It's been done by a group at my university that works with ionic liquids. They used an ionic liquid with almost zero vapour pressure and a vacuum chamber and showed exactly this - that the siphon works in the absence of atmospheric press and is driven by gravity.
It didn't get published in Nature though, they just made a youtube video of it.
I'm not sure you do need atmospheric pressure. Experiments have been done at my university with an ionic liquid as the working fluid in a siphon that is in a vacuum chamber. An ionic liquid has virtually no vapour pressure so remains liquid even under vacuum.
It was demonstrated that the siphon continued to work, even at high vacuum (i.e., as good as you can get with a standard vac pump used on a lab fume hood).
How about you bother to learn something instead of coasting on the work of others for a decade then complaining things don't fulfil your every need after you've contributed exactly bugger all.
I assume you synthesise your own medicines, right?
And build your own car.
No, I expect you're just coasting along on the hard work of others. Next time you take any medication remember that you're contributing nothing but reaping all the benefit.
That's true - if you need Rosetta support, you are stuck on 10.6. Most apps have x86-native binaries by now, but not all, especially if you have older, unsupported software. I guess for many people this will be Adobe CS1.
My Macbook Pro is from mid 2010. I stopped "upgrading" at Snow Leopard because that is when OS X went off the deep end. Snow Leopard itself actually annoys me with the "integrated app store" bullshit. I wanted a Unix based laptop with a semi-reasonable GUI and all I would have if I upgraded to the latest is an ugly IOS device doing everything it can to get me to buy shit.
Loving the hyperbole.
OS X looks nothing like iOS. It has the launchpad, which is clearly derived from the iOS springboard, but using it is totally optional (I never do - I just launch apps the way I've been doing it since 10.1).
OS X also doesn't "do everything it can" to get you to buy shit - using the App Store is optional for anything other than the core apps and OS. It's where you get core updates from (for the OS and built in apps), but it is far from the sole source of software, nor is it intrusive.
I'm struggling to think of what you mean when you say OS X is "doing everything it can" to "force you" to buy things. Can you give me some specific examples?
Also, I wasn't aware that they removed all of the Unix underpinnings and command line with OS X beyond 10.6. Again, can you give me some specific examples of what is missing from OS X after Snow Leopard that means it would no longer be a "Unix-based laptop with a semi-reasonable GUI"?
One of the reasons I didn't buy a Ford was because of the Microsoft crap and I am not going to buy a vehicle with anything from Apple installed. If they want to conform to an industry standard port / interface then maybe their products will have a use in my vehicles.
Then it's a good job that Apple won't be installing anything in a vehicle.
This is about the Carplay protocol, not about Apple making head units or stereos.
Man, I know that slashdot users can't read the articles, but it's getting bad when they don't read the summary either before rushing to post.
My goodness you really made yourself look foolish didn't you?
This is about a protocol that head units can support. It is not about an Apple-made head unit. Apple will not be making a head unit. Companies like Alpine and Pioneer (and others, but not Apple) who do make head units can implement the CarPlay protocol allowing the extension of the phone's interface beyond more than the current protocol enables.
These head units, of course, can/will/may not implement other protocols, such as the similar one that supports Android phones.
I'm sad to say I have to agree with Curunir... Apple has this nasty habit of breaking adapters for reasons I can't understand and then failing to provide a way to intermingle the old and new ones without buying a new computer. The new magsafe adaptors come to mind.
You mean the new magsafe connectors that have a $10 adaptor that Apple sells to convert between the two?
Oh, sorry, you were making an uninformed Apple bash for karma, sorry to interrupt with something as trivial as fact.
I see you have absolutely no understanding of how science works, or have any understanding of the current state of research into fusion power, if you suggest that we could have had it already based on the money spent so far.
If we'd have spent two orders of magnitude more money on it over the past 40 years then that's still less than a year's expenditure on oil surveying by a single oil company.
Bargain.
So, given how you're clearly an expert on these sorts of things, how much should we be spending on cryogenic coal cracking as a way to extend our useful fossil fuel lifetime?
The evidence is the amount of money that has been spent on that research - it's a tiny drop.
Large scale research projects are required to probe science at this level - look at the development of fission reactors, for example. The money poured into that was vast, and it cracked the fundamental engineering problems associated with it.
