While I listen to public radio for an hour or so every day, I had never heard of this woman before. I had never even heard of NPR, or that the Republicans (as per below) wanted to shut down the NPR.
Not every slashdot reader lives in the american culture frame of reference.
I didn't describe the method for regulating the grid frequency. Every power station measures the current grid frequency and tries to move it towards the norm (50 or 60 Hz). Some power plants are better at this than others. Typically nuclear power plants are very slow to react and cannot typically be used for quick frequency regulation because of the thermal time constants in its steam generation. Water power plants, on the other hand, only need to open some valves to allow more water to hit the turbine. This makes them a very suitable for compensation of losses like the one mentioned in the article.
A well-balanced grid has a healthy mix of quick and slow types of power plants, and I expect the battery to be extremely quick in the regulation process. It is not easy to design this in a good way, there are all sorts of error modes (including oscillations where power plants work against each other).
There have been some critique against wind turbines from a regulation point of view, they (apparantly) change the mix towards a less stable configuration.
Most of the generators are of the asynchronous type (or induction type). This type or generatior produces no energy when the rotor runs at exactly the grid frequency. Not until the rotor of the generator spins faster than the grid, it produces energy to the net.
The difference between the rotor frequency and the net frequency is called slip, and is usually a few percent. For typical slips, the produced power is proportional to the slip.
So, if the load increases (or the generating power decreases), the (average) slip must increase for the (remaining) generators, and since the generators cannot run any faster, the only possible reaction is for the network frequency to drop.
Similarly, if you have an asynchronous motor and start to load it, its will spin slower (increase its slip) to provide more power.
The synchronous electric machines do not operate according to this principle. They always run with the same frequency as the grid (and compensate by increasing or decrasing the current production or consumption). If a synchronous motor is loaded too hard, it will finally break out of the synchronicity and stop working.
As far as I know, there are two ways for something to explode (not merely "break up", or "burn"). Either the object is made out of a high explosive, in which the chemical reaction occurs faster than the disintegration, or there is a hard shell surrounding a "low explosive" which reacts "slowly" and builds up a pressure within the shell and explodes when the shell bursts.
Clearly, the meteoroids are not made out of high explosives (I think and hope), but I have a hard time to view them as the other model either. It is not the internal that is heated - it is the outside. The pores and cracks in the "shell" would work to equalize the pressure difference, not create it. The heated gas in the cracks would would be of insignificant volume, and therefore contain negligible energy, and if even there were a process in which this gas would be trapped and cause cracks, it would be just that - cracks. It would not be an explosion disintegrating the meteoroid.
Something is fishy. May be it is the model that they put into the computer... SISO.
That would be a nice indication of progress of our society.
However, this might the "public" explanation which looks good in media.
I can think of two other reasons, which are less flattering for GE; 1) GE fails to be competitive for this type of equipment (for various reasons), or 2) the market for gas turbines shrinks, maybe due to the very high operational costs of gas turbines (they are very expensive to run, for at least electric power generation)
It basically says, yes, the mass and size of the universe is (remarkably) close to that of of a black hole with the corresponding Schwarzschild radius, but, no, it does not seem like we live inside a black hole. The strongest argument is that the universe is expanding, not contracting as a black hole.
It does, however, resemble a white hole, which is a time-reversed version of a black hole.
The author still seems to have a problem with an "outside" of the universe....
How does "far less than the highest vacuum that humans have ever produced" compare to the density of our universe, if dark matter (and energy?), vacuum energy/particles and fields, and other stuff, is taken into account? Would the vacuum catastrophe gap the difference?
So, so..... if comparable, could that mean that the observable universe is situated inside the event horizon of a (rather large) black hole?
Are the inflation/expansion/acceleration/red shift/microwave observations compatible with such an arrangement?
ISS har for 20 years been orbiting - a close distance - around a planet with gazillions bacteria an microbes, and been visited by more than a hundred people, and it was lanuched through the atmosphere containing lots of microscopic life, and as soon as bacteria is found on the outside, it is considered likely to be of alien origin?
Gimme a break!
I would be very surprised if we could keep it completely clean from earthly contaimination, even if we are talking about the outside.
...is known as the "Mayak incident", or the "Kyshtym disaster". It is the third largest ever nuclear mishap (after Chernobyl and Fukushima).
It occurred in 1958 (I think), and it was not caused by a nuclear critical event, but rather "mundane" (but very large - equivalent of somewhere around 100 tonnes of TNT) chemical explosion within nuclear waste (mostly ammonium nitrates IIRC) which spread the waste over large distances. No one was directly killed by the event.
Toyota is not the only one deliberating skipping L3 and go directly to L4. Volvo intends to to the same, as well as some of the German vendors.
The reason is that studies show that hand-overs do not only take "a few seconds" according to the article, but that there is a tail of up to 40 seconds before the "driver-to-be" comprehends the situation.
Since 40 seconds is an eternity in traffic, it poses essentially the same challenges as L4 systems. So why bother with L3?
