Uh, I'm pretty sure that the rocks aren't heated from the earth's core, which is a little farther down than 5km from the surface. Radioactive decay is actually the source, and that isn't particularly renewable, unless you know of a way to impregnate the rock with more radioactive material. The article suggests 70 years of use at current comsumption rates. (Get it? Current consumption rates?).
Also the radiation isn't really dangerous since it's just trace amounts; it's just that the heat can't escape so it's just been accumulating.
As for toxic chemicals, this is dry geothermal, not that messy geyeser stuff.
I did meet a chick from Perth online. But now that you mention it, I never did get the chance to meet her in person since I got deployed when she was supposed to have visited the states. Coincidence? Perhaps you're on to something.
I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings. Taking into account the manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs, are these techniques better for the environment or any cheaper?
Solar cells only work when it's sunny. And it doesn't hurt if it's daytime either.
Likewise, windmills only work when - you guessed it - Cheney is talking.
And yes, the power generation would be throttleable. Since it's a closed-loop system, you should be able to just slow down the pump. Or speed it up, since slowing it down would allow for more heat transfer? Whatever. I'm sure the engineers can figure it out.
There could one day be plants supplying more than 1,000 megawatts of power if the market allowed it, which is theoretically a good chunk of the 1,200 megawatts required to power South Australia.
You mean... 1.2 jigawatts? I'm sorry, but the only thing that can generate 1.21 jigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning.
Sorry, I meant to say that the implementation of counter-rotation has been around for a while. It was basically abandoned with the invention of the tail rotor, for the sake of simplicity. Now that stronger matierals and better manufacturing processes are available, it's easier to implement co-axial counter-rotation, but that doesn't make it a new invention. If anything, the front-to-rear aligned tail rotor is innovative, but there were those things called airplanes which have been using them since, oh, their invention.
The problem with coaxial counter rotation, by the way, is that any friction or flexing/warping of the shafts is twice as dangerous as with a single shaft. Since they're spinning in opposite directions, it's like they're spinning twice as fast. A hot spot (where lubrication or a bearing fails) can become very serious very quickly. Just ask Howard Hughes.
Well, in most cases it's better to get a little money from everyone's sales than all the money from your own. I mean, theoretically Phillips (or whoever patented CDs) could've chosen not to license their patent too. The advantage of licensing is that other people can sink their own money into product production and marketing, and whether or not they sell, you still win. Most patents in the media sector (no pun intended), with the exception of iOmega, have licensed their technology. Let me rephrase that... the most succesful media formats have been licensed. While that might not be as important in fixed media, since interoperability isn't much of a factor, it can be beneficial for other reasons.
I'm not sure who runs the SATA, but as a hypothetical: if all media companies are involved, they may vote not to license SATA to Hitachi, who would then be up the proverbial creek. What good is a HD if you can't attach it? It would only be useful in proprietary devices. While they've only used the tech in 1" drives so far, it's pretty reasonable to assume that desktop implementation will arrive in the near future.
Aside from that, there's reciprocity. We get to license your tech; in return when we develop Tech X, we'll license it to you.
Hitachi could always opt to go the monopoly route, but it's not without risk. It forces other companies to come up with competing solutions, which might end up being better or cheaper than your own.
That's all just speculation, of course, but I would be very surprised if they didn't license it.
The counter-rotating blade concept isn't new by any means.. Many early helicopter designs used the concept to cancel torque, but tail rotors proved to solve the issue of torque while also adding a high degree of control.
In helicopters, 180MPH is generally the speed limit, because that's when the aircraft's airspeed approaches the angular velocity of the rotor on it's rearward sweep. If the aircraft is traveling forward at roughly the same speed that the rotor is sweeping backward, it can't generate any lift on that side. It seems like increasing the rate of rotation would solve the problem, but the short answer is that that introduces even more problems.
Most twin-blade craft use tandem or intermeshing props, like the Chinook or V22. I'm guessing the coaxial counter-rotating design hasn't been popular because it's orders of magnitude (Score: 5, Used "orders of magnitude" in a sentence) more complicated than a standard prop. One of the main concerns in warfare is equipment reliability -- things working when you need them most. If coaxial designs are significantly less reliable in practice, that's a tremendous offset to any possible tactical advantage.
Except that babies are usually infected by their mothers.
Except that's not true at all. The highest estimate is 33%, which is not "usually."
Estimates of the proportion of children born to women with HIV infection who are themselves infected with HIV vary, ranging from 14% to 33% in studies performed in the United States and Europe before the new knowledge about treatment was disseminated. More recent estimates of the transmission rate, reflecting the increasing use of protective treatment, range from 3% to 10%.
