WP already includes the efficiency figure, it's the maximum power put out by the panel under ideal conditions. At peak production, 210 W will go into hydrogen production.
Actually the GP read it right I think. I agree the wording in the article is not perfectly clear so your reading might be right also but to me it seems to say that the panel uses it's 210 watts and with that the conversion effeicieny to hydrogen is 15%. I base this reading on the next sentence that says the conversion used to be less than 1%. Any solar panel would be more than 1% efficient in making power, ergo this must be referring to the conversion to hydrogen bond breaking not the solar panels energy production.
So the GP is right I beleive. That is, it's a liter a day per panel at full sun.
The problem with making steam or splitting water is the minerals and gunk in the water eventually foul the solar panels. This is why, fo example, a recent innovation in non-contact low emissivity steam generators is a big deal. It's not that they improved the low emissivity desgin it's that they came up with a way to heat the water radiatively without it touching the expensive and hot parts.
Second if you are going to use electrcity to split water then, since solar panel electricity generation is ineffieinet you are better off using the solar power to pre-heat the water with waste heat ( this makes it significantly easier to split since you are paying a down payment on the free energy needed to go from liquid to gas phase).
If you first make electricity to split it then making sure the electrical generation part doesn't touch the water itself is needed.
It's hard to unwind your bussiness model, snobbery or not. To compete with free craigslist ads? TO compete with nearly free e-bay ads? they'd have to go to no revenue almost overnight. How do you do that and support the NEWS function which isn't free? The were caught in a jam.
The word liberal with a lower case "L" is something all newspapers should strive for. In case you don't realize it, a "liberal arts education" has nothing to do with a Liberal political stance. Perhaps you need one?
MIght as well say, Why have peer review in science. With honest diligent compentent people there's no need. The whole problem with the cognitive bubble feeding poison from facebook trolls is the lack of journalistic integrity.
You can take a picture of your paper ballot to prove how you voted.
No you can't, not with a significant success rate at least. You take a picture of a ballot but it's not a vote unless you submit that ballot. This is why we separate the ballot casting from the ballot filling on hand marked paper ballots. One can be done in secrecy and the other in the open. When you go to a touch screen system both are in secrecy and so there's a problem with photos. Absentee ballots have a similar problem but until recently there were not enough of them to matter. And lord help us with internet voting.
I think there's use cases for these devices but in terms of market share I think a device with the form factor we have now but with the ability to simulate a large scree would be more welcome. You are sacrificing a lot to get folded screens like for example some protection of the plastic and thickness.
Instead consider alternatives like a second screen that is an attachment that could fold up compactly, be a second battery, maybe host additional features or compute power, and most importantly be replaceable or shared will other phones.
Perhaps one could have your apple/google glasses project additional screens around the phone. That way you still have the tactile input device, and have better registration with your hands and eyes, and you don't look like street corner preacher stabbing at invisble things in the air.
Perhaps one could have a projector on the side of the phone that could project onto a table.
lots of ways. such as the contemporaneous digital record of ballots cast. The number of ballots cast in anyone precient will be less than that. The record both official and unoffical of the number of ballots cast. The multiple eye's on the system. the rate at which ballots can be fed into the scanner. And other less well known security features.
Right Secret ballots were a major innovation. We encountered a lot of large scale problems in vote coercion prior to that. For example, pubs would act as vote collection centers issuing color coded ballots pre-marked then collect them from you when you took your free pint of beer. Secret ballots and secure voting places put a stop to that.
this is not related to the conversation. you are talking about authentication not secure voting. different problem. It does resemeble this problem in one way. The most important thing is people are confident in the system and weak authentication can weakly contribute to mistrust in the system. Thus even though there's no evidence authentication is actually any significant concern, it is something some voters, such as yourself, see as confidence building.
thus I do support stroing authentication too. But I feel it's important to sever the two issues as their impact and problem level are different. In authentication, many proposals for strong autnentication crete new, and, measurably, worse problems like disenfranchisement or intimidation or poll-tax like burdens. Thus like the above it's important to select an authentication system that meets all the needs not just the single best auntentication at the expense of other needs. To give an example, if you pair the implementation of proof of regiatration with same-day registrtion or provisional ballots then some of the disenfranchisement (from say a felon purge error) are relieved.
politically, Authentication has become a political football because some parties have not been willing to pair the authentucation laws with factors to offset it's negative impact.