Fusion power is not a theoretical concept - it happens all the time (and life on earth is reliant on it), but the practical challenges are large. The lines on that graph are obviously projections, but they are projections based on the science and engineering of the time as it pertained to fusion science. They weren't just "made up", and they do not take unforeseen circumstances into account, but they are based on the costs of solving the challenges inherent in fusion power production which were known at the time the graph was made.
You don't believe that fusion researchers are doing anything useful, so it's clear you don't understand how science works, so this is likely lost on you, but the amount of money on that graph in total since 1978 is so small that it is laughable, and yet here we are. It outlines one of the main problems with large scale science - that short sighted people such as yourself consider pure research to be "harmful" because it isn't immediately profitable or an obvious path to near-term profits.
From my perspective, the 20 billion per year air conditioning the desert in Afghanistan is wasted - what exactly has the war in Afghanistan accomplished? Apart from destabilising the region, increasing xenophobia, damaging the USA's reputation and giving a few people some closure because some terrorists who weren't from either of the two countries you invaded in response flew some planes into a couple of buildings in NYC.
Solving fusion power will change the face of civilisation and is an almost-necessary step in transitioning into an era where the bulk of our energy doesn't come from fossil sources (it could be done with purely fission power too, but again, PR issues and funding problems dog it). The worst part is we could have already solved it by now had we actually spent any reasonable amount of money on it. If it had been funded at 5 billion dollars per year since 1976 then you could have had twenty thousand simultaneous fusion power research programs running over those 40 years for every eight-year Iraq war (using low estimate for the cost of the war).
The point being, fusion power is being funded for peanuts, and even the "aggressive funding" is a tiny amount.
It's actually vastly, vastly, vastly underpriced and underfunded.
It is an absolute disgrace that fusion power hasn't seen the funding necessary to succeed given the importance of energy to modern civilisation.
ITER is a necessary step in the chain to produce working fusion power plants. It's amazing they've come this far while being funded with what amounts to hunting for pennies in vending machine coin return trays.
Here's a picture that paints a thousand words that makes the laughable troll headline of "skyrocketing" cost for ITER make the idiot who wrote it seem like he has trouble tying his own shoes:
Keep to the science! ahahaha ahahahahahaha! AHAHAHAHA
You are fucking gold.
The efficiency of fusion power doesn't come from anything as trivial as the energy used to grow food or refine the fuel. Fusion power derives its energy from the strong nuclear force. This energy density is already present in each atom of your fuel.
When you start fusing atoms and releasing the energy from those reactions it starts going well beyond "well, it cost us x amount of energy in the truck to bring the fuel to the reactor". The strong nuclear force is orders of magnitude above any of the other forces involved and that potential energy has been locked up in your fuel since the beginning of the universe.
Processing it into usable fuel, transporting it, feeding the workers that do that is not even a rounding error in the calculations.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how fusion (and fission for that matter) works.
Heh, so you think the sun actually makes power, do you?
All that gravity counts as power. There is no net power gain in the Sun's 'working'.
I think you misunderstand the laws of thermodynamics.
The sun converts mass into energy at an enormous rate. There is no "net power gain" in any closed thermodynamic system, but from the reference frame of the earth, the sun "makes power" insofar as it takes the fuel it has in the core and fuses it, and as a helpful side effect it the energy released in said fuel consumption is released as heat, light and other EM radiation.
I'm so glad you're smarter than all the scientists working on it.
On the other hand, how does $3.9B over 6 years compare to the annual cost of securing US fossil energy sources?
It doesn't even compare.
For example, the cost of running the air conditioners in the tents in Afghanistan is $20 billion *per year*. So, if the US just pulled out of Afghanistan a few weeks ahead of schedule, they could fully fund their minuscule contribution to ITER.
No, it has nothing to do with his job performance, but he is now the public face and representative of a corporation.
I think this is a convenient, facile excuse. How many people, when they want to look at the values of Mozilla, will Google Brendan Eich? How many will look at the wider group of people that form Mozilla, and how many will look at the Mozilla website?
The idea that one guy at the top of a company is seen as representing the *whole* company and all its values is pretty dumb, and just not true.
You are describing the literal job role of a CEO (or at least, one of the many roles the EO has).
So how many? "A lot".
Or perhaps "more than enough for this to be a serious problem".
You can't see how applying peer pressure when someone says things you don't like will have a chilling effect on people saying what they think in the future?