High number, but small compared to Avogadro's number: Na = 6*10^23 I.e. it takes approximately 10^7 s (~117 days) to produce one mole (~1g) of hydrogen gas (per sample).
If you would construct a factory which produces a ton (a bit modest, but still) on H2 every day, you'd need 10^6 grams per day. That leads to 10^6*117 ~ 10^8 samples.
I wonder that a sample costs... and what the price of a ton H2 is currently on the market. Let me make a wild guess of a dollar per sample and a $1000 for a ton on H2. Profit margin of 10% yields a $100 per day. That $10^8 investment would need approximately 10^6 days to reach break even.
Yay, in only 2700 years we can start to make some money!
... I'll be riiight there. Just have to put on my TV viewing socks first. Darn, I have to charge them! Do you have yours on? What do you mean, not comfy nor pretty enough..?
U.S. Department of Transportation continues the practice of capturing motor vehicles on I94 and I75 in Michigan. The 2016 quota have been negotiated to be 850 Fiestas, 50 Transits and 50 Corvettes.The department states that "it's necessary to maintain a high standard of scientific research on interstate transportation safety". USDOT secretary Anthony Foxx adds "We are acting in a environmentally responsible manner; all vehicles are duely recycled. No animals come to harm during these operations, and the contribution to the yearly US road fatalities is less then 3%".
All other problems aside, that hovercraft would spew out enormous amounts of poisonous gas.
The ionized oxygen atoms would recombine into O2 and O3 and various NOx molecules. NOx isn't good for you, but ozone (O3) is directly poisonous. It's as bad as (or even worse than) HCN - hydrogen cyanide. LD50 is about 22 ppm (for mice).
Slashdot Mirror
While I listen to public radio for an hour or so every day, I had never heard of this woman before.
I had never even heard of NPR, or that the Republicans (as per below) wanted to shut down the NPR.
Not every slashdot reader lives in the american culture frame of reference.
Well, another day where I learned something.
So this is an interview where one interviewer interviews and another interviewer who usually interviews some famous people?
Where's the nerd connection? Is it that the nerds among us would start genering jokes about the meta-levels of interviewing?
Can we reach level three here by having a slashdot Q&A with the author? Level four, anybody?
From the same chart we can also deduce see following:
Lowest yearly dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk: 100 mSv
This is equivalent to 2500 NY-LA flights. I think few people can accomplish that in a year.
It sounds about as plausible as banana-eating your way to that dose; 1 million bananas.
... and since the distance is just shy of 4000 km, we get the banana-flight-distance-rule-of-thumb: 1 banana 10 flight-km
In the same chart you get the answer:
Flight form NY to LA: 40 uSv
1 banana: 0.1 uSv
So... 400 bananas.
Well, there's one oversight.
I didn't describe the method for regulating the grid frequency. Every power station measures the current grid frequency and tries to move it towards the norm (50 or 60 Hz). Some power plants are better at this than others. Typically nuclear power plants are very slow to react and cannot typically be used for quick frequency regulation because of the thermal time constants in its steam generation. Water power plants, on the other hand, only need to open some valves to allow more water to hit the turbine. This makes them a very suitable for compensation of losses like the one mentioned in the article.
A well-balanced grid has a healthy mix of quick and slow types of power plants, and I expect the battery to be extremely quick in the regulation process. It is not easy to design this in a good way, there are all sorts of error modes (including oscillations where power plants work against each other).
There have been some critique against wind turbines from a regulation point of view, they (apparantly) change the mix towards a less stable configuration.
Most of the generators are of the asynchronous type (or induction type). This type or generatior produces no energy when the rotor runs at exactly the grid frequency. Not until the rotor of the generator spins faster than the grid, it produces energy to the net.
The difference between the rotor frequency and the net frequency is called slip, and is usually a few percent. For typical slips, the produced power is proportional to the slip.
So, if the load increases (or the generating power decreases), the (average) slip must increase for the (remaining) generators, and since the generators cannot run any faster, the only possible reaction is for the network frequency to drop.
Similarly, if you have an asynchronous motor and start to load it, its will spin slower (increase its slip) to provide more power.
The synchronous electric machines do not operate according to this principle. They always run with the same frequency as the grid (and compensate by increasing or decrasing the current production or consumption). If a synchronous motor is loaded too hard, it will finally break out of the synchronicity and stop working.
You're on to something.
As far as I know, there are two ways for something to explode (not merely "break up", or "burn"). Either the object is made out of a high explosive, in which the chemical reaction occurs faster than the disintegration, or there is a hard shell surrounding a "low explosive" which reacts "slowly" and builds up a pressure within the shell and explodes when the shell bursts.
Clearly, the meteoroids are not made out of high explosives (I think and hope), but I have a hard time to view them as the other model either. It is not the internal that is heated - it is the outside. The pores and cracks in the "shell" would work to equalize the pressure difference, not create it. The heated gas in the cracks would would be of insignificant volume, and therefore contain negligible energy, and if even there were a process in which this gas would be trapped and cause cracks, it would be just that - cracks. It would not be an explosion disintegrating the meteoroid.