Nope. We tried that already in early american history and people used the proof mechanisms to corrupt votes. It's the whole reason we went to precint based secret ballots. And for the most part we know the system works excellently without proof of vote. So there's not even a question in anyone's mind aside form yours which is a bigger problem
bingo. When New Mexico implemented random sampled recounts they used 10 sided dice done in publicfor random precinct selection. When colorado did it, they hired eminent computer scientists to design the recount and they use a computer random number generator and all the selections is automated in the computer. No one who understands computers trusts the colorado system though admittedly it's way better than nothing. it just violates the transparency for the sake of some computer science optimality in the algorithm.
What does distance matter? If you are traveling to the planet you care about paths that don't clip the sun. Likewise if you are communicating with the planet you care about the average time it has line of sight to earth. And if you are launching a probe you care about closest approach to earth and relative velocity.
Having studied this issue for a very long time I'm perpetually frustrated with the Computer scientists constantly injecting overly clever desiderata that can only be implemented at the sacrifice of core requirements of voting systems. the core requirements are 1. Secret ballot so no one can tell how you voted. 2. Secret ballot so you cannot prove to anyone how you voted even if you want to. (too often ignored) 3. transparency at a level where an ordinary person can reasonably see how the security works 4. Robust against operator errors. Mistakes happen, power gets lost, protocols are not followed. 5. Resistant to cheating. 6. in the event of a failure, Ballots must be re countable-- preferably at a precinct level
What the computer scientists is inject nice-to-have but unnessassary desiderata, like "crytpographic proof your vote was counted" and encrytption. These, to date, always sacrifice one of the requirements. For example, many (not all) proof of vote systems will violate 2, allowing you to prove how you voted. indeed many touch screens allow proving how you voted using a video inside the voting booth (whereas paper ballots have to be publically deposited and videos can be prevented). Many (not all) cryptosystems reduce the number of people who know the keys but this comes at the price of concentration where a few people can change all the ballots without detection, whereas distribnuted precint counting makes whole sale attacks hard. Serial numbers on ballots, to the voter, appear to offer a way to track their ballot to them. Even if you tell them the cypto prevents this an ordinary person cannot possibly tell that. Ballots need to be indistinguishable.
Thus I worry that people doing this are trying to "improve" something with "more features" that already has a good solution. namely hand marked paper ballots and optical scan.
when an optical scanner breaks down you can still collect the ballots. People can still vote. And you don't get long lines when you are short on equipment or the power goes down because all you need is more pens and desks. Optical scans are easy to recount by humans at a precint level.
I came here to say that phase conjugation is not time reversal but I thought about it some more and there are limited ways you might call it pseudo time reversal.
Phase conjugation of a light wave is old stuff. When you do it reverses the direction a shaped wavefront propagates. Since the argument of a wave function f(k*z-w*t) goes backwards when you change the sign on t it's mathematically the same as making time negative. So the wave goes back to where it came from. Notably if it went through phase distorting media then the distortion is not doubled but actually is undone leaving the wave just as it was on the way out.
However if the media was attenuating the wave is not magically amplified on the way back!
So it's not really sending it back in time. It's just phase reversal or conjugation .
The same thing happens in NMR and things like Rabi frequencies. And photon echos.
The same will be true in QM. All they did was created a photon echo.
Except this is with matter not photons so it's pretty banned cool and you don't need to make it sound cooler by sayin it went backward in time.
Keeping matter coherent enough to phase conjugate us aswesome!!!
But I'll note how you could actually time reverse. That would require making the whole container phase conjugate. If we phase conjugated a photon and an attenuating medium the the photon would be amplified so really time reversed!
No i'm not oversimplifying or at at least you have not shown how. If the plane is dropping the plan knows this. If every time the pilot pulls back on the stick and overrides the automatic dive the plane goes up, the plane knows that too. So the plane has the info it needs to make a better decision. Show me how I'm wrong.
Okay lets suppose that some or all of the stall sensors are malfunctioning. There's another sensor that the computer can look at and that's the altitude. If the ALTITUDE is rapidly falling of course the plane might think, see I was right about this stall! But there's one more thing. Namely if the pilots pulled the stick back and the altitude stops falling the plane should now have enough information to figure out that pushing the stick forward is not the right thing to do.
So it seems like the plane should be able to figure out that it's sensors can't be right even if it doesn't know what's exaxtly wrong.
That is, it's job is to overide the pilots if it's convinced they are ignoring a serious problem or doing something to make it worse. But if they do take action and it improves the situation then the logic should be, trust the pilot. Not, continue assuming the pilot is doing the wrong thing.
