So a proton plus B11 yields one or more s (aka He), and if it's one, the remaining nucleus would be Be, but that likes to be Be10 (which decays by a to B10). That requires a couple of extra neutrons, so seems unlikely. ISTM then that 3 s is more likely; can't get just 2, 'cause what's left is another. Sounds more like fission than fusion. Since the binding energy curve goes the wrong way at small atomic mass (less binding energy is required per unit mass for larger nuclei than for smaller ones), this seems unlikely to ever be a net energy producer.
And that article points to another article which cites (without a URL, unfortunately) a NOAA study. The number in that article is a bit different:
"The study was conducted last summer and its findings released in February. Lead researcher Daniel Lack of Noaa's Earth System Research Laboratory at the University of Colorado determined that the 51,000-odd commercial vessels now plying the world's oceans spew almost as much air pollution as half the total number of automobiles on the planet.
"'It was definitely a surprise for me when we pulled those numbers out,' Lack said in an interview. 'These ships are emitting as much [pollution] as 300m cars. It's a hidden giant.'"
So the average is one shiip = 6000 cars. Obviously, some ships will be much worse. But for the article that started this to be right, all of the maritime pollution is down to 6 ships.
Seems really unlikely.
>This law could potentially allow companies to circumvent and undermine state laws designed to protect consumers > from identity theft.
Yeah. It could also give the FBI time to track down the perps before general knowledge of the crime taints the witness pool. It's a pretty common practice at the local level for news organizations to keep quiet about evidence for the same reason.
Well, now that rather depends on what you do with your changes, and what they're for. If you've fixed bugs and submitted patches back into the tree, then there shouldn't be any problem with future support. If you've added functionality and discussed with the package developers what you're doing, and worked along with them to add the feature so that your interface looks like theirs, there shouldn't be any problem. On the other hand, if you go off and make tweaks on your own, then you're on your own. That's true regardless of the support arrangements, and has been with all open source software forever. BFD. The idea that this makes the SW somehow not open source is absolute BS. You have the source. You can study it and modify it, support or no. Just try to do that with M$Win, or any other closed-source software.
Guess you're a newbie. "Internet" and "World Wide Web" are not the same thing. Hint: The Internet is how you connect to World Wide Web servers which aren't on your local network. There's a lot of other stuff that moves over the Internet which has nothing to do with the World Wide Web. Nintendo's games are one example.
The ITU has nothing to do with the UN. It's basicly a trade association of the world's telephone companies. They're probably more competent than the UN to absorb ICANN, but that's not saying much.
You're out of date. Macs are comparable (the WSJ's Walt Mossberg even claims cheaper) in price/performance to x86 boxes. When you factor in the reduction in neck pain, the lack of truly low-end macs is easily compensated for.
OTOH, you can always get a used mac; OSX runs fine on any PPC version.
As to your question, one of the main reasons that OSX is able to be so stable and still provide all of the eye-candy is because of a very small HCL. That advantage would be lost by moving to the rather chaotic wintel platform.
I made something of a similar journey 15 years or so ago, moving from nuclear engineering (as in reactors) and submarine construction to working in a wafer fab. S. M. Sze's "Physics of Semiconductor Devices" is something of a standard which I saw on many bookshelves. It's something of a survey, touching on all of the technologies without really going into depth on any. Stanley Wolf's 3-volume set "Silicon Processing in the VLSI Era" is encyclopedic on processing and modelling (and the modelling part goes into the physics in a lot of depth) of CMOS and related processes. And my boss used to rave about Grove's book, but I've never seen a copy. This is all "vertical" stuff. If your interests are "horizontal" (that is, laying out the circuits rather than building up the devices) then none of it will work for you.
The main reason that FETs are used instead of BJTs in logic devices is that FETs are voltage devices while BJTs are current devices. Logic is much easer to implement with voltage. Amplification, on the other hand, works better with current devices. Hence the BiCMOS processes which are common in the mixed-signal world.
