I think the tweet idea is slightly different. For example, a lot of work that a scientist does is collecting data to make sure equipment is working properly. Usually these experiments aren't worth publishing and probably wouldn't make it past a peer review because 1) they're usually not novel experiments 2) they don't tell a story or add much value, but I think it could be useful to share this type of data. I mean, if you've collected it, why not share it?
My smartphone changed my life (I think for the better). It's the GPS, not the web browsing that is the best feature. Last week I went on a business trip, rented a car, didn't have to bother with maps or worry about getting lost, my phone told me where to go.
Specifically the last paragraph: "What is left unsaid in all this is the fact that conventional cars with a tank full of petrol are far greater fire hazards than electric cars will ever be. Some 185,000 vehicles catch fire in America each year, with no fewer than 285 people dying as a consequence. But, then, people have been living with the hazard of petrol for over a century. Irrationally, electric-vehicle fires are perceived as somehow more worrisome simply because they are new."
It would be nice to know if the phone was ever dropped, or its battery replaced at any point, or if a non-standard charger was used.
In this case, the backplate of the iphone had been replaced (you can tell from the apple logo in the picture). Obviously I don't know if this was the cause though, but perhaps the backplate was replaced because the original broke during a fall which may have jolted some internal circuitry close to the battery causing a local hotspot near the battery and then thermal runaway. Somehow I doubt that the battery would have been punctured just by dropping/replacing the backplate though.
After reading multiple posts and comments about Apple's patents, there are a lot of people who feel this is counter productive...I don't know why.
IMHO, the patent system is broken when a company can file a patent without actually having a solid working product first, this sometimes happens. But clearly, in a lot of Apple's patents, such as this one, it isn't the case. If Apple, or another company, invests billions of dollars into R&D to make a product, they should be able to protect it. In fact, it would be counter productive if they couldn't protect it because it would discourage them from investing in R&D and then the nice things wouldn't even be invented in the first place.
but you're ok with lithium-ion batteries exploding if short-circuited or heated to above 120C, mm?
I'm just saying be realistic and stop making it sound as if lithium-ion batteries are intrinsically dangerous so that you can push your agenda for your design
A lithium-ion battery will not normally reach 120C. It will only do so if damaged or if there's a defect. Just like you don't want to be driving around in a car with a damaged gas tank. You're in just as much danger sitting on top of a tank of gasoline as you are sitting on top of a lithium-ion battery pack.
Lithium-ion batteries are not any more intrinsically dangerous than other high energy content materials. Whenever you concentrate high energy things, they must be treated with respect. Just because you have to take different precautions when working with lithium-ion batteries as opposed to gasoline, does NOT mean lithium-ion batteries are more dangerous.
you _can't_ put a material that spontaneously catches fire when exposed to air and water (lithium) into a car!
You realize that you're talking about lithium-metal right? All mainstream electric vehicles are using lithium-ion which is a different technology. A lithium-ion battery _will_not_ catch fire when exposed to air and water. Lithium-ion batteries will catch fire when heated to above around 120C which can happen by an internal short circuit, or if punctured by a piece of metal.
Stop spreading FUD. Lithium-ion batteries are much safer than lithium-metal batteries, which is why lithium-ion batteries are being used despite their lower energy density.
I think this is more about the merchant than the buyer. I assume that paypal could make this cheaper for the merchant than the current norm (ie. merchant having to pay for a credit card processing system where a simple tablet and wifi/3G connection could work).
"Two cases in point, a Toshiba laptop with AMD and a 13" MacBook Pro with Intel, the fans run annoyingly at high speed, the bottoms are hot enough to fry eggs on. That's just sitting with one web page open. How long can one expect machine like that to last? A year? two maybe?"
This is an exaggeration...my 13" MacBook Pro doesn't get hot or have the fans turn on with a single web page, nor does this happen while browsing the web/watching youtube.
It's just a solid oxide fuel cell. The only magic is that Bloom Energy is able to market them.
The inks are made out of ceramic/metal powders, probably either sprayed or screen printed to make a typical sandwich type solid oxide fuel cell (or maybe a ceramic tube). It's a standard way of making solid oxide fuel cells. Electrical efficiency is likely 40-50%, total efficiency (assuming they are able to recover some waste heat and, for example, heat hot water) would be around 80%.
And if thousands of people do die from your mistake, is it you who goes to jail or is it your company's ass on the line? If you're an engineer, it's you who goes to jail. (although, I'm sure the company would also be in trouble).
I think a lot of people who want to become a so-called software engineer do it through computer engineering. Most computer engineering departments have a software option (or hardware option).
But just going to engineering school isn't enough to be an engineer. I graduated with a Chem Eng degree and can't call myself an engineer until I write exams to become a professional engineer.
