From the previous posts, it would appear that if/. has been approached by the FBI there might be a gag order in place. If so, then of course they couldn't tell us. However, if they have been approached without a gag order being in place, then they could tell us (I think that would probably result in a front page article, but I could be wrong). So I see four possibilities:
1) FBI approached/., gag order in place (Taco remains ominously silent)
2)/. never approached, Feds think geeks are just jabbering idiots, are likely correct (Taco says, "Nope, FBI doesn't care what you think about SCO)
3)/. approached, perhaps informally, no gag order in place. (Taco gets to brag about importance of website, privacy activists run for Kuro5hin where they can get prime Secret Service attention)
4) Nobody at/. notices this thread, editors are too busy posting duplicate stories. (Taco remains ominously silent, posts story about FBI raid for Half-Life 2 source)
So, does Taco or one of the other editors care to respond? Otherwise we may have to take the implication that they ~are~ under a gag order. Not that I would care; I would never say anything here I wouldn't want to be public knowledge, but many in the/. community would be very interested to know about such a thing.
Whomever modded this "Troll" ought to note that it IS a good point, troll or not.
We the taxpayers have to pay for these voting machines. The supposed advantage of the voting machines is that they save us the cost and time of a manual count. Well, if the machines are not trusted, and we are going to have to do a manual paper count anyways, then where is the added value?
I did something similar, although not as uh, deep.
Back in my fusion days, we used a water cooled turbomolecular pump for our high vac. Main experiment was being done in one room, and the water supply was down the hall. So of course, we just ran tubing down the hall to the pump, and then back again to the drain.
One night the tubing came loose. When I came in in the morning, the floor was an inch deep in water. Luckily the tubing had come loose downstream of the pump, so it was fine. Amazingly, none of the high voltage equipment was damaged, although we couldn't turn it on for days while the whole lab dried.
So we fixed up the tubing to make damned sure that it wouldn't come loose again. You can imagine the look on my face when I came in one morning a few weeks later to find the whole lab an inch deep in water again! However, when I checked the tubing, it was fine. I was completely befuddled. After some investigation, I found out that a pipe had burst underneath the foundation, and we had to call a plumber. I was soo pissed that we had dried the lab out just to have it get wet again. We bought new carpet, but the smell never completely went away.
Actually, I believe when the grandparent post was referring to LH2/LOX as being "best", "best" was defined as "having the highest specific impulse of any chemical fuel currently used". It is the specific impulse of the fuel which determines the fuel mass to rocket mass ratio. In this case, JM is right, as LH2/LOX has the highest specific impulse of any chemical fuel (550 seconds IIRC). However, you are correct that LOX/Kerosene is a much, much easier fuel to work with, which still has a decent specific impulse (350 seconds IIRC). Of course, the choice of fuel only puts a limit on how high your specific impulse can be - no engine is 100% efficient, and engine efficiency will reduce those numbers below their ideal values. Frankly, I agree with you - I'd rather work with Kerosene than LH2 any day.
BTW, for those readers who don't know what specific impulse is (or why it is measured in seconds of all things): specific impulse is a measure of the amount of impulse (=force * time) which a specific amount of fuel produces. A pound of fuel will produce a pound of thrust for X seconds, where X is the specific impulse. Ion and plasma engines can have specific impulses in the 1000's of seconds, but have a very low thrust.
BTW, Burt Rutan was a childhood hero of mine. I've heard of him crashing, but I've never heard of him failing. I've always thought that his team will be the one to win the X prize.
I don't believe the grandparent post referred to their computer as being attached to a network. It has become a pernicious assumption that all computers are networked these days. I have a non-networked computer, and although it is behind locked doors, I use a password on it just for peace of mind. However, I find the recently common assumption that all computers are networked to be a real pain. Ever tried working on a program where all the documentation is html links? Not easy when you are on an isolated computer. It has become so bad that software boxes have as the computer requirements something like: Pentium 200 Mhz or better, 128MB RAM, at least 1 GB Hard Drive space, etc. but neglect to mention that Internet connectivity is required for use. Not everybody uses their computer as a websurfing device. It is still true that the most secure computer is one which is not attached to a network. You can try to tunnel into the computer I am typing this from, but I dare you to get the data on my other one!
Um, the way things work in the United States is that matters of public interest are usually open to public knowledge. How well do you think it would have gone over if Bush had said, "well, we know who was behind the Trade Towers attack, but we're not going to tell you, because it's classified. You'll just have to trust us." If that happened, there would be senators hanging from lightpoles in Washington. A democracy requires openness, or it doesn't work, and that is one area where the Bush administration has had a problem since long before 9/11.
Of course, Dean would do well to open up those sealed files of his too. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hey isn't that a link to an article by the same Bob Novak that leaked the name of a CIA agent and caused the investigation inside the White House? An impartial observer, I am sure.