As for these light-emitting BJTs, unless the light is emitted instead of heat from the resistance losses (which I'd think unlikely), the gain and efficiency of the transistor will be reduced by the light emission.
And yet those IT staffs who run mainframes are quite willing to install NT servers running IIS or SQL-server and put up with Microsoft's poor security and stability. Where's the sense in that?
Retubing is most certainly not a normal maintenance item in conventional reactors, and they last for over 30 years. Neutron embrittlement is an issue, but its impact is largely that heat up/cool down has to be very carefully controlled to avoid brittle fracture.
The interesting thing about this proposal is that U238 has a zero fission cross section for thermal neutrons, but a stable cross-section of about 1/2 barn for the range of 2-6 MeV (and between 6 and 8 MeV, cross section rises to around a barn). That compares with a similar 1 barn plateau in U235 between 1 and 5 MeV rising to 2 barns between 5 and 11 MeV. While several orders of magitude lower than the thermal cross sections which form the basis for conventional water-cooled reactors, it's certainly in line with U235 and P239 profiles for fast reactors, and one could hypothesize that a fair amount of the fissions in a fast reactor might come from U238 fissions. In that case, the steam is only the coolant, not a moderator (only slight moderation is required) and steam density wouldn't be much of a concern for control.
Nice try, but it's not. The resolution is in Thomas (the US Congress's online database). Search for "meucci" and you'll find resolution 269.
That said, it's obviously a silly publicity stunt from some Italian-American congresscritter, not actually worthy of much attention. The courts decided the issue moot over 100 years ago, and so it should (in this writer's opinion) remain.
Probable indeed. Most of what LLNL (and its sister lab LBL) does is nuclear weapons research -- and that includes the NIF project mentioned elsewhere. Neither appropriate for the Homeland Defense folks (they couldn't get a clearance for that anyway) nor likely to be cut in the current administration.
Slashdot Mirror
So a proton plus B11 yields one or more s (aka He), and if it's one, the remaining nucleus would be Be, but that likes to be Be10 (which decays by a to B10). That requires a couple of extra neutrons, so seems unlikely. ISTM then that 3 s is more likely; can't get just 2, 'cause what's left is another. Sounds more like fission than fusion. Since the binding energy curve goes the wrong way at small atomic mass (less binding energy is required per unit mass for larger nuclei than for smaller ones), this seems unlikely to ever be a net energy producer.
Does that mean that when I walk into a room with a suitably equipped TV, it will turn off?
"The study was conducted last summer and its findings released in February. Lead researcher Daniel Lack of Noaa's Earth System Research Laboratory at the University of Colorado determined that the 51,000-odd commercial vessels now plying the world's oceans spew almost as much air pollution as half the total number of automobiles on the planet.
"'It was definitely a surprise for me when we pulled those numbers out,' Lack said in an interview. 'These ships are emitting as much [pollution] as 300m cars. It's a hidden giant.'"
So the average is one shiip = 6000 cars. Obviously, some ships will be much worse. But for the article that started this to be right, all of the maritime pollution is down to 6 ships. Seems really unlikely.
You can even do it with a Gtk app.
>This law could potentially allow companies to circumvent and undermine state laws designed to protect consumers
> from identity theft.
Yeah. It could also give the FBI time to track down the perps before general knowledge of the crime taints the witness pool. It's a pretty common practice at the local level for news organizations to keep quiet about evidence for the same reason.
Well, now that rather depends on what you do with your changes, and what they're for.
If you've fixed bugs and submitted patches back into the tree, then there shouldn't be any problem with future support. If you've added functionality and discussed with the package developers what you're doing, and worked along with them to add the feature so that your interface looks like theirs, there shouldn't be any problem.
On the other hand, if you go off and make tweaks on your own, then you're on your own. That's true regardless of the support arrangements, and has been with all open source software forever. BFD.