It's not just Exxon funding these organizations actually. George Monbiot's research (in his book "Heat") reveals that Philip Morris (the tobacco company) started the association for the advancement of better science with a main task of discrediting scientific reports linking smoking to lung cancer. Philip Morris knew that they couldn't only focus on tobacco because it would be too obvious that they had an agenda, so the association for the advancement of better science spread confusion about nuclear waste disposal, biotechnology, tobacco smoke and (drum roll please) climate change. We know this because Philip Morris was forced to reveal their documents in a court case.
So, to make a long story short, Exxon's not alone, they actually just jumped on the train that Philip Morris started.
"Not everyone needs a vehicle that can drive across the country and just fill up on the way. Many people just commute."
Yep, exactly. Something like 80% of the driving that we do is easily within the range of an EV (I don't have the exact numbers but it's something like 80% of our driving is within 35km). Long term, public transportation will probably be used for long distance travel.
Electric vehicles are 3 times more efficient, 2.5 times cheaper today (although still too expensive), today Li-ion EVs have better range than Honda's FCX, refuelling won't be a big issue since Li-ion batteries can be charged pretty quickly these days (like within minutes to 80% capacity) but it doesn't really matter because 80% of our driving is within 35-ish km's anyway.
Hydrogen fuel was proclaimned to be dead 2 weeks ago at the Lucerne Fuel Cell conference because it is not sustainable (since EVs are 3 times more efficient). Another fuel that is not sustainable is ethanol by the way, even cellulosic ethanol because of nutrient depletion.
Hydrogen is dead anyway. Way too much energy is required to make hydrogen. Batteries are at least 3 times more efficient, today they are 2.5 times cheaper than PEM fuel cells (although, still way too expensive) and the new Tesla EV actually has a better range (at 250 miles) compared to Honda's FCX which has a range of only 190 miles.
...yes, hydrogen is hype, and unfortunately ethanol seems to be the new hydrogen.
I'm doing a PhD in Chem Eng in Canada. We get $21,000/year minimum (slightly more if you have a scholarship). But, out of that stipend, I pay $6500 in tuition each year. It turns out that universities are very good at providing just enough money to keep their grad students living. Every 2 years or so the stipend goes up by $500-ish to account for inflation. But, MSc students in my department get the exact same stipend as PhD students do. This will vary between universities and between departments.
So are Profs in the US allowed to supplement their incomes with their research grants? That would be sweet! Does it depend on what type of research grant it is (as in money from industry vs money from the government)? This isn't allowed to happen in Canada, that's for sure. All of the salaries of profs at my university (possibly all in Canada) are published if they make over $100,000 CDN per year. In the chem eng department, out of around 15 faculty, 2 of them make above $100,000 and the highest prof is paid around $125,000/year.
Solar power HAS really cought on in some parts of the world though...like Germany. Germans can sell solar power back to the grid and actually make a profit. A lot of people are renting out the roofs of some farms just to put solar cells on it and feed it back to the grid. In a way Germany is subsidizing the solar industry for the rest of the world (at least until the refined silicon shortage is solved) because they are driving the industry right now.
I'd rather call the "pop" a combuston reaction and the "dissolve" an electrochemical reaction. There is no dissolution, hydrogen is oxidized, oxygen is reduced, the resulting potential difference causes electron and ion flow.
There is absolutely no way a fuel cell can do anything at 95% efficiency, other than perhaps slowly charge a battery. You're right in saying that at low currents, efficiency is higher, but you can't drive a car at low currents...Electrolysis can afford to be slow though because typically the hydrogen is produced over night, and so the efficiency of an electrolyzer can reach 95%.
You also must realize though that this is 95% of it's theroretical maximum efficiency, which is not 100% for an electrochemical reaction, it's close to around 85% at room temperature and goes down as temperature increases.
"If the system efficiency is near 50% it's a lot better than diesel."
The fuel cell system efficiency is close to 50%. Accounting for the well to wheel which includes generating and storing hydrogen, then the total efficiency is near the well-to-wheel efficiency of a diesel car.
But you'd need to lay down miles of electricity lines...that's expensive and there are lots of efficiency losses involved. Fuel cells in trains actually make more sense than they do in cars because trains are bigger and heavier so a huge heavy tank of compressed hydrogen wouldn't be all that significant. In a car, the weight of the hydrogen storage becomes a problem.
In the end, I'd rather see a diesel-electric hybrid train than a fuel cell train and I'd rather see battery electric vehicles than fuel cell vehicles. Fuel cells have will have a tricky time finding the right market...well, at least if they're trying to get into the transportation sector. Portable fuel cells for laptops should come soon.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the tweet idea is slightly different. For example, a lot of work that a scientist does is collecting data to make sure equipment is working properly. Usually these experiments aren't worth publishing and probably wouldn't make it past a peer review because 1) they're usually not novel experiments 2) they don't tell a story or add much value, but I think it could be useful to share this type of data. I mean, if you've collected it, why not share it?