Why? People do it all the time, from both sides of almost any conceivable argument.
It's human nature.
They key thing to take away from it is that while you are free to express any belief, you are not immune to the consequences of that belief.
It's not oppression for someone to disagree with you. This wouldn't even be a story if the guy was a racist - the bad PR for Mozilla would mean that his beliefs made him incompatible with the role of CEO. This is exactly what this is.
People will go on holding and expressing beliefs long after this is over. Of course, if those beliefs (that previously had been casually accepted by society, and thus had never been challenged) start to face opposition it doesn't mean you're suddenly being oppressed.
This is abso-fucking-lutely ri-goddamn-diculous. So many of these organizations bitching about Mozilla are relying on Javascript! I can't wrap my head around such stupidity. It's bad to use a web browser Mozilla created far before they hired a guy who donated his own money to Prop 8, but you can use a programming language he created just because you can't do business without it? Kick rocks. They guy is entitled to his opinion just like the rest of those assholes.
Yes, he is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to a job if that job is as the public face of a company that has values that are at odds with that belief, especially if that company derives the bulk of its funding from a company that is very definitely at odds with those beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Atmospheric pressure is not required if your liquid doesn't boil off in a vacuum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's been done by a group at my university that works with ionic liquids. They used an ionic liquid with almost zero vapour pressure and a vacuum chamber and showed exactly this - that the siphon works in the absence of atmospheric press and is driven by gravity.
It didn't get published in Nature though, they just made a youtube video of it.
I'm not sure you do need atmospheric pressure. Experiments have been done at my university with an ionic liquid as the working fluid in a siphon that is in a vacuum chamber. An ionic liquid has virtually no vapour pressure so remains liquid even under vacuum.
It was demonstrated that the siphon continued to work, even at high vacuum (i.e., as good as you can get with a standard vac pump used on a lab fume hood).
You know the man pages are the manual right?
How about you bother to learn something instead of coasting on the work of others for a decade then complaining things don't fulfil your every need after you've contributed exactly bugger all.
I assume you synthesise your own medicines, right?
And build your own car.
No, I expect you're just coasting along on the hard work of others. Next time you take any medication remember that you're contributing nothing but reaping all the benefit.
That's true - if you need Rosetta support, you are stuck on 10.6. Most apps have x86-native binaries by now, but not all, especially if you have older, unsupported software. I guess for many people this will be Adobe CS1.
My Macbook Pro is from mid 2010. I stopped "upgrading" at Snow Leopard because that is when OS X went off the deep end. Snow Leopard itself actually annoys me with the "integrated app store" bullshit. I wanted a Unix based laptop with a semi-reasonable GUI and all I would have if I upgraded to the latest is an ugly IOS device doing everything it can to get me to buy shit.
Loving the hyperbole.
OS X looks nothing like iOS. It has the launchpad, which is clearly derived from the iOS springboard, but using it is totally optional (I never do - I just launch apps the way I've been doing it since 10.1).
OS X also doesn't "do everything it can" to get you to buy shit - using the App Store is optional for anything other than the core apps and OS. It's where you get core updates from (for the OS and built in apps), but it is far from the sole source of software, nor is it intrusive.
I'm struggling to think of what you mean when you say OS X is "doing everything it can" to "force you" to buy things. Can you give me some specific examples?
Also, I wasn't aware that they removed all of the Unix underpinnings and command line with OS X beyond 10.6. Again, can you give me some specific examples of what is missing from OS X after Snow Leopard that means it would no longer be a "Unix-based laptop with a semi-reasonable GUI"?
An "early 2007 vintage" MBP can run Lion.
If your machine is stuck on 10.6 then it's not "early 2007" but "early 2006".
The youngest macbook pro that can't run anything later than 10.6 is the Early 2006 with the Core Duo CPU and 2GB RAM.
Yeah, really "abandonware" there. *eyeroll*
You know, information like that should really be in the article.
Oh wait.
Tell me again how this whole issue with SSL is due to the nature of open source and how it's only the commie OpenSSL which can't be trusted...
Seems to me Apple's got a bit of a quality control issue itself.
What's Apple's excuse ?
Apple's SSL implementation is also open source.
Oh, sorry, I interrupted you in the middle of an uninformed Apple bash. Do carry on. My apologies.