Holy cow this is the very thing we are afraid of. like Facebooks Internet basics initiative and all the links inside facebook that only work inside facebook. Already many web pages are no longer accessible on an iphone unless you install chrome. Now we get this version of the internet only available to websites that optimize their pages for big Goog.
oops... accidentally deleted half my post when I submitted it.
Anyhow, so how do we get to negative mass? I think there are two ways that are essentially realted.
in a nutshell, this is like an airbubble in water. The air bubble is made of air so it has mass. But it floats up like it has negative mass.
Consider the mass defect effect. That's the reason why isoptopes weigh less than they should. the reason is that the attractiv forces in the nucleous create abinding energy well the neutrons are in. So they have less not more energy than a free neutron. As a result they also have less mass than a free neurtron.
If you were to imagine (incorrectly but a sufficient picture) a neutron as oscillating electrons and protons (or quarks), and you would describe what you saw as much like a sound field or a pendulum in which energy flowed back and forth from potential to kinetic energy in the oscillations. And so you would say hey, those oscillations seem to be creating negative mass. But that's backwards. What's happening is the binding forced are what cause the oscillation ust as gravity causes a pendulum. So the binding field has created a lower mass for the particle like the mass defect.
THe other way is to analogize this to the "holes" in semiconductors. We often refer to the "holes" (missing electrons) as having a mass. THey don't but if you model then that way they act like they do. In reality, in a classical picture, they are just missing electrons in a sea of electons. But when we switch to quantum model they become particles and we give them a mass. But this is just subtracting a constant surrounding mass whose inertia is what makes the holes appear to have inertia. If you ejected a hole into free space it would not even exist!
thus you get negative mass when you are subtracting a background.
Anything that stores energy has mass doesn't it? So a sound wave which is a melange of oscillations of kinetic and potential energy has mass. So this is already known.
Additionally, if it's like a photon, then it is not going to have any additional mass on top of that I believe though I might be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
210 Watts peak * 15% efficiency
WP already includes the efficiency figure, it's the maximum power put out by the panel under ideal conditions. At peak production, 210 W will go into hydrogen production.
Actually the GP read it right I think. I agree the wording in the article is not perfectly clear so your reading might be right also but to me it seems to say that the panel uses it's 210 watts and with that the conversion effeicieny to hydrogen is 15%. I base this reading on the next sentence that says the conversion used to be less than 1%. Any solar panel would be more than 1% efficient in making power, ergo this must be referring to the conversion to hydrogen bond breaking not the solar panels energy production.
So the GP is right I beleive. That is, it's a liter a day per panel at full sun.
Depending on the form of the vapor it may have a lower free energy to release the gas than a full liquid
The problem with making steam or splitting water is the minerals and gunk in the water eventually foul the solar panels. This is why, fo example, a recent innovation in non-contact low emissivity steam generators is a big deal. It's not that they improved the low emissivity desgin it's that they came up with a way to heat the water radiatively without it touching the expensive and hot parts.
Second if you are going to use electrcity to split water then, since solar panel electricity generation is ineffieinet you are better off using the solar power to pre-heat the water with waste heat ( this makes it significantly easier to split since you are paying a down payment on the free energy needed to go from liquid to gas phase).
If you first make electricity to split it then making sure the electrical generation part doesn't touch the water itself is needed.
Just asking for a friend.
no freebies, Gotta pay
It's hard to unwind your bussiness model, snobbery or not. To compete with free craigslist ads? TO compete with nearly free e-bay ads? they'd have to go to no revenue almost overnight. How do you do that and support the NEWS function which isn't free? The were caught in a jam.
The word liberal with a lower case "L" is something all newspapers should strive for. In case you don't realize it, a "liberal arts education" has nothing to do with a Liberal political stance. Perhaps you need one?
MIght as well say, Why have peer review in science. With honest diligent compentent people there's no need.
The whole problem with the cognitive bubble feeding poison from facebook trolls is the lack of journalistic integrity.
You can take a picture of your paper ballot to prove how you voted.
No you can't, not with a significant success rate at least. You take a picture of a ballot but it's not a vote unless you submit that ballot. This is why we separate the ballot casting from the ballot filling on hand marked paper ballots. One can be done in secrecy and the other in the open. When you go to a touch screen system both are in secrecy and so there's a problem with photos. Absentee ballots have a similar problem but until recently there were not enough of them to matter. And lord help us with internet voting.