My smartphone changed my life (I think for the better). It's the GPS, not the web browsing that is the best feature. Last week I went on a business trip, rented a car, didn't have to bother with maps or worry about getting lost, my phone told me where to go.
This is getting blown way out of proportion.
See this article for another view: http://www.economist.com/node/21541395
Specifically the last paragraph:
"What is left unsaid in all this is the fact that conventional cars with a tank full of petrol are far greater fire hazards than electric cars will ever be. Some 185,000 vehicles catch fire in America each year, with no fewer than 285 people dying as a consequence. But, then, people have been living with the hazard of petrol for over a century. Irrationally, electric-vehicle fires are perceived as somehow more worrisome simply because they are new."
It would be nice to know if the phone was ever dropped, or its battery replaced at any point, or if a non-standard charger was used.
In this case, the backplate of the iphone had been replaced (you can tell from the apple logo in the picture). Obviously I don't know if this was the cause though, but perhaps the backplate was replaced because the original broke during a fall which may have jolted some internal circuitry close to the battery causing a local hotspot near the battery and then thermal runaway. Somehow I doubt that the battery would have been punctured just by dropping/replacing the backplate though.
Apple purchasing this patent from Xerox is essentially equivalent to Apple outsourcing their R&D. Same end result.
After reading multiple posts and comments about Apple's patents, there are a lot of people who feel this is counter productive...I don't know why.
IMHO, the patent system is broken when a company can file a patent without actually having a solid working product first, this sometimes happens. But clearly, in a lot of Apple's patents, such as this one, it isn't the case. If Apple, or another company, invests billions of dollars into R&D to make a product, they should be able to protect it. In fact, it would be counter productive if they couldn't protect it because it would discourage them from investing in R&D and then the nice things wouldn't even be invented in the first place.
but you're ok with lithium-ion batteries exploding if short-circuited or heated to above 120C, mm?
I'm just saying be realistic and stop making it sound as if lithium-ion batteries are intrinsically dangerous so that you can push your agenda for your design
A lithium-ion battery will not normally reach 120C. It will only do so if damaged or if there's a defect. Just like you don't want to be driving around in a car with a damaged gas tank. You're in just as much danger sitting on top of a tank of gasoline as you are sitting on top of a lithium-ion battery pack.
Lithium-ion batteries are not any more intrinsically dangerous than other high energy content materials. Whenever you concentrate high energy things, they must be treated with respect. Just because you have to take different precautions when working with lithium-ion batteries as opposed to gasoline, does NOT mean lithium-ion batteries are more dangerous.
you _can't_ put a material that spontaneously catches fire when exposed to air and water (lithium) into a car!
You realize that you're talking about lithium-metal right? All mainstream electric vehicles are using lithium-ion which is a different technology. A lithium-ion battery _will_not_ catch fire when exposed to air and water. Lithium-ion batteries will catch fire when heated to above around 120C which can happen by an internal short circuit, or if punctured by a piece of metal.
Stop spreading FUD. Lithium-ion batteries are much safer than lithium-metal batteries, which is why lithium-ion batteries are being used despite their lower energy density.
I think this is more about the merchant than the buyer. I assume that paypal could make this cheaper for the merchant than the current norm (ie. merchant having to pay for a credit card processing system where a simple tablet and wifi/3G connection could work).
"Two cases in point, a Toshiba laptop with AMD and a 13" MacBook Pro with Intel, the fans run annoyingly at high speed, the bottoms are hot enough to fry eggs on. That's just sitting with one web page open. How long can one expect machine like that to last? A year? two maybe?"
This is an exaggeration...my 13" MacBook Pro doesn't get hot or have the fans turn on with a single web page, nor does this happen while browsing the web/watching youtube.
It's just a solid oxide fuel cell. The only magic is that Bloom Energy is able to market them.
The inks are made out of ceramic/metal powders, probably either sprayed or screen printed to make a typical sandwich type solid oxide fuel cell (or maybe a ceramic tube). It's a standard way of making solid oxide fuel cells. Electrical efficiency is likely 40-50%, total efficiency (assuming they are able to recover some waste heat and, for example, heat hot water) would be around 80%.
Because it's cheaper to do it that way. A CO2 tax could correct this though.
And if thousands of people do die from your mistake, is it you who goes to jail or is it your company's ass on the line? If you're an engineer, it's you who goes to jail. (although, I'm sure the company would also be in trouble).
I think a lot of people who want to become a so-called software engineer do it through computer engineering. Most computer engineering departments have a software option (or hardware option).
But just going to engineering school isn't enough to be an engineer. I graduated with a Chem Eng degree and can't call myself an engineer until I write exams to become a professional engineer.
