" Particularly alarming was the number of camera feeds of sleeping babies, which people often set up to protect them, but, being unaware of the risks, don't change the username or password from the default options that came with the cameras."
What risk, exactly? I can't imagine anything more boring than a video of a sleeping baby.
OcTave (as TFA's author would probably write it) is a sufficiently good clone of Matlab. I write many of my scripts ins Octave on a Mac at home, for use at work on PCs.
So given that conventional atmosphere models have ignored this to date, if the oceans are storing 90% of the excess heat, why aren't the conventional models showing temperature rises 10 times as great as what is observed, say 5-10 deg C?
Either the summary or the article are slack in the extreme.
If the Earth's atmosphere warmed by 1 degree C (approximately the size of the hockey stick) then that heat energy would warm the Earth's oceans by an unmeasurable 0.001 deg c. Yet the climate buffoons ignore the oceans in their models.
the air in your lungs is at the external pressure and so is the nitrogen in the joints etc, IF no additional high pressure nitrogen is injected into the system, the lungs and joints are in equilibrium no matter what the external pressure, they all compress together.
Subtract all fossil fuels from your current lifestyle. And all plastic, unless you are using casein(rendered cheese).
I think you'll find that your lifestyle will be about Cuban on the level of energy intensity. That is obviously feasible, but not without sacrifice. Unlike your idol Al Gore you won't be flying ANYWHERE ever again.
Um, that's a bit of a puzzle, the whale breathes in air at atmospheric pressure, therefore to a first order approximation the air in its body can't be at much more than that after compression and then surfacing.
I'm not saying its impossible, but I can't see what pressure is driving the nitrogen deep into joints etc, it should all be in equilibrium.
the whole point with bends and SCUBA is that you are breathing high pressure air, and so high pressure nitrogen diffuses into the parts of the body with lower partial pressures of nitrogen, then when you surface the high pressure nitrogen wants to diffuse out again, but can't easily. If the whole lot starts in equilibrium then it all compresses together. This loosely is why duck diving into quite significant depths is safe without a decompression stage.
Sorry, I misread the article, they are capping the growth in new WT installation for the next 6 years to about 80% of recent growth rates, and are building several new coal plants, whether that results in a net reduction in % windpower depends on economic growth achieved, ie crystal ball.
Oddly enough both of the calculations in the OP were correct, yes, the wind turbine generates energy equivalent to its energy of manufacture quite quickly, and yes it is still a bad idea to rely on wind energy for use in a national grid except for a tiny percentage, each MW of wind turbine relies on an additional MW of conventional generators if you want 24/7 availability, or I suppose you could try energy storage, which ought to be added to the turbine operating cost and energy payback.
Interesting to see such knee jerk support for an inappropriate technology. I wonder if the posters above have ever thought through why Germany is/reducing/ its reliance on wind turbines?
I think you've missed the point. Engineering software in general, including the stuff with a $4000 per seat per year maintenance contract, comes with a EULA that basically says the software provider is not liable for the results from that software.
Even if it is used in accordance with the help manual by trained users.
Even if the problem is directly caused by a fault in the software.
I read a few of the above. While the dental flossists seem to have taken over, here is my advice to a young real engineer- -Yes, fair enough, wear clean clothes, shower, brush your teeth. You'd have to be VERY clever to make up for being stinky -carry a notebook. When you ask a stupid question (probably all of them) note the answer down. That way you'll never ask the same person the same question twice. -enthusiasm- we're fucking good at being cynical. Your attempt/will/ sound lame. Trust me, you need to be enthusiastic before you'll get accepted. -sense of humour- you will need one - stupid hours- I regard people who work long hours as people who can't organise themselves, or production-workers. Others may differ.
BTW, computer engineers aren't real engineers. There may be different rules for them.
Sorry, I haven't read any of the above inspiteful commentary.
here's my take.
Most good games are too long.
80 bucks Australian for a game, I'd really like to know I've done it at 40 hours or less.
Here's the big name games I've played through, and thought the length was about right
DOOM Terra nova (several times - actually this is due to be played again) System Shock (the original-I'd play this again if Barry gives me the CD back) Warcraft 2 (bit dull now) C&C Mechwarriors- 2 and 4 (was there a 3?)
HalfLife was brilliant except the last mission was stupidly hard and I gave up and I won't play it again Syndicate was brilliant, the last mission was stupidly hard but I did it once, and I'll play it again but ignore the last msiiosn
UFO - I've played a couple of times quite a long way through, without really getting to the end. Quite happy to do it again from scratch, the early msiisons are much more fun.
Biggest playability award goes to Gunship 2000 - in squad mode, or railroad tycoon.
I think you are referring to MDI? They haven't manufactured a single production vehicle, despite 10 years of press releases. They have got rather a lot of ignorant investor's money.
Why would the oil companies give a monkey's about air cars? The thermodynamics proving that they are hopelessly inefficient is covered in the first year of an engineering degree, at least in the UK.
The early stories were reprints by mouth breathers, of the press releases issued by a company desperate for investor's funds.