I think there's use cases for these devices but in terms of market share I think a device with the form factor we have now but with the ability to simulate a large scree would be more welcome. You are sacrificing a lot to get folded screens like for example some protection of the plastic and thickness.
Instead consider alternatives like a second screen that is an attachment that could fold up compactly, be a second battery, maybe host additional features or compute power, and most importantly be replaceable or shared will other phones.
Perhaps one could have your apple/google glasses project additional screens around the phone. That way you still have the tactile input device, and have better registration with your hands and eyes, and you don't look like street corner preacher stabbing at invisble things in the air.
Perhaps one could have a projector on the side of the phone that could project onto a table.
lots of ways. such as the contemporaneous digital record of ballots cast. The number of ballots cast in anyone precient will be less than that. The record both official and unoffical of the number of ballots cast. The multiple eye's on the system. the rate at which ballots can be fed into the scanner. And other less well known security features.
we already have these and have used them for decades. They print out optical scan ballots and they do so right on the normal ballot too.
Pilots becoming Uber Safety drivers in shock when reality intervenes. But Idiocracy predicted this you may recall
Right Secret ballots were a major innovation. We encountered a lot of large scale problems in vote coercion prior to that. For example, pubs would act as vote collection centers issuing color coded ballots pre-marked then collect them from you when you took your free pint of beer. Secret ballots and secure voting places put a stop to that.
this is not related to the conversation. you are talking about authentication not secure voting. different problem. It does resemeble this problem in one way. The most important thing is people are confident in the system and weak authentication can weakly contribute to mistrust in the system. Thus even though there's no evidence authentication is actually any significant concern, it is something some voters, such as yourself, see as confidence building.
thus I do support stroing authentication too. But I feel it's important to sever the two issues as their impact and problem level are different. In authentication, many proposals for strong autnentication crete new, and, measurably, worse problems like disenfranchisement or intimidation or poll-tax like burdens. Thus like the above it's important to select an authentication system that meets all the needs not just the single best auntentication at the expense of other needs. To give an example, if you pair the implementation of proof of regiatration with same-day registrtion or provisional ballots then some of the disenfranchisement (from say a felon purge error) are relieved.
politically, Authentication has become a political football because some parties have not been willing to pair the authentucation laws with factors to offset it's negative impact.
Nope. We tried that already in early american history and people used the proof mechanisms to corrupt votes. It's the whole reason we went to precint based secret ballots. And for the most part we know the system works excellently without proof of vote. So there's not even a question in anyone's mind aside form yours which is a bigger problem
bingo.
When New Mexico implemented random sampled recounts they used 10 sided dice done in publicfor random precinct selection. When colorado did it, they hired eminent computer scientists to design the recount and they use a computer random number generator and all the selections is automated in the computer. No one who understands computers trusts the colorado system though admittedly it's way better than nothing. it just violates the transparency for the sake of some computer science optimality in the algorithm.
What does distance matter? If you are traveling to the planet you care about paths that don't clip the sun. Likewise if you are communicating with the planet you care about the average time it has line of sight to earth. And if you are launching a probe you care about closest approach to earth and relative velocity.
Having studied this issue for a very long time I'm perpetually frustrated with the Computer scientists constantly injecting overly clever desiderata that can only be implemented at the sacrifice of core requirements of voting systems.
the core requirements are
1. Secret ballot so no one can tell how you voted.
2. Secret ballot so you cannot prove to anyone how you voted even if you want to. (too often ignored)
3. transparency at a level where an ordinary person can reasonably see how the security works
4. Robust against operator errors. Mistakes happen, power gets lost, protocols are not followed.
5. Resistant to cheating.
6. in the event of a failure, Ballots must be re countable-- preferably at a precinct level
What the computer scientists is inject nice-to-have but unnessassary desiderata, like "crytpographic proof your vote was counted" and encrytption. These, to date, always sacrifice one of the requirements. For example, many (not all) proof of vote systems will violate 2, allowing you to prove how you voted. indeed many touch screens allow proving how you voted using a video inside the voting booth (whereas paper ballots have to be publically deposited and videos can be prevented). Many (not all) cryptosystems reduce the number of people who know the keys but this comes at the price of concentration where a few people can change all the ballots without detection, whereas distribnuted precint counting makes whole sale attacks hard.
Serial numbers on ballots, to the voter, appear to offer a way to track their ballot to them. Even if you tell them the cypto prevents this an ordinary person cannot possibly tell that. Ballots need to be indistinguishable.