He told the Mail on Sunday: "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. There are 34.9 million people with HIV and if I have something to contribute, then I am willing and ready to help."
I saw this on the news yesterday. They already confirmed that he's negative, and they did DNA tests to make sure none of the results were mixed up. Next they're going to run the initial positive-testing sample again to make sure.
Even so, I'm going to reserve judgement on this for a while. That whole extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof thing. I'm not a doctor, but I believe the test for HIV only tests for antibodies, since the virus itself is much more difficult. Even so, I would believe a false positive or sample tampering more readily than someone's body developing a cure, if only because the former seem far more likely possibilities than the latter.
Brushing three times a day is a tough task, especially if you're roughing it in the mountains of Afghanistan or in the Iraqi desert. Runyan said he hopes to see a finished product available within four years.
Looks like they just gave away their time table for Iraq. And it's only 4+ years!
Even though you're not being serious, I agree with you 100%. There's so much emphasis on maintaining the status quo that people never stop to consider that change might be better. At the very least, things will always change, and we'd do better to adapt than to continue our Red Queen mentality.
Of course, nobody agrees with me, so I must be trolling.
I have the same theory about traveling backward in time. If it was ever (or will ever be) possible, we would already know about it unless there was 100% control over the technology (not likely) and the people in control performed trips to the past flawlessly (even less likely). Eventually somebody would intentionally or unintentionally alert us to the phenomenon.
I can guarantee that I'll never have time travel, because I'd go back to 1995 and leave myself a note to invest in tech stocks and sell them all by March 2000. Also I'd tell myself to not to get in a relationship with that chick from my Philosophy class because her sister is even hotter, but won't want to date one of her sister's ex's.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, I'm pretty sure that the rocks aren't heated from the earth's core, which is a little farther down than 5km from the surface. Radioactive decay is actually the source, and that isn't particularly renewable, unless you know of a way to impregnate the rock with more radioactive material. The article suggests 70 years of use at current comsumption rates. (Get it? Current consumption rates?).
Also the radiation isn't really dangerous since it's just trace amounts; it's just that the heat can't escape so it's just been accumulating.
As for toxic chemicals, this is dry geothermal, not that messy geyeser stuff.
I did meet a chick from Perth online. But now that you mention it, I never did get the chance to meet her in person since I got deployed when she was supposed to have visited the states. Coincidence? Perhaps you're on to something.
I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings. Taking into account the manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs, are these techniques better for the environment or any cheaper?
Solar cells only work when it's sunny. And it doesn't hurt if it's daytime either.
Likewise, windmills only work when - you guessed it - Cheney is talking.
And yes, the power generation would be throttleable. Since it's a closed-loop system, you should be able to just slow down the pump. Or speed it up, since slowing it down would allow for more heat transfer? Whatever. I'm sure the engineers can figure it out.
Am I the only one who had never heard of a lemur until that movie with the singing penguins?
There could one day be plants supplying more than 1,000 megawatts of power if the market allowed it, which is theoretically a good chunk of the 1,200 megawatts required to power South Australia.
You mean... 1.2 jigawatts? I'm sorry, but the only thing that can generate 1.21 jigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning.
Sorry, I meant to say that the implementation of counter-rotation has been around for a while. It was basically abandoned with the invention of the tail rotor, for the sake of simplicity. Now that stronger matierals and better manufacturing processes are available, it's easier to implement co-axial counter-rotation, but that doesn't make it a new invention. If anything, the front-to-rear aligned tail rotor is innovative, but there were those things called airplanes which have been using them since, oh, their invention.
The problem with coaxial counter rotation, by the way, is that any friction or flexing/warping of the shafts is twice as dangerous as with a single shaft. Since they're spinning in opposite directions, it's like they're spinning twice as fast. A hot spot (where lubrication or a bearing fails) can become very serious very quickly. Just ask Howard Hughes.
Well, in most cases it's better to get a little money from everyone's sales than all the money from your own. I mean, theoretically Phillips (or whoever patented CDs) could've chosen not to license their patent too. The advantage of licensing is that other people can sink their own money into product production and marketing, and whether or not they sell, you still win. Most patents in the media sector (no pun intended), with the exception of iOmega, have licensed their technology. Let me rephrase that... the most succesful media formats have been licensed. While that might not be as important in fixed media, since interoperability isn't much of a factor, it can be beneficial for other reasons.
I'm not sure who runs the SATA, but as a hypothetical: if all media companies are involved, they may vote not to license SATA to Hitachi, who would then be up the proverbial creek. What good is a HD if you can't attach it? It would only be useful in proprietary devices. While they've only used the tech in 1" drives so far, it's pretty reasonable to assume that desktop implementation will arrive in the near future.