It's funny how all the Republicans keep talking about Hillary running. Nobody wants her to run for President as much as they do.
It is the Li-6 that generates the additional tritium when it is hit by neutrons. A useful reference. The tritium must be regenerated because it is rather expensive. Deuterium on the other hand is cheap and plentiful, and thus does not require regeneration.
Yes, it is definitely the leads which are the worry. This was the reason for the switch to bipolar leads. However, there is a significant difference between a wide-band EMP at a distance and the large currents induced by NMRI machines. The body acts as an excellent filter against high-freq EM radiation, and it is largely the 1000 Hz frequencies which penetrate to the leads. It would be very, very difficult to make an EMP weapon which would approach the magnitude of EM radiation which is generated in the bore of an MRI machine, except for the case of someone standing right next to the weapon (like, close enough to be hurt by the exploding wires). For a narrowband EMP weapon, it may be possible to make a pacemaker-killer; testing done on microwaves has shown that the 60 Hz transformer powering the microwave causes more interference than the microwaves themselves. I agree that testing and modeling are the way to approach this, not speculation. I am merely pointing out that much of this testing has already been done, and pacemaker design is already dealing with threats similar to that posed by EMP.
If you follow your link, down to the part where it talks about chainsaws and welders being likely risks, you will notice that a large component of that risk is actual leakage current in your body. Leakage current from a voltage source connected to your body is very different from an EMP, and can certainly be very risky for pacemakers. Luckily, when a pacemaker receives an interfering signal, it will only malfunction for as long as the interfering signal is present. This means if you let go of the chainsaw, your pacemaker will start working fine again (although dropping a chainsaw could be bad for your feet). This also means, in the hypothetical case of a general with a pacemaker discussed above, that the general's pacemaker will only stop working for a brief moment of time (the duration of the electromagnetic pulse). After that, the general will be fine, and have to deal with the effects of the EMP on his computers and comm systems, which will be toast.
If you have experienced interference from objects you have not been touching, I'd be interested to know about it.
I don't know that it was the conspiracy theories that made the election officials so dismissive of concerns about electronic voting. It seems to me they were dismissive of the concerns about e-voting before any of these conspiracy theories began to propogate. I think the main reasons why election officials like electronic voting so much is that it makes their job easier, and it seems all high-tech and modern. The concerns about it seem like the typical luddite worries about change to them.
If anything, I think that the conspiracy theories will do more to get their attention - after all, it's their job to make sure that people have confidence in the election results. Having a bunch of backwoods farmers saying "I don't trust the results from your damn computers" is one thing. Having Los Alamos computer scientists saying "I don't trust the results from your damn proprietary software" is quite another, and I think they are waking up to that.
Believe it or not, most modern pacemakers are fairly well shielded against EMP. Most of the problems that were had with people being near microwaves, etc. were with older designs of pacemakers. They have to put the warning signs on microwaves because you never know who has an old pacemaker. However, the amount of old (unipolar lead) pacemakers still around is rather small. Any EMP which damages the new designs is going to make every muscle in your body twitch, and do heart damage to those without pacemakers too.
I'm afraid I don't have a link, but I could refer you to the Report of Task Group 34, from the American Association or Physicists in Medicine, section IV. Don't ask why I have that paper lying around my office - it's a long story. The basic gist is, pacemakers are already encased in a Faraday cage.
I believe the TT quote is: "'Many are my names in many countries,' he said. 'Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkun to the Dwarves; Olorin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incanus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.'" ("The Two Towers" p. 353)
With regards to the above discussion about wastes and the carbon cycle, I thought it might be interesting to provide some numbers in order to provide a bit of perspective.
In 1996, the US used 364.6 million tons of oil. source
In 1996, the US also generated 209.7 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste, of which 38% was paper, and 13% was yard clippings. source
So it can be seen that the amount of solid, burnable waste which is generated (in municipal areas alone) in the US is the same order of magnitude as the amount of oil, in terms of approximate carbon weight. Interestingly, 30% of that waste was burned in incinerators, adding to our net carbon into the atmosphere. It would appear that if the carbon were converted to a more useable form and burned in place of petroleum, then yes, we could operate in a carbon neutral economy.
