CMY adjustments are that way because you are removing controlled amounts of color from white light. C removes R, M removes G, Y removes B. If you had RGB filters you would be removing two primaries at a time (R removing G and B, for instance.) Using RGB filters would usually result in less light available from your enlarger.
If light-generating monitors were CMY, you could never create pure R, G, or B. Yellow is the color sensed when red and green cones are excited. Magenta is the color sensed when red and blue cones are excited. A CMY transmitter could never stimulate only red cones, because sources of red light in a CMY transmitter also include either green or blue light.
Re:RGBCMY is more marketing factoid than it isreal
on
RGB to become RGBCMY
·
· Score: 1
link to a chromacity diagram from the Spectrum article. No triangle in the diagram can cover the whole diagram. The RGB phosphors are far inferior to pure RGB, and the 5-color system is a significant improvement. Note that just using their green in a 3-color system would provide half of the improvement they claim.
It was months before I realized that cron running updatedb was the cause of furious hard drive activity in Linux when the computer was otherwise unused.
Silicon photovoltaics (solar cells) have been at about 23% efficiency (for premium grade devices) for more than 30 years. This is a theoretical limitation of silicon and they're not going to get significantly better by themselves. The much more expensive gallium-arsenide, or combined silicon gallium-arsenide devices get into the 30s.
Individual cells are low voltage DC, but they are easily combined in series to obtain higher voltages. DC is superior for transmission. Inverters can be very efficient, 90% would be considered bad efficiency at megawatt power levels.
I've met a number of politically savvy and politically active engineers. Most were among the nastiest people I've ever met. Since most of the people I know are engineers, my guess is that the nastiness is related just to the politics rather than the combination. My point, however, is that having an engineer-politician controlling NASA is no guarantee that things will improve.
That's only true if you denominate in a variable currency like the US dollar. Using a constant value basis (such as the US dollar adjusted for "inflation") oil has previously been as high as about $60/barrel in the last century.
You got it right that biodiesel is great, but the problem is that we cannot produce enough to run the entire automobile fleet.
About a month ago, a slashdot article mentioned that the entire energy needs of the US could be met by algae fields for biodiesel covering 11,000 square miles: a square 105 miles on a side.
The best source for ethanol that I'm aware of is sugarcane (used in Brazil). I don't know if that's considered a cereal. Algae is being proposed for biodiesel and the production techniques (involving huge salt marshes) are hardly conventional agriculture.
Nice point on the aluminum and iron oxide w.r.t. the Hindenberg; I didn't know that. That chemical mix is called "thermite" and is used to weld and melt metals.
While hydrogen may someday be produced primarily by electrolysis, that is not the case today. It is an inefficient process (http://www.tinaja.com). Hydrogen from fuel cells being discussed these days is produced by breaking down hydrocarbons and even carbohydrates (petroleum and alcohol, respectively).
Here's an article about pollution due to vehicles from the New Scientist. It shows that diesel produces about 33% less greenhouse gases than gasoline.
"Greenhouse gasses" is a bogus argument as they are chiefly water and CO2, neither of which can rightly be considered pollution. They're just the proper results of combustion and diesels produce less because they're more efficient. The problem with diesels is the moderately nasty byproducts produced in moderate quantities, oxides of nitrogen and carbon-based particulates.
Anyway, if you look at the costs of maintaining dependence on petrochemical fuels, which includes the eventual death of every living thing on the planet,
You only have to think about this statement to realize how silly it is. Consider just this one aspect: there are many lifeforms more durable than humans, lifeforms that will continue living in the unlikely event that humanity pollutes itself into extinction. At that time the use of petrochemical fuels stops, without much further dieoff due to the pollution. Problem solved!:)
The people who came to these company towns, they were kidnapped and taken there? Prohibited from leaving by force of arms? There were worker protections and OSHA-equivalents on the farm or wherever else they came from?
The products that make it possible to live are paid for by productive effort. This is not slavery, it's reality.
US workers have better equipment, work longer hours. The purchased components will have the same cost. Paperwork for border crossing and transportation add to the expenses. Products made in Mexico have higher failure rates and that adds to warranty expenses.
Yes, and insurance is my pet peeve. A quick look gives me an estimate that those providing insurance are at least 0.5% of the workforce, and provide almost nothing of value. They are a dead weight on the economy, they use their power to corrupt the law (such as promoting laws that make insurance mandatory), and promote cowardice. How much richer would you be if you never had to buy insurance, including insurance provided "free" by your employer? I'm 55, and the answer for me is about $100,000 not including interest.
Please learn economics (and use a dictionary). When the US's debt is called in it will either be paid with inflated dollars (causing US labor to become cheaper, thus solving the problem) or it will be paid with goods and services made with US high-productivity effort (problem also solved). In fact, this is an on-going process, as shown by the daily fluctuation in currencies.