Their excuse is "open source means lots of eyes!" No wait, it's "whatever we do we'll be attacked, so we just dropped the ball and said 'fuck it'".
Lab ethanol (reagent grade) is 99.5% ethanol with 99.5% with less than 0.005% water.
Sure, how?
Looks like it only has a "lightning" interface: http://support.apple.com/kb/sp...
Plug the cable into the android charger. You know, the same way you plug the micro-usb cable into the Apple charger to charge the Android phone.
i know, you use your USB 2 Lighening dongle?
One of the reasons I didn't buy a Ford was because of the Microsoft crap and I am not going to buy a vehicle with anything from Apple installed. If they want to conform to an industry standard port / interface then maybe their products will have a use in my vehicles.
Then it's a good job that Apple won't be installing anything in a vehicle.
This is about the Carplay protocol, not about Apple making head units or stereos.
Man, I know that slashdot users can't read the articles, but it's getting bad when they don't read the summary either before rushing to post.
My goodness you really made yourself look foolish didn't you?
This is about a protocol that head units can support. It is not about an Apple-made head unit. Apple will not be making a head unit. Companies like Alpine and Pioneer (and others, but not Apple) who do make head units can implement the CarPlay protocol allowing the extension of the phone's interface beyond more than the current protocol enables.
These head units, of course, can/will/may not implement other protocols, such as the similar one that supports Android phones.
I'm sad to say I have to agree with Curunir... Apple has this nasty habit of breaking adapters for reasons I can't understand and then failing to provide a way to intermingle the old and new ones without buying a new computer. The new magsafe adaptors come to mind.
You mean the new magsafe connectors that have a $10 adaptor that Apple sells to convert between the two?
Oh, sorry, you were making an uninformed Apple bash for karma, sorry to interrupt with something as trivial as fact.
http://store.apple.com/us/prod...
My Honda Insight has USB that has some sort of magic integration with iCrap, but can treat everything else as USB storage.
It would be fine with me if the USB port was just powered.
You're old enough to drive? You do surprise me!
Any device can charge by USB now so your griping looks like lunacy.
So please take your "standard" USB on one and and mini or micro on the other and charge any apple product with it.
orginal IPOD -firewire and dock connector
Next gen ipod - USB and dock connector
Now what is it, usb on one end and "lightening" on the other?
I charge my iPhone with an Android charger.
Next question?
I see you have absolutely no understanding of how science works, or have any understanding of the current state of research into fusion power, if you suggest that we could have had it already based on the money spent so far.
If we'd have spent two orders of magnitude more money on it over the past 40 years then that's still less than a year's expenditure on oil surveying by a single oil company.
Bargain.
So, given how you're clearly an expert on these sorts of things, how much should we be spending on cryogenic coal cracking as a way to extend our useful fossil fuel lifetime?
The evidence is the amount of money that has been spent on that research - it's a tiny drop.
Large scale research projects are required to probe science at this level - look at the development of fission reactors, for example. The money poured into that was vast, and it cracked the fundamental engineering problems associated with it.
Fusion power is not a theoretical concept - it happens all the time (and life on earth is reliant on it), but the practical challenges are large. The lines on that graph are obviously projections, but they are projections based on the science and engineering of the time as it pertained to fusion science. They weren't just "made up", and they do not take unforeseen circumstances into account, but they are based on the costs of solving the challenges inherent in fusion power production which were known at the time the graph was made.
You don't believe that fusion researchers are doing anything useful, so it's clear you don't understand how science works, so this is likely lost on you, but the amount of money on that graph in total since 1978 is so small that it is laughable, and yet here we are. It outlines one of the main problems with large scale science - that short sighted people such as yourself consider pure research to be "harmful" because it isn't immediately profitable or an obvious path to near-term profits.
From my perspective, the 20 billion per year air conditioning the desert in Afghanistan is wasted - what exactly has the war in Afghanistan accomplished? Apart from destabilising the region, increasing xenophobia, damaging the USA's reputation and giving a few people some closure because some terrorists who weren't from either of the two countries you invaded in response flew some planes into a couple of buildings in NYC.
Solving fusion power will change the face of civilisation and is an almost-necessary step in transitioning into an era where the bulk of our energy doesn't come from fossil sources (it could be done with purely fission power too, but again, PR issues and funding problems dog it). The worst part is we could have already solved it by now had we actually spent any reasonable amount of money on it. If it had been funded at 5 billion dollars per year since 1976 then you could have had twenty thousand simultaneous fusion power research programs running over those 40 years for every eight-year Iraq war (using low estimate for the cost of the war).