Of course, for ~real~ big numbers in energy, look to the atmospheric water cycle. (1.2*10^24 J/year transferred; equal to 2.26*10^14 barrels equivalent/year)
I remember when I first heard of Bountyquest. I checked it out, and actually did some searching to see if there was any low-hanging fruit. Unfortunately, if someone is offering a few $1000s to find prior art, usually it's hard to find. However, I thought the idea was a very good one. The whole point is to attract people who have worked in the field of the patent in question, because they would be the ones who would know about the prior art. Say if someone had a patent on "hypersonic oil pumps". Well, most people don't pay much attention to the hypersonic pump field, and most patent attorneys don't either. But if you are someone with 20 years of experience in that field, and you remember back in '78 when those guys in Minnesota were working on the Fido project, well, provide some proof and you just pocketed $20k. (Example completely hypothetical: I'd be surprised if there actually were hypersonic oil pumps) For the system to work, Bountyquest had to have experts from various fields drop by to see if there was anything from their particular field. It also benefits the experts in that field, by not only giving them money, but by keeping bad patents from cluttering the technological landscape in that field. Programmers, see the advantages of this?
I hope that a successor to Bountyquest appears soon. There is no reason that someone else cannot offer rewards for proof of prior art - even in the Amazon case! Although the Amazon case is really more about whether doing something already done, but claiming it is new because it is on the internet, is valid as an invention. I think most slashdotters would agree that it shouldn't be (otherwise we basically have a 20 year moratorium on internet innovation).
From elsewhere on the article webpage (http://specials.silicon.com/as2003/analysis2.html )
"Someone who could well have fallen into this category this year but didn't make the list at all is SCO CEO Darl McBride. He has led his company's charge to get credit for what it claims is some of its code turning up in Linux. So far the row has taken the form of a lawsuit brought against IBM, headlines in the media and SCO invoicing some users for Linux roll outs.
However, when asked what happened when his company was served with a request to pay a SCO licence for Linux, panellist Ric Francis, Safeway's CIO, said: "I told them to stick it. At the end of the day it is never going to fly. It's the last dying breath of a company that is never going to make money."
McBride - in the headlines yes, agenda setting no. There is a difference. "
I doubt it. This is/. after all - if you can't bash someone for posting personal thoughts on the web here, where can you?;)
It is very nice of you to defend Mr. Dvorkin. I agree that black humor is sometimes the best way to deal with the slings and arrows of this life. Dvorkin appears to have a good sense of humor (at least, good for him, which is what really matters), so I expect that he will do fine. The real risk in unemployment is not losing your job, or your money, but rather your life, hope and mind. Some people take it very hard. As long as circumstances can get better, losing a job is only a temporary setback.
I've been there. I spent a year not getting a paycheck, lost my girlfriend, got evicted - the whole nine yards. I have much sympathy for what many people (inside and outside the so-called "tech sector") are going through. I'm sorry things are so bad in Denver right now. It will get better. I was on the leading wave (1999-2000). Now I have a good job with a great boss, and will likely be quiting sometime in the next year to start another business (yes, the boss knows). Maybe I ought to look at Denver...
Oh, and to anyone who is going through the unemployment blues, here are some lessons I learned: 1) Don't take it out on those around you. Your friends and family will stick by you, but it's not their fault and they don't deserve it. 2) Consider a career change. Maybe it's for you, maybe it's not. I was stubborn - I refused to join the "tech sector" even though that's where all the jobs were (I still get a little angry when I hear IT called that - like nuclear fusion research doesn't involve technology). I think I made the right decision for me, but it cost me a year of agony. There are other industries hiring right now. Know any unemployed nurses? If a job is more important to you than doing what you do, follow the jobs. 3) Don't sit and sulk. Make friends with people around you. First, because friends are good, and secondly, because that's likely how you'll be hired. I got my job after mentioning to my barber that I was a physicist. Turned out she had another customer who was hiring physicists...
Some researchers feel the advantages of neutron-free fusion reactions offset the added difficulties involved in getting these reactions to occur, and have coined the term "aneutronic fusion" to describe these reactions.
The best simple answer I've seen so far is this one: (I've done some proofreading and modified the notation a bit.) [ Clarifying notes by rfheeter are enclosed in brackets like this.]
>From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) >Risto Kaivola wrote:
[[ Sorry I don't have the date or full reference for this anymore; this article appeared in sci.physics.fusion a few months ago.]]