Many major city libraries - for instance, Los Angeles - have complete patent collections on microfilm. There are also internet-accessible records in numerous places. Practically speaking, it can't happen today.
Slashdot Mirror
If light-generating monitors were CMY, you could never create pure R, G, or B. Yellow is the color sensed when red and green cones are excited. Magenta is the color sensed when red and blue cones are excited. A CMY transmitter could never stimulate only red cones, because sources of red light in a CMY transmitter also include either green or blue light.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/aug0 4/0804ntvf1.html
link to a chromacity diagram from the Spectrum article. No triangle in the diagram can cover the whole diagram. The RGB phosphors are far inferior to pure RGB, and the 5-color system is a significant improvement. Note that just using their green in a 3-color system would provide half of the improvement they claim.
It was months before I realized that cron running updatedb was the cause of furious hard drive activity in Linux when the computer was otherwise unused.
Last time I checked, there was more than 1 hour of sunlight a year in most places.
Solar panels on the earth absorb more visible energy than the alternatives, foliage and dirt. This makes the earth hotter, not cooler.
Individual cells are low voltage DC, but they are easily combined in series to obtain higher voltages. DC is superior for transmission. Inverters can be very efficient, 90% would be considered bad efficiency at megawatt power levels.
I've met a number of politically savvy and politically active engineers. Most were among the nastiest people I've ever met. Since most of the people I know are engineers, my guess is that the nastiness is related just to the politics rather than the combination. My point, however, is that having an engineer-politician controlling NASA is no guarantee that things will improve.
That's never been the case. Refining gasoline from petroleum takes about one barrel in 6, and it was certainly worse in the 1930s.
That's only true if you denominate in a variable currency like the US dollar. Using a constant value basis (such as the US dollar adjusted for "inflation") oil has previously been as high as about $60/barrel in the last century.
About a month ago, a slashdot article mentioned that the entire energy needs of the US could be met by algae fields for biodiesel covering 11,000 square miles: a square 105 miles on a side.
The best source for ethanol that I'm aware of is sugarcane (used in Brazil). I don't know if that's considered a cereal. Algae is being proposed for biodiesel and the production techniques (involving huge salt marshes) are hardly conventional agriculture.
Nice point on the aluminum and iron oxide w.r.t. the Hindenberg; I didn't know that. That chemical mix is called "thermite" and is used to weld and melt metals.
While hydrogen may someday be produced primarily by electrolysis, that is not the case today. It is an inefficient process (http://www.tinaja.com). Hydrogen from fuel cells being discussed these days is produced by breaking down hydrocarbons and even carbohydrates (petroleum and alcohol, respectively).
"Greenhouse gasses" is a bogus argument as they are chiefly water and CO2, neither of which can rightly be considered pollution. They're just the proper results of combustion and diesels produce less because they're more efficient. The problem with diesels is the moderately nasty byproducts produced in moderate quantities, oxides of nitrogen and carbon-based particulates.
You only have to think about this statement to realize how silly it is. Consider just this one aspect: there are many lifeforms more durable than humans, lifeforms that will continue living in the unlikely event that humanity pollutes itself into extinction. At that time the use of petrochemical fuels stops, without much further dieoff due to the pollution. Problem solved! :)
Shell is the major source of funds for the agricultural waste to ethanol program in Canada. Better Shell than the obviously corrupt ADM.
Perhaps you should outsource the work done after 4:45 PM Friday.
The products that make it possible to live are paid for by productive effort. This is not slavery, it's reality.
US workers have better equipment, work longer hours. The purchased components will have the same cost. Paperwork for border crossing and transportation add to the expenses. Products made in Mexico have higher failure rates and that adds to warranty expenses.
Yes, and insurance is my pet peeve. A quick look gives me an estimate that those providing insurance are at least 0.5% of the workforce, and provide almost nothing of value. They are a dead weight on the economy, they use their power to corrupt the law (such as promoting laws that make insurance mandatory), and promote cowardice. How much richer would you be if you never had to buy insurance, including insurance provided "free" by your employer? I'm 55, and the answer for me is about $100,000 not including interest.
Please learn economics (and use a dictionary). When the US's debt is called in it will either be paid with inflated dollars (causing US labor to become cheaper, thus solving the problem) or it will be paid with goods and services made with US high-productivity effort (problem also solved). In fact, this is an on-going process, as shown by the daily fluctuation in currencies.
Replace the word "communism" with "slavery" and the meaning of your paragraph remains unchanged.
Ooh, like a garbage truck or a fire truck?
The costs you cite are tiny compared to the costs of paying someone to listen to the calls, even at minimum wage. Figure $300 million a day.
Many major city libraries - for instance, Los Angeles - have complete patent collections on microfilm. There are also internet-accessible records in numerous places. Practically speaking, it can't happen today.