Something is fishy. May be it is the model that they put into the computer... SISO.
That would be a nice indication of progress of our society.
However, this might the "public" explanation which looks good in media.
I can think of two other reasons, which are less flattering for GE; 1) GE fails to be competitive for this type of equipment (for various reasons), or 2) the market for gas turbines shrinks, maybe due to the very high operational costs of gas turbines (they are very expensive to run, for at least electric power generation)
After some quick research I found this:
http://www.preposterousunivers...
It basically says, yes, the mass and size of the universe is (remarkably) close to that of of a black hole with the corresponding Schwarzschild radius, but, no, it does not seem like we live inside a black hole. The strongest argument is that the universe is expanding, not contracting as a black hole.
It does, however, resemble a white hole, which is a time-reversed version of a black hole.
The author still seems to have a problem with an "outside" of the universe....
How does "far less than the highest vacuum that humans have ever produced" compare to the density of our universe, if dark matter (and energy?), vacuum energy/particles and fields, and other stuff, is taken into account? Would the vacuum catastrophe gap the difference?
So, so..... if comparable, could that mean that the observable universe is situated inside the event horizon of a (rather large) black hole?
Are the inflation/expansion/acceleration/red shift/microwave observations compatible with such an arrangement?
ISS har for 20 years been orbiting - a close distance - around a planet with gazillions bacteria an microbes, and been visited by more than a hundred people, and it was lanuched through the atmosphere containing lots of microscopic life, and as soon as bacteria is found on the outside, it is considered likely to be of alien origin?
Gimme a break!
I would be very surprised if we could keep it completely clean from earthly contaimination, even if we are talking about the outside.
... that explains why Mick Jagger looks like he does. He and his mates must have grown up on Mars!
...is known as the "Mayak incident", or the "Kyshtym disaster". It is the third largest ever nuclear mishap (after Chernobyl and Fukushima).
It occurred in 1958 (I think), and it was not caused by a nuclear critical event, but rather "mundane" (but very large - equivalent of somewhere around 100 tonnes of TNT) chemical explosion within nuclear waste (mostly ammonium nitrates IIRC) which spread the waste over large distances. No one was directly killed by the event.
Toyota is not the only one deliberating skipping L3 and go directly to L4. Volvo intends to to the same, as well as some of the German vendors.
The reason is that studies show that hand-overs do not only take "a few seconds" according to the article, but that there is a tail of up to 40 seconds before the "driver-to-be" comprehends the situation.
Since 40 seconds is an eternity in traffic, it poses essentially the same challenges as L4 systems. So why bother with L3?
Hollywood-Powered Neural Networks Produce Freakishly Fake Natural Human Photos
We've already passed the hype peak. We're heading into the AD winter.
Rant Hooker - Honk, Ear Rot
Tank Hero, Or?
Took Her, Ran - Hot Ken Roar
Ah. No Trek, Or?
... we'd still be living in a pre-wheel society.
100 H2/s/rod * 600 Trillion rods / sample = 6 * 10^16 H2/s/sample
High number, but small compared to Avogadro's number: Na = 6*10^23
I.e. it takes approximately 10^7 s (~117 days) to produce one mole (~1g) of hydrogen gas (per sample).
If you would construct a factory which produces a ton (a bit modest, but still) on H2 every day, you'd need 10^6 grams per day. That leads to 10^6*117 ~ 10^8 samples.
I wonder that a sample costs... and what the price of a ton H2 is currently on the market. Let me make a wild guess of a dollar per sample and a $1000 for a ton on H2. Profit margin of 10% yields a $100 per day. That $10^8 investment would need approximately 10^6 days to reach break even.
Yay, in only 2700 years we can start to make some money!
Care to invest?
... I'll be riiight there. Just have to put on my TV viewing socks first. Darn, I have to charge them!
Do you have yours on? What do you mean, not comfy nor pretty enough..?
U.S. Department of Transportation continues the practice of capturing motor vehicles on I94 and I75 in Michigan. The 2016 quota have been negotiated to be 850 Fiestas, 50 Transits and 50 Corvettes.The department states that "it's necessary to maintain a high standard of scientific research on interstate transportation safety". USDOT secretary Anthony Foxx adds "We are acting in a environmentally responsible manner; all vehicles are duely recycled. No animals come to harm during these operations, and the contribution to the yearly US road fatalities is less then 3%".
...is the one loosing.
... a sheet, a black marker, some string, a weight and a LED flashlight.
I think that would make a great levitating, enlightened ghost in the evening.
All other problems aside, that hovercraft would spew out enormous amounts of poisonous gas.
The ionized oxygen atoms would recombine into O2 and O3 and various NOx molecules. NOx isn't good for you, but ozone (O3) is directly poisonous. It's as bad as (or even worse than) HCN - hydrogen cyanide. LD50 is about 22 ppm (for mice).
I wouldn't want one.