Aside from that, there's reciprocity. We get to license your tech; in return when we develop Tech X, we'll license it to you.
Hitachi could always opt to go the monopoly route, but it's not without risk. It forces other companies to come up with competing solutions, which might end up being better or cheaper than your own.
That's all just speculation, of course, but I would be very surprised if they didn't license it.
I'll put $100 on Sep 14th, 2022.
But really, I'm sure they'll license the technology to other companies.
The only people who haven't seen that yet are both blind.
The counter-rotating blade concept isn't new by any means.. Many early helicopter designs used the concept to cancel torque, but tail rotors proved to solve the issue of torque while also adding a high degree of control.
In helicopters, 180MPH is generally the speed limit, because that's when the aircraft's airspeed approaches the angular velocity of the rotor on it's rearward sweep. If the aircraft is traveling forward at roughly the same speed that the rotor is sweeping backward, it can't generate any lift on that side. It seems like increasing the rate of rotation would solve the problem, but the short answer is that that introduces even more problems.
Most twin-blade craft use tandem or intermeshing props, like the Chinook or V22. I'm guessing the coaxial counter-rotating design hasn't been popular because it's orders of magnitude (Score: 5, Used "orders of magnitude" in a sentence) more complicated than a standard prop. One of the main concerns in warfare is equipment reliability -- things working when you need them most. If coaxial designs are significantly less reliable in practice, that's a tremendous offset to any possible tactical advantage.
I remember reading the same headlines for XP, W2K, and NT.
Yeah.. That's why I can't wait for 2008 to get here.. so I can finally upgrade from Windows 95.
You're planning on living forever?
--
It is as impossible to steal "intellectual property" as it is to steal fire.
no play them in reverse to hear the satanic marketing messeges
Is there any other kind?
If I clicked on a link at work preceeded by "I do that every night," and "Oh wait, you said Wars," I'd fire myself.
Britney : Music as Video : Radio Star as Brutus : Caesar as Stephen King : ?
a) Waffles
b) Literature
c) String Theory
d) Cowboy Neal
Except that babies are usually infected by their mothers.
Except that's not true at all. The highest estimate is 33%, which is not "usually."
Estimates of the proportion of children born to women with HIV infection who are themselves infected with HIV vary, ranging from 14% to 33% in studies performed in the United States and Europe before the new knowledge about treatment was disseminated. More recent estimates of the transmission rate, reflecting the increasing use of protective treatment, range from 3% to 10%.
Woops!
"Sorry Fred, we thought, you know.. since you made it across the highway the first time you were probably invulnerable to cars."
He told the Mail on Sunday: "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. There are 34.9 million people with HIV and if I have something to contribute, then I am willing and ready to help."
I saw this on the news yesterday. They already confirmed that he's negative, and they did DNA tests to make sure none of the results were mixed up. Next they're going to run the initial positive-testing sample again to make sure.
Even so, I'm going to reserve judgement on this for a while. That whole extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof thing. I'm not a doctor, but I believe the test for HIV only tests for antibodies, since the virus itself is much more difficult. Even so, I would believe a false positive or sample tampering more readily than someone's body developing a cure, if only because the former seem far more likely possibilities than the latter.
Magic Johnson did this years ago...
Brushing three times a day is a tough task, especially if you're roughing it in the mountains of Afghanistan or in the Iraqi desert. Runyan said he hopes to see a finished product available within four years.
Looks like they just gave away their time table for Iraq. And it's only 4+ years!
Should we ban blackberry pagers because not all employees have mobile email access and thus might face a communication barrier with those who do?
Yes.
Also we should ban speaking because there's a possible communications barrier with deaf persons.
Even though you're not being serious, I agree with you 100%. There's so much emphasis on maintaining the status quo that people never stop to consider that change might be better. At the very least, things will always change, and we'd do better to adapt than to continue our Red Queen mentality.
Of course, nobody agrees with me, so I must be trolling.
And all those feedback mechanisms can't be an accident!
-Kansas
I have the same theory about traveling backward in time. If it was ever (or will ever be) possible, we would already know about it unless there was 100% control over the technology (not likely) and the people in control performed trips to the past flawlessly (even less likely). Eventually somebody would intentionally or unintentionally alert us to the phenomenon.
I can guarantee that I'll never have time travel, because I'd go back to 1995 and leave myself a note to invest in tech stocks and sell them all by March 2000. Also I'd tell myself to not to get in a relationship with that chick from my Philosophy class because her sister is even hotter, but won't want to date one of her sister's ex's.