I suspect that they meant the majority of the combustion byproducts are water and co2, not all of them, you simply don't have combustion involving carbon and not get funky reactions. My guess it that this new "clean" fuel will be just a bad as kerosene when it comes to pollution, but the point is: that is a hell of a lot better than traditional solid rocket fuels, which contain a lot of heavy metals and other very nasty stuff.
I should have stated that I meant without energy addition, or extraction, but in the case of crystalization you can certainly draw a control volume that would encompass the energy source...
Anyway, my point was that many people use the 2nd law to say things are inposible (or say the 2nd law is broken) because they choose an inapropriote control volume.
The point of my post was that most (99%+) spam is fraudulent. If the executive brach of our government decided to go after the fraudulent spammers, the spam burden would shrink to a point where if is almost meaningless, and them we don't have to rob people of their freedom of speech.
If I am wrong, and the elimination of fraudulent spam doesn't reduce the mail server load, maybe then it is time to consider legislation, but even them I would favor national opt-out lists like we will (hopefully) have for telemarketing.
one more thing, don't try the any spam burden is unacceptable because it is not their equipment argument. There are many situations in which you are recuired to use your own resources to benifit the comunity (shoveling snow off your sidewalk comes to mind).
the 2nd law applies to CLOSED systems there are many cases in the world where order is locally increased, off the top of my head I can give you crystal growth... your error in reasoning is to assume that just because there was an orderly system created, that there was a universal decrease in entropy that ensued, and that is not the case.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I have to agree with the EFF on this one. Spam is crippling the usefulness of email, and measures should be taken to curb spam, but we don't need to completely stop all unsolicited commercial email. All we need to do is go after the perpetrators of fraudulent spam for fraud, not spam... A movement in this direction is beginning in the us government. One of the most important things to recognize is that a bogus link for getting removed from a mailing list, is fraud. If opting out actually worked, instead of bringing more spam, I don't think spam would be such a hassle. So I say, let the legitimate (non-fraudulent, even if they are assholes) ones continue doing business, and bust the ones that are criminals, because they are the ones really crippling email.
There were four at the time it was named there are now 8 (harvard, yale, brown, princeton, cornell, penn, columbia, and dartmoth)...
Much like there are 11 in the big 10 (illinois, iowa, wisconsin, indiana, purdue, ohio state, michigan, michigan state, penn state, minnisota and morthwestern), of which penn state is, I think, the 11th member.
paraphrased: eh, you want to know how to get a free movie, eh? you need a jar of moths, like this, and wait until the end of the movie, when you know what's gonna happen, eh... Then you open the jar, eh. All the moths will swarm around the projector light, and you start demanding that da' hosers who run the place give you a refund because the moths ruined the movie, eh...
can anyone else do a better job remembering that scene than I did?
What you are talking about is a highly couple problem containing many elements that are difficult by themselves today. I am afraid that anything decent would take more than a couple years with text books (unless you are already well versed in computational science), think Ph.D. thesis.
CADD (two D's I normally don't care about spelling, but when it is an acronym...) is computer aided drafting and design. Does that sound like analysis software to you? All that would give him is a shape, What he needs is CFD (computational fluid dynamics) software.
I work for a large jet engine manufacturer, in our CFD group, as a developer/expert user/aerodynamicist. One thing that has helped keep my job from going to India like most of our other software positions, is the oppression of the US gov. Export controls greatly limit what is aloud to go into the public domain or over seas. For CFD no 3-D viscous flow solver validatited against real word data (perhaps only military data for non-engine situation, can someone help me out on that one) is aloud out. That means that whatever you decide to use has at best been used to reproduce laboratory situation, not real aircraft situations. That means you will have to use either euler (inviscid) codes that have no boundary layer prediction capability, or marginally validated Navier-Stokes (viscous) codes that will probably get you boundary layers totally wrong (even the validated ones screw up a lot). These boundary layers are extremely important, you can get pretty close for lift and drag predictions with fubar boundary layers, but your stall characteristics will be WAY off. You don't want to fuck that up.
Then the next issue, resources...
You could probably use an euler code on your home machine, or a 2-D NS code, but you could very easily use standard airfoils (NACA) and have experiments (lots of them) to tell you what you would get better than the CFD anyway. The harder stuff (wing body junctions, wing tips...) would still be really hard to do on personal resources even if you could get a good 3-D NS code. For my calculations I routinely use 140+ CPU Days with over a gig of ram per CPU and 1+Ghz CPUs.
In short, good luck, you'll need it.
Re:POLL: THERMOSTATICS
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
I live in CT, summers sometimes reach into the 90's Then I try to keep it about 78 inside, but I just use the windows unless it is over 85... Here is the funny part, I live in an apartment, and the neighbors keep it so freaking hot in their places That I usually don't turn on my heat. I also tend to get what I call multipurpose heat, meaning when it gets cold in my apartment I cook, I make soup, chili, bread, pizza... Any one of them heats up the place a great deal, and I get to eat...
Re:I am an anti-environmentalist
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
I have read a lot of your posts in this discussion, and I knew that I didn't agree with you on every topic, but I could not nail down why until now...