So care to tell me about the 'rigours' of this so called Engineer?
Yeah, the engineer got sued. That's the difference. Engineers are made responsible.
It's not just Exxon funding these organizations actually. George Monbiot's research (in his book "Heat") reveals that Philip Morris (the tobacco company) started the association for the advancement of better science with a main task of discrediting scientific reports linking smoking to lung cancer. Philip Morris knew that they couldn't only focus on tobacco because it would be too obvious that they had an agenda, so the association for the advancement of better science spread confusion about nuclear waste disposal, biotechnology, tobacco smoke and (drum roll please) climate change. We know this because Philip Morris was forced to reveal their documents in a court case.
So, to make a long story short, Exxon's not alone, they actually just jumped on the train that Philip Morris started.
"Not everyone needs a vehicle that can drive across the country and just fill up on the way. Many people just commute."
Yep, exactly. Something like 80% of the driving that we do is easily within the range of an EV (I don't have the exact numbers but it's something like 80% of our driving is within 35km). Long term, public transportation will probably be used for long distance travel.
Electric vehicles are 3 times more efficient, 2.5 times cheaper today (although still too expensive), today Li-ion EVs have better range than Honda's FCX, refuelling won't be a big issue since Li-ion batteries can be charged pretty quickly these days (like within minutes to 80% capacity) but it doesn't really matter because 80% of our driving is within 35-ish km's anyway.
Hydrogen fuel was proclaimned to be dead 2 weeks ago at the Lucerne Fuel Cell conference because it is not sustainable (since EVs are 3 times more efficient). Another fuel that is not sustainable is ethanol by the way, even cellulosic ethanol because of nutrient depletion.
Hydrogen is dead anyway. Way too much energy is required to make hydrogen. Batteries are at least 3 times more efficient, today they are 2.5 times cheaper than PEM fuel cells (although, still way too expensive) and the new Tesla EV actually has a better range (at 250 miles) compared to Honda's FCX which has a range of only 190 miles.
...yes, hydrogen is hype, and unfortunately ethanol seems to be the new hydrogen.
I'm doing a PhD in Chem Eng in Canada. We get $21,000/year minimum (slightly more if you have a scholarship). But, out of that stipend, I pay $6500 in tuition each year. It turns out that universities are very good at providing just enough money to keep their grad students living. Every 2 years or so the stipend goes up by $500-ish to account for inflation. But, MSc students in my department get the exact same stipend as PhD students do. This will vary between universities and between departments.
"Many professors tap grants"
So are Profs in the US allowed to supplement their incomes with their research grants? That would be sweet! Does it depend on what type of research grant it is (as in money from industry vs money from the government)? This isn't allowed to happen in Canada, that's for sure. All of the salaries of profs at my university (possibly all in Canada) are published if they make over $100,000 CDN per year. In the chem eng department, out of around 15 faculty, 2 of them make above $100,000 and the highest prof is paid around $125,000/year.
Solar power HAS really cought on in some parts of the world though...like Germany. Germans can sell solar power back to the grid and actually make a profit. A lot of people are renting out the roofs of some farms just to put solar cells on it and feed it back to the grid. In a way Germany is subsidizing the solar industry for the rest of the world (at least until the refined silicon shortage is solved) because they are driving the industry right now.
I'd rather call the "pop" a combuston reaction and the "dissolve" an electrochemical reaction. There is no dissolution, hydrogen is oxidized, oxygen is reduced, the resulting potential difference causes electron and ion flow.
There is absolutely no way a fuel cell can do anything at 95% efficiency, other than perhaps slowly charge a battery. You're right in saying that at low currents, efficiency is higher, but you can't drive a car at low currents...Electrolysis can afford to be slow though because typically the hydrogen is produced over night, and so the efficiency of an electrolyzer can reach 95%.
You also must realize though that this is 95% of it's theroretical maximum efficiency, which is not 100% for an electrochemical reaction, it's close to around 85% at room temperature and goes down as temperature increases.
"If the system efficiency is near 50% it's a lot better than diesel."
The fuel cell system efficiency is close to 50%. Accounting for the well to wheel which includes generating and storing hydrogen, then the total efficiency is near the well-to-wheel efficiency of a diesel car.
But you'd need to lay down miles of electricity lines...that's expensive and there are lots of efficiency losses involved. Fuel cells in trains actually make more sense than they do in cars because trains are bigger and heavier so a huge heavy tank of compressed hydrogen wouldn't be all that significant. In a car, the weight of the hydrogen storage becomes a problem.
In the end, I'd rather see a diesel-electric hybrid train than a fuel cell train and I'd rather see battery electric vehicles than fuel cell vehicles. Fuel cells have will have a tricky time finding the right market...well, at least if they're trying to get into the transportation sector. Portable fuel cells for laptops should come soon.