Thus I worry that people doing this are trying to "improve" something with "more features" that already has a good solution. namely hand marked paper ballots and optical scan.
when an optical scanner breaks down you can still collect the ballots. People can still vote. And you don't get long lines when you are short on equipment or the power goes down because all you need is more pens and desks. Optical scans are easy to recount by humans at a precint level.
I came here to say that phase conjugation is not time reversal but I thought about it some more and there are limited ways you might call it pseudo time reversal.
Phase conjugation of a light wave is old stuff. When you do it reverses the direction a shaped wavefront propagates. Since the argument of a wave function f(k*z-w*t) goes backwards when you change the sign on t it's mathematically the same as making time negative. So the wave goes back to where it came from. Notably if it went through phase distorting media then the distortion is not doubled but actually is undone leaving the wave just as it was on the way out.
However if the media was attenuating the wave is not magically amplified on the way back!
So it's not really sending it back in time. It's just phase reversal or conjugation .
The same thing happens in NMR and things like Rabi frequencies. And photon echos.
The same will be true in QM. All they did was created a photon echo.
Except this is with matter not photons so it's pretty banned cool and you don't need to make it sound cooler by sayin it went backward in time.
Keeping matter coherent enough to phase conjugate us aswesome!!!
But I'll note how you could actually time reverse. That would require making the whole container phase conjugate. If we phase conjugated a photon and an attenuating medium the the photon would be amplified so really time reversed!
No i'm not oversimplifying or at at least you have not shown how. If the plane is dropping the plan knows this. If every time the pilot pulls back on the stick and overrides the automatic dive the plane goes up, the plane knows that too. So the plane has the info it needs to make a better decision. Show me how I'm wrong.
Okay lets suppose that some or all of the stall sensors are malfunctioning. There's another sensor that the computer can look at and that's the altitude. If the ALTITUDE is rapidly falling of course the plane might think, see I was right about this stall! But there's one more thing. Namely if the pilots pulled the stick back and the altitude stops falling the plane should now have enough information to figure out that pushing the stick forward is not the right thing to do.
So it seems like the plane should be able to figure out that it's sensors can't be right even if it doesn't know what's exaxtly wrong.
That is, it's job is to overide the pilots if it's convinced they are ignoring a serious problem or doing something to make it worse. But if they do take action and it improves the situation then the logic should be, trust the pilot. Not, continue assuming the pilot is doing the wrong thing.
Holy cow this is the very thing we are afraid of. like Facebooks Internet basics initiative and all the links inside facebook that only work inside facebook. Already many web pages are no longer accessible on an iphone unless you install chrome. Now we get this version of the internet only available to websites that optimize their pages for big Goog.
I de-installed chrome just like I quit facebook
oops... accidentally deleted half my post when I submitted it.
Anyhow, so how do we get to negative mass? I think there are two ways that are essentially realted.
in a nutshell, this is like an airbubble in water. The air bubble is made of air so it has mass. But it floats up like it has negative mass.
Consider the mass defect effect. That's the reason why isoptopes weigh less than they should. the reason is that the attractiv forces in the nucleous create abinding energy well the neutrons are in. So they have less not more energy than a free neutron. As a result they also have less mass than a free neurtron.
If you were to imagine (incorrectly but a sufficient picture) a neutron as oscillating electrons and protons (or quarks), and you would describe what you saw as much like a sound field or a pendulum in which energy flowed back and forth from potential to kinetic energy in the oscillations. And so you would say hey, those oscillations seem to be creating negative mass. But that's backwards. What's happening is the binding forced are what cause the oscillation ust as gravity causes a pendulum. So the binding field has created a lower mass for the particle like the mass defect.
THe other way is to analogize this to the "holes" in semiconductors. We often refer to the "holes" (missing electrons) as having a mass. THey don't but if you model then that way they act like they do. In reality, in a classical picture, they are just missing electrons in a sea of electons. But when we switch to quantum model they become particles and we give them a mass. But this is just subtracting a constant surrounding mass whose inertia is what makes the holes appear to have inertia. If you ejected a hole into free space it would not even exist!
thus you get negative mass when you are subtracting a background.
Anything that stores energy has mass doesn't it? So a sound wave which is a melange of oscillations of kinetic and potential energy has mass. So this is already known.
Additionally, if it's like a photon, then it is not going to have any additional mass on top of that I believe though I might be wrong.