You claim that it is economically beneficial to the companies involved to harvest responsibly, this is true, but only in the long term. The problem is that in today's society nobody with money cares about the long term, they want a stock that is going to go up for a few years, when it stops performing they shift their investment elsewhere.
So lets consider a hypothetical (logging) situation: Co. A harvests responsibly, Co. B is overly aggressive, and harvests at a non-sustainable rate.
Co. B is going to have lower prices initially, because they can get away with tactics like clear cutting and other cheap, productive, but non-sustainable methods. With these lower prices they get all the business, and all the investment money. Co. A can not compete, and either goes out of business, or sells out to Co. B. In either case, when the harvesting of Co. B starts to wane due to lack of forest, A is no longer around to take advantage of B's stumbling, and the world is short a bunch of forest land, and has no remaining capacity to produce lumber.
In many cases the market needs help to reach a stable profitable point, due to the dominance of short term greed over long term reason, these are situations where I like to see the government get involved...
The FAA has very strict maintenance guidelines and planes have to have an annual inspection to be legal to fly, this isn't like taking your car to a mechanic every once in a while.
This is great for those of us in the states, and I realize that it will be a while before this system wind up in some of the poorer nations of the world. But there is a lot of small aircraft aviation in poor regions where (stupidly) maintenance is viewed as a luxury. When this gets down there, it WILL save lives, lots of them.
I vaguely remember a Discovery-type special on this years ago, where they were trying for chutes that would only open partway (using some sort of ring) until it slowed the plane enough to survive full opening, but I've forgotten the details.
I saw that special, they were talking about the development of the chute that saved this plane.
The REAL trick would be to make it light enough. Any wieght that they add in chute would have to be shed in fuel, and no airline likes range reduction
You don't have to have it pointing in exactly in the opposite direction of the drag to work. it could certainly handle a lot more than 35 deg, espesially with the deploment delayin gring that it has on it.
-TamMan, aircraft propulsion engineer, glider pilot, and boyfriend of a skydiver...
The chute is fired a little up and mostly back (got to slow the plane down), so as the chute starts to open the plane gets snapped to a belly forward position regardless of attitude. I guess it could be a problem if you managed to get the plane going straight backwards...
Most of disney's works are based on older stories which are in the public domain already. Now, you may not think that Disney productions are wonderful, but a big load of children do!
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that they meant the majority of the combustion byproducts are water and co2, not all of them, you simply don't have combustion involving carbon and not get funky reactions. My guess it that this new "clean" fuel will be just a bad as kerosene when it comes to pollution, but the point is: that is a hell of a lot better than traditional solid rocket fuels, which contain a lot of heavy metals and other very nasty stuff.
I should have stated that I meant without energy addition, or extraction, but in the case of crystalization you can certainly draw a control volume that would encompass the energy source...
Anyway, my point was that many people use the 2nd law to say things are inposible (or say the 2nd law is broken) because they choose an inapropriote control volume.
How did this get marked troll, it is hilarious
What year is your impreza? I thought that they hadn't been made with anything smaller than a 2.2 for the last 7 or 8 years, or a 2.5 more recently...
BTW I love my subaru, but I have a legacy (I am practical to a fault sometimes)
The point of my post was that most (99%+) spam is fraudulent. If the executive brach of our government decided to go after the fraudulent spammers, the spam burden would shrink to a point where if is almost meaningless, and them we don't have to rob people of their freedom of speech.
If I am wrong, and the elimination of fraudulent spam doesn't reduce the mail server load, maybe then it is time to consider legislation, but even them I would favor national opt-out lists like we will (hopefully) have for telemarketing.
one more thing, don't try the any spam burden is unacceptable because it is not their equipment argument. There are many situations in which you are recuired to use your own resources to benifit the comunity (shoveling snow off your sidewalk comes to mind).
the 2nd law applies to CLOSED systems there are many cases in the world where order is locally increased, off the top of my head I can give you crystal growth... your error in reasoning is to assume that just because there was an orderly system created, that there was a universal decrease in entropy that ensued, and that is not the case.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I have to agree with the EFF on this one.
Spam is crippling the usefulness of email, and measures should be taken to curb spam, but we don't need to completely stop all unsolicited commercial email. All we need to do is go after the perpetrators of fraudulent spam for fraud, not spam... A movement in this direction is beginning in the us government. One of the most important things to recognize is that a bogus link for getting removed from a mailing list, is fraud. If opting out actually worked, instead of bringing more spam, I don't think spam would be such a hassle. So I say, let the legitimate (non-fraudulent, even if they are assholes) ones continue doing business, and bust the ones that are criminals, because they are the ones really crippling email.
There were four at the time it was named there are now 8 (harvard, yale, brown, princeton, cornell, penn, columbia, and dartmoth)...