The idea that this makes the SW somehow not open source is absolute BS. You have the source. You can study it and modify it, support or no. Just try to do that with M$Win, or any other closed-source software.
Guess you're a newbie. "Internet" and "World Wide Web" are not the same thing. Hint: The Internet is how you connect to World Wide Web servers which aren't on your local network. There's a lot of other stuff that moves over the Internet which has nothing to do with the World Wide Web. Nintendo's games are one example.
The ITU has nothing to do with the UN. It's basicly a trade association of the world's telephone companies. They're probably more competent than the UN to absorb ICANN, but that's not saying much.
You're out of date. Macs are comparable (the WSJ's Walt Mossberg even claims cheaper) in price/performance to x86 boxes. When you factor in the reduction in neck pain, the lack of truly low-end macs is easily compensated for. OTOH, you can always get a used mac; OSX runs fine on any PPC version. As to your question, one of the main reasons that OSX is able to be so stable and still provide all of the eye-candy is because of a very small HCL. That advantage would be lost by moving to the rather chaotic wintel platform.
I made something of a similar journey 15 years or so ago, moving from nuclear engineering (as in reactors) and submarine construction to working in a wafer fab.
S. M. Sze's "Physics of Semiconductor Devices" is something of a standard which I saw on many bookshelves. It's something of a survey, touching on all of the technologies without really going into depth on any.
Stanley Wolf's 3-volume set "Silicon Processing in the VLSI Era" is encyclopedic on processing and modelling (and the modelling part goes into the physics in a lot of depth) of CMOS and related processes.
And my boss used to rave about Grove's book, but I've never seen a copy.
This is all "vertical" stuff. If your interests are "horizontal" (that is, laying out the circuits rather than building up the devices) then none of it will work for you.
The main reason that FETs are used instead of BJTs in logic devices is that FETs are voltage devices while BJTs are current devices. Logic is much easer to implement with voltage. Amplification, on the other hand, works better with current devices. Hence the BiCMOS processes which are common in the mixed-signal world.
As for these light-emitting BJTs, unless the light is emitted instead of heat from the resistance losses (which I'd think unlikely), the gain and efficiency of the transistor will be reduced by the light emission.
And yet those IT staffs who run mainframes are quite willing to install NT servers running IIS or SQL-server and put up with Microsoft's poor security and stability. Where's the sense in that?
Retubing is most certainly not a normal maintenance item in conventional reactors, and they last for over 30 years. Neutron embrittlement is an issue, but its impact is largely that heat up/cool down has to be very carefully controlled to avoid brittle fracture. The interesting thing about this proposal is that U238 has a zero fission cross section for thermal neutrons, but a stable cross-section of about 1/2 barn for the range of 2-6 MeV (and between 6 and 8 MeV, cross section rises to around a barn). That compares with a similar 1 barn plateau in U235 between 1 and 5 MeV rising to 2 barns between 5 and 11 MeV. While several orders of magitude lower than the thermal cross sections which form the basis for conventional water-cooled reactors, it's certainly in line with U235 and P239 profiles for fast reactors, and one could hypothesize that a fair amount of the fissions in a fast reactor might come from U238 fissions. In that case, the steam is only the coolant, not a moderator (only slight moderation is required) and steam density wouldn't be much of a concern for control.
Nice try, but it's not. The resolution is in Thomas (the US Congress's online database). Search for "meucci" and you'll find resolution 269.
That said, it's obviously a silly publicity stunt from some Italian-American congresscritter, not actually worthy of much attention. The courts decided the issue moot over 100 years ago, and so it should (in this writer's opinion) remain.
Probable indeed. Most of what LLNL (and its sister lab LBL) does is nuclear weapons research -- and that includes the NIF project mentioned elsewhere. Neither appropriate for the Homeland Defense folks (they couldn't get a clearance for that anyway) nor likely to be cut in the current administration.