Yes, if you compress air carefully and keep it at the temperature to which it rises (very hot indeed), and then decompress it carefully, you can make it quite efficient. BUT your range will suffer a lot, as the mass of air that can be stored is then much smaller.
Man, I wonder if the little dude sprained his elbow while he patted himself on the back.
Some days I play Solitaire, other days I play Risk. Neither defines/me/. At work I solve Hamiltonians, and struggle to add budgets up. Neither defines me.
plane weighs roughly 4 times as much as the passengers (proabbly lowball)
passenger weighs 80 kg
speed=100 miph=160 kph=50 m/s
so constant power required=1/50*(4*80)*10*50=3200W
Best engine efficiency ~40%, best prop ~80%, calorific content of fuel is 38 MJ/kg=.8*4*38 MJ/gallon, so fuel consumption is 3200/(.32*3.2*38*10^6) gallons per second. So in 2 hours there are 7200 seconds, so ttoal fuel used is 3200/(.32*3.2*38*10^6)*7200
So, that is 0.6 gallons for 200 miles for one passenger
Conclusion, probably do-able, it'll cost way more than 1.5 million
Aurora's 20 year old solar car Christine hit 60 mph at Hidden Valley year before last.
And Aurora's aerodynamic cars have been doing >60 mph on solar alone since 1996. The record is way higher than that.
The Cambridge car is likely to be yet another inept entry from the UK. Still, it is a nice holiday. Gives them a chance to burn their pasty white pustulous skins.
I agree it is not a perfect report, but some of your criticism is over the top.
The Volt will only use 55% of its battery capacity, the Prius typically uses only 20% (by preference), etc etc. This is in order to get a respectable number of cycles from the battery.
I thought they explained their electric motor sizing rationale very well. Perhaps you need to re read it.
They also, as you say, investigate structural efficiency so I'm not quite sure why you are criticising that.
For various values of 'THAT'. Our shocks weigh 4 kg a pop, a 20 kg shock would add ~20% to the unsprung mass. I am sure that as an aspiring vehicle dynamicist you will recoil with horror from that thought.
Slashdot Mirror
" Particularly alarming was the number of camera feeds of sleeping babies, which people often set up to protect them, but, being unaware of the risks, don't change the username or password from the default options that came with the cameras."
What risk, exactly? I can't imagine anything more boring than a video of a sleeping baby.
OcTave (as TFA's author would probably write it) is a sufficiently good clone of Matlab. I write many of my scripts ins Octave on a Mac at home, for use at work on PCs.
So given that conventional atmosphere models have ignored this to date, if the oceans are storing 90% of the excess heat, why aren't the conventional models showing temperature rises 10 times as great as what is observed, say 5-10 deg C?
Either the summary or the article are slack in the extreme.
If the Earth's atmosphere warmed by 1 degree C (approximately the size of the hockey stick) then that heat energy would warm the Earth's oceans by an unmeasurable 0.001 deg c. Yet the climate buffoons ignore the oceans in their models.
the air in your lungs is at the external pressure and so is the nitrogen in the joints etc, IF no additional high pressure nitrogen is injected into the system, the lungs and joints are in equilibrium no matter what the external pressure, they all compress together.
Interesting.
Subtract all fossil fuels from your current lifestyle. And all plastic, unless you are using casein(rendered cheese).
I think you'll find that your lifestyle will be about Cuban on the level of energy intensity. That is obviously feasible, but not without sacrifice. Unlike your idol Al Gore you won't be flying ANYWHERE ever again.
Um, that's a bit of a puzzle, the whale breathes in air at atmospheric pressure, therefore to a first order approximation the air in its body can't be at much more than that after compression and then surfacing.
I'm not saying its impossible, but I can't see what pressure is driving the nitrogen deep into joints etc, it should all be in equilibrium.
the whole point with bends and SCUBA is that you are breathing high pressure air, and so high pressure nitrogen diffuses into the parts of the body with lower partial pressures of nitrogen, then when you surface the high pressure nitrogen wants to diffuse out again, but can't easily. If the whole lot starts in equilibrium then it all compresses together. This loosely is why duck diving into quite significant depths is safe without a decompression stage.
I wonder how loud they are compared with underwater explosions, volcanoes and seaquakes?
" when a chemical reaction caused a glass glove box to explode"
any idea what that was?
My engineering brain struggles to find a heavy metal reaction that is unexpected. Oh, and enormous sympathy to HM, that's a horrible way to die.
Sorry, I misread the article, they are capping the growth in new WT installation for the next 6 years to about 80% of recent growth rates, and are building several new coal plants, whether that results in a net reduction in % windpower depends on economic growth achieved, ie crystal ball.
Which part of 'additional' didn't you understand?
Oddly enough both of the calculations in the OP were correct, yes, the wind turbine generates energy equivalent to its energy of manufacture quite quickly, and yes it is still a bad idea to rely on wind energy for use in a national grid except for a tiny percentage, each MW of wind turbine relies on an additional MW of conventional generators if you want 24/7 availability, or I suppose you could try energy storage, which ought to be added to the turbine operating cost and energy payback.
