that much.
It's sad that you don't have a loving, trusting relationship with your browser. Perhaps you should get some therapy...
>> What is there in the water in Michigan?
> Deuterium, apparently.
*whoa* Heavy.
Most went into the oil business, and the rest became COBOL programmers.
PC Power & Cooling. Don't bother with anything else. I have yet to have one die on me, and I've been using them for around ten years. Their Silencer models are awesome.
This poor bastard watched Episodes 1-3 first, and still wanted to watch 4-6? Yikes. If I had never seen Episodes 4-6, I don't think I would've watched any of them after seeing Episode 1. More power to the guy. Always good to end on a high note, right?
Tic tac toe? A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Yeah, but Londo's drunken speech about how he looks stunning in purple was much funnier to me.
I also liked his perplexion about the Hokey Pokey.
It would look *stunning* in purple.
I hope they further explore that mystery that every civilized species has a form of 'Swedish Meatballs'. That can't be a coincidence!
I think Prof's explanation of rational anarchy and personal responsibility is still one of the most inspirational and thought-provoking things I've ever read. The book is worth reading for that alone, IMO.
Oh, man, what a collection to get someone interested in RAH! Yeesh.
Okay, I agree with Starship Troopers (and for those who have only seen the movie - the movie is a *parody* of the book). It's sad, as I'd like to see a serious movie version, but with this stinker out there, it'll never happen.
I'd suggest newbies stay away from Friday, J.O.B., Glory Road, I Will Fear No Evil, etc. They all have their good, if not great, points, but these are not for a newbie to RAH, now way, no how.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is, for me, quintessential RAH. Puppet Masters is also good stuff.
If you want to read some RAH juveniles, I'd suggest Citizen of the Galaxy, Have Spacesuit Will Travel, Space Cadet, Red Planet, Between Planets, Door Into Summer, Time for the Stars, Rocketship Galileo, The Rolling Stones, Starman Jones, Farmer in the Sky, The Star Beast, Tunnel in the Sky. That's in no particular order, really.
If you do get a book of his that has also been made into a movie, make sure you get the "pre-movie" edition, just in case. I'll admit that the movie version of Puppet Masters wasn't bad, but it wasn't the book, by any stretch. Don't get me started on the movie version of Starship Troopers. Any good will Verhoeven (sp?) had from RoboCop was utterly burnt up when he did that to one of my favourite RAH books.
I think you should keep RAH the writer separate from (some of) RAH's characters. I really think that RAH was much more of a rational anarchist (ala Professor Bernardo de la Paz) than a Libertarian. I think Wikipedia has a good bit on this, but it may have been somewhere else I read about this.