Much like there are 11 in the big 10 (illinois, iowa, wisconsin, indiana, purdue, ohio state, michigan, michigan state, penn state, minnisota and morthwestern), of which penn state is, I think, the 11th member.
it is also a much better school for engineering than any in the ivy league (except maybe cornell)
paraphrased:
eh, you want to know how to get a free movie, eh? you need a jar of moths, like this, and wait until the end of the movie, when you know what's gonna happen, eh... Then you open the jar, eh. All the moths will swarm around the projector light, and you start demanding that da' hosers who run the place give you a refund because the moths ruined the movie, eh...
can anyone else do a better job remembering that scene than I did?
it is far from a perfect science, the validated ones are less likly to screw up...
It just means that it has been checked against real world conditions to make sure it is right...
I am an able-bodied 24 year old. I need to have someplace to go so I don't get drafted!
Bush is a war-mongering buffoon
What you are talking about is a highly couple problem containing many elements that are difficult by themselves today. I am afraid that anything decent would take more than a couple years with text books (unless you are already well versed in computational science), think Ph.D. thesis.
CADD (two D's I normally don't care about spelling, but when it is an acronym...) is computer aided drafting and design.
Does that sound like analysis software to you? All that would give him is a shape, What he needs is CFD (computational fluid dynamics) software.
accuracy
I work for a large jet engine manufacturer, in our CFD group, as a developer/expert user/aerodynamicist. One thing that has helped keep my job from going to India like most of our other software positions, is the oppression of the US gov. Export controls greatly limit what is aloud to go into the public domain or over seas. For CFD no 3-D viscous flow solver validatited against real word data (perhaps only military data for non-engine situation, can someone help me out on that one) is aloud out. That means that whatever you decide to use has at best been used to reproduce laboratory situation, not real aircraft situations. That means you will have to use either euler (inviscid) codes that have no boundary layer prediction capability, or marginally validated Navier-Stokes (viscous) codes that will probably get you boundary layers totally wrong (even the validated ones screw up a lot). These boundary layers are extremely important, you can get pretty close for lift and drag predictions with fubar boundary layers, but your stall characteristics will be WAY off. You don't want to fuck that up.
Then the next issue, resources...
You could probably use an euler code on your home machine, or a 2-D NS code, but you could very easily use standard airfoils (NACA) and have experiments (lots of them) to tell you what you would get better than the CFD anyway. The harder stuff (wing body junctions, wing tips...) would still be really hard to do on personal resources even if you could get a good 3-D NS code. For my calculations I routinely use 140+ CPU Days with over a gig of ram per CPU and 1+Ghz CPUs.
In short, good luck, you'll need it.
I live in CT, summers sometimes reach into the 90's Then I try to keep it about 78 inside, but I just use the windows unless it is over 85... Here is the funny part, I live in an apartment, and the neighbors keep it so freaking hot in their places That I usually don't turn on my heat. I also tend to get what I call multipurpose heat, meaning when it gets cold in my apartment I cook, I make soup, chili, bread, pizza... Any one of them heats up the place a great deal, and I get to eat...
I have read a lot of your posts in this discussion, and I knew that I didn't agree with you on every topic, but I could not nail down why until now...
You claim that it is economically beneficial to the companies involved to harvest responsibly, this is true, but only in the long term. The problem is that in today's society nobody with money cares about the long term, they want a stock that is going to go up for a few years, when it stops performing they shift their investment elsewhere.
So lets consider a hypothetical (logging) situation:
Co. A harvests responsibly, Co. B is overly aggressive, and harvests at a non-sustainable rate.
Co. B is going to have lower prices initially, because they can get away with tactics like clear cutting and other cheap, productive, but non-sustainable methods. With these lower prices they get all the business, and all the investment money. Co. A can not compete, and either goes out of business, or sells out to Co. B. In either case, when the harvesting of Co. B starts to wane due to lack of forest, A is no longer around to take advantage of B's stumbling, and the world is short a bunch of forest land, and has no remaining capacity to produce lumber.
In many cases the market needs help to reach a stable profitable point, due to the dominance of short term greed over long term reason, these are situations where I like to see the government get involved...
This is great for those of us in the states, and I realize that it will be a while before this system wind up in some of the poorer nations of the world. But there is a lot of small aircraft aviation in poor regions where (stupidly) maintenance is viewed as a luxury. When this gets down there, it WILL save lives, lots of them.
I saw that special, they were talking about the development of the chute that saved this plane.
The REAL trick would be to make it light enough. Any wieght that they add in chute would have to be shed in fuel, and no airline likes range reduction
Sorry, I just re-read your post, it makes a lot more sense now...
Do you understand how a parachute works?
You don't have to have it pointing in exactly in the opposite direction of the drag to work. it could certainly handle a lot more than 35 deg, espesially with the deploment delayin gring that it has on it.
-TamMan, aircraft propulsion engineer, glider pilot, and boyfriend of a skydiver...
The chute is fired a little up and mostly back (got to slow the plane down), so as the chute starts to open the plane gets snapped to a belly forward position regardless of attitude. I guess it could be a problem if you managed to get the plane going straight backwards...
I fly gliders, no engine to fail there, but people still crash and die...
Controls can stick, birds can impact the plane in flight. The list goes on, and on...
This is useful for those situations
Read the article...
Most of disney's works are based on older stories which are in the public domain already. Now, you may not think that Disney productions are wonderful, but a big load of children do!