Interesting to see such knee jerk support for an inappropriate technology. I wonder if the posters above have ever thought through why Germany is /reducing/ its reliance on wind turbines?
I think you've missed the point. Engineering software in general, including the stuff with a $4000 per seat per year maintenance contract, comes with a EULA that basically says the software provider is not liable for the results from that software.
Even if it is used in accordance with the help manual by trained users.
Even if the problem is directly caused by a fault in the software.
I read a few of the above. While the dental flossists seem to have taken over, here is my advice to a young real engineer- /will/ sound lame. Trust me, you need to be enthusiastic before you'll get accepted.
-Yes, fair enough, wear clean clothes, shower, brush your teeth. You'd have to be VERY clever to make up for being stinky
-carry a notebook. When you ask a stupid question (probably all of them) note the answer down. That way you'll never ask the same person the same question twice.
-enthusiasm- we're fucking good at being cynical. Your attempt
-sense of humour- you will need one
- stupid hours- I regard people who work long hours as people who can't organise themselves, or production-workers. Others may differ.
BTW, computer engineers aren't real engineers. There may be different rules for them.
Sorry, I haven't read any of the above inspiteful commentary.
here's my take.
Most good games are too long.
80 bucks Australian for a game, I'd really like to know I've done it at 40 hours or less.
Here's the big name games I've played through, and thought the length was about right
DOOM
Terra nova (several times - actually this is due to be played again)
System Shock (the original-I'd play this again if Barry gives me the CD back)
Warcraft 2 (bit dull now)
C&C
Mechwarriors- 2 and 4 (was there a 3?)
HalfLife was brilliant except the last mission was stupidly hard and I gave up and I won't play it again
Syndicate was brilliant, the last mission was stupidly hard but I did it once, and I'll play it again but ignore the last msiiosn
UFO - I've played a couple of times quite a long way through, without really getting to the end. Quite happy to do it again from scratch, the early msiisons are much more fun.
Biggest playability award goes to Gunship 2000 - in squad mode, or railroad tycoon.
I think you are referring to MDI? They haven't manufactured a single production vehicle, despite 10 years of press releases. They have got rather a lot of ignorant investor's money.
Why would the oil companies give a monkey's about air cars? The thermodynamics proving that they are hopelessly inefficient is covered in the first year of an engineering degree, at least in the UK.
The early stories were reprints by mouth breathers, of the press releases issued by a company desperate for investor's funds.
Yes, if you compress air carefully and keep it at the temperature to which it rises (very hot indeed), and then decompress it carefully, you can make it quite efficient. BUT your range will suffer a lot, as the mass of air that can be stored is then much smaller.
Hey here's a goddamn excellent idea, while we're at it why not get techies to teach English?
Man, I wonder if the little dude sprained his elbow while he patted himself on the back.
Some days I play Solitaire, other days I play Risk. Neither defines /me/. At work I solve Hamiltonians, and struggle to add budgets up. Neither defines me.
I forgot to add that the rules are almost certainly fudged to encourage alternative technologies.
The wingspan limit makes achieving a 50:1 L/D very difficult - I'm not an aerodynamicist. However once the L/D drops to 30:1 then its game over man.
L/D for a really good plane 50:1
plane weighs roughly 4 times as much as the passengers (proabbly lowball)
passenger weighs 80 kg
speed=100 miph=160 kph=50 m/s
so constant power required=1/50*(4*80)*10*50=3200W
Best engine efficiency ~40%, best prop ~80%, calorific content of fuel is 38 MJ/kg= .8*4*38 MJ/gallon, so fuel consumption is 3200/(.32*3.2*38*10^6) gallons per second. So in 2 hours there are 7200 seconds, so ttoal fuel used is 3200/(.32*3.2*38*10^6)*7200
So, that is 0.6 gallons for 200 miles for one passenger
Conclusion, probably do-able, it'll cost way more than 1.5 million
FYI?
WTF?
You are wrong. The 'new' Fiesta is built on a Mazda 2 platform.
Aurora's 20 year old solar car Christine hit 60 mph at Hidden Valley year before last.
And Aurora's aerodynamic cars have been doing >60 mph on solar alone since 1996. The record is way higher than that.
The Cambridge car is likely to be yet another inept entry from the UK. Still, it is a nice holiday. Gives them a chance to burn their pasty white pustulous skins.
I agree it is not a perfect report, but some of your criticism is over the top.
The Volt will only use 55% of its battery capacity, the Prius typically uses only 20% (by preference), etc etc. This is in order to get a respectable number of cycles from the battery.
I thought they explained their electric motor sizing rationale very well. Perhaps you need to re read it.
They also, as you say, investigate structural efficiency so I'm not quite sure why you are criticising that.
For various values of 'THAT'. Our shocks weigh 4 kg a pop, a 20 kg shock would add ~20% to the unsprung mass. I am sure that as an aspiring vehicle dynamicist you will recoil with horror from that thought.