The point being, fusion power is being funded for peanuts, and even the "aggressive funding" is a tiny amount.
It's actually vastly, vastly, vastly underpriced and underfunded.
It is an absolute disgrace that fusion power hasn't seen the funding necessary to succeed given the importance of energy to modern civilisation.
ITER is a necessary step in the chain to produce working fusion power plants. It's amazing they've come this far while being funded with what amounts to hunting for pennies in vending machine coin return trays.
Here's a picture that paints a thousand words that makes the laughable troll headline of "skyrocketing" cost for ITER make the idiot who wrote it seem like he has trouble tying his own shoes:
http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg
Also note the scale on the y axis, and remember that the annual cost of the air conditioning the troops in Afghanistan is $20 billion.
Keep to the science! ahahaha ahahahahahaha! AHAHAHAHA
You are fucking gold.
The efficiency of fusion power doesn't come from anything as trivial as the energy used to grow food or refine the fuel. Fusion power derives its energy from the strong nuclear force. This energy density is already present in each atom of your fuel.
When you start fusing atoms and releasing the energy from those reactions it starts going well beyond "well, it cost us x amount of energy in the truck to bring the fuel to the reactor". The strong nuclear force is orders of magnitude above any of the other forces involved and that potential energy has been locked up in your fuel since the beginning of the universe.
Processing it into usable fuel, transporting it, feeding the workers that do that is not even a rounding error in the calculations.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how fusion (and fission for that matter) works.
Heh, so you think the sun actually makes power, do you?
All that gravity counts as power. There is no net power gain in the Sun's 'working'.
I think you misunderstand the laws of thermodynamics.
The sun converts mass into energy at an enormous rate. There is no "net power gain" in any closed thermodynamic system, but from the reference frame of the earth, the sun "makes power" insofar as it takes the fuel it has in the core and fuses it, and as a helpful side effect it the energy released in said fuel consumption is released as heat, light and other EM radiation.
I'm so glad you're smarter than all the scientists working on it.
On the other hand, how does $3.9B over 6 years compare to the annual cost of securing US fossil energy sources?
It doesn't even compare.
For example, the cost of running the air conditioners in the tents in Afghanistan is $20 billion *per year*. So, if the US just pulled out of Afghanistan a few weeks ahead of schedule, they could fully fund their minuscule contribution to ITER.
No, it has nothing to do with his job performance, but he is now the public face and representative of a corporation.
I think this is a convenient, facile excuse. How many people, when they want to look at the values of Mozilla, will Google Brendan Eich? How many will look at the wider group of people that form Mozilla, and how many will look at the Mozilla website?
The idea that one guy at the top of a company is seen as representing the *whole* company and all its values is pretty dumb, and just not true.
You are describing the literal job role of a CEO (or at least, one of the many roles the EO has).
So how many? "A lot".
Or perhaps "more than enough for this to be a serious problem".
You can't see how applying peer pressure when someone says things you don't like will have a chilling effect on people saying what they think in the future?
Why? People do it all the time, from both sides of almost any conceivable argument.
It's human nature.
They key thing to take away from it is that while you are free to express any belief, you are not immune to the consequences of that belief.
It's not oppression for someone to disagree with you. This wouldn't even be a story if the guy was a racist - the bad PR for Mozilla would mean that his beliefs made him incompatible with the role of CEO. This is exactly what this is.
People will go on holding and expressing beliefs long after this is over. Of course, if those beliefs (that previously had been casually accepted by society, and thus had never been challenged) start to face opposition it doesn't mean you're suddenly being oppressed.
This is abso-fucking-lutely ri-goddamn-diculous. So many of these organizations bitching about Mozilla are relying on Javascript! I can't wrap my head around such stupidity. It's bad to use a web browser Mozilla created far before they hired a guy who donated his own money to Prop 8, but you can use a programming language he created just because you can't do business without it? Kick rocks. They guy is entitled to his opinion just like the rest of those assholes.
Yes, he is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to a job if that job is as the public face of a company that has values that are at odds with that belief, especially if that company derives the bulk of its funding from a company that is very definitely at odds with those beliefs.