>>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion? The term aneutronic >>confuses me considerably. Could you give me an example of >>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced >>using such a reaction? Can there be a fusion reaction in which >>a neutron is never emitted? > >Examples: > >D + He3 --> He4 + p + 18.1MeV >(deuteron + helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + energy) > >p + Li6 --> He4 + He3 + 4.0MeV >(proton + lithium-6 --> helium-4 + helium-3 + energy) > >D + Li6 --> 2 He4 + 22.4MeV >(deuteron + lithium-6 --> 2 helium-4's + energy) > >p + B11 --> 3 He4 + 8.7Mev >(proton + boron-11 --> 3 helium-4's + energy) > >All of these reactions produce no neutrons directly. [[ Hence "aneutronic." ]] >There are also other reactions that have multiple branches possible, >some of which do not produce neutrons and others that do >(e.g., D + D, p + Li7). > >The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get >any neutrons. There are 2 hurdles here. The first is getting the >fuel to smack together hard enough and often enough for fusion >to occur. >The easiest fusion reaction is D + T --> He4 + n (the D-T fuel >cycle). A magnetic reactor can initiate fusion in one of these >things at about a temperature of 10keV. [1 keV = 1000 eV = 11,000,000 (degrees) kelvin, more or less]. >The other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example >about 50KeV for the D+He3 reaction). This is a big factor of 5. >The second hurdle is neutron production via "trash" (secondary) >reactions. That is, the main reaction may be neutron-free, >but there will be pollution reactions that may emit neutrons. [ The products of the main reaction, e.g. He3, can be trapped in your reactor temporarily, and fuse with other ions in the system in messy ways. ] >Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron >emission. For example, the D+He3 reaction will also have some D+D >reactions occuring. [ Because in your reactor you will have a lot of Ds and He3s, and the Ds will collide with each other as well as with the He3s. ] >At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction >cross-section for D+D reactions is about 1/2 of the D+He3 >cross-section, so there will be some generation of neutrons from >the 50% branch reaction of D + D-->He3 + n. >Also, the other 50% goes to T+p, The triton (T) will then undergo >a D-T reaction and release another neutron. [ Because the cross-section for D-T reactions is much higher.] >If the reactor is optmized (run in a He3 rich mode) the number >of neutrons can be minimized. The neutron power can be as low >as about 5% of the total. However, in a 1000 megawatt reactor, >5% is 50 MW of neutron power. That is [still] a lot of neutron >irradiation. This lower neutron level helps in designing >structural elements to withstand neutron bombardment, but it >still has radiation consequences. > >On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-B11 reaction >is completely neutron free, but of course it is much har
Deuteron colliders use the following two reactions:
D+D -> T( +1.0 MeV) + p (+3.0 MeV)
OR
D+D -> He3 (+0.82 MeV) + n (+2.45 MeV)
These reactions occur with approximately equal probability. The neutron reaction is usually the easy one to detect, and can be used to find your fusion rate. If the kid's fusor had been generating a higher neutron flux, they could have used a thicker moderator as an attenuator to find out what the neutron energy was, in order to verify that the neutrons were actually from deuterium fusion.
Oh, btw for the non-physicists out there (what, not everyone on/. is a physics geek?), T= triton (thats a deuteron with an extra neutron, or a hydrogen with 2 extra neutrons) p= proton (a hydrogen nucleus) n = neutron, and He3 is Helium-3, like a regular Helium nucleus minus a neutron. You might notice that the particles recieve energy in inverse proportion to their mass. This is usually the case in nuclear kinematics.
The reaction is definitely not the p-p chain. The reaction cross section for p-p is much, much smaller than D-D. The difference between D-D and p-p is as great as the difference between your gasoline engine and D-D.
If I remember correctly, the two possible deuteron fusion reactions go like this:
D+D -> T (+3.0 MeV) + p (+1.0 MeV)
OR
D+D -> He3 (+0.82 MeV) + n (+2.45 MeV)
These reactions occur with approximately equal probabilities, depending on the input kinetic energy.
I don't think you get gammas from the reaction itself, but you will get high energy X-rays when the product particles run into whatever you are using for shielding.
Neutrons are actually much more dangerous than gammas.
To calculate the mass defect, just use E=mc^2. So for the Triton generating reaction, mass defect = (3+1) MeV/c^2 = 4 Mev/c^2.
Oh, and an MeV is equal to 1.6*10^-13 Joules, if you need it in metric. Why we don't just use metric for nuclear physics, I don't know.
For further information, you might find the following link useful: NRL Plasma Formulary
Slashdot Mirror
From the previous posts, it would appear that if /. has been approached by the FBI there might be a gag order in place. If so, then of course they couldn't tell us. However, if they have been approached without a gag order being in place, then they could tell us (I think that would probably result in a front page article, but I could be wrong). So I see four possibilities:
/., gag order in place (Taco remains ominously silent)
/. never approached, Feds think geeks are just jabbering idiots, are likely correct (Taco says, "Nope, FBI doesn't care what you think about SCO)
/. approached, perhaps informally, no gag order in place. (Taco gets to brag about importance of website, privacy activists run for Kuro5hin where they can get prime Secret Service attention)
/. notices this thread, editors are too busy posting duplicate stories. (Taco remains ominously silent, posts story about FBI raid for Half-Life 2 source)
/. community would be very interested to know about such a thing.
1) FBI approached
2)
3)
4) Nobody at
So, does Taco or one of the other editors care to respond? Otherwise we may have to take the implication that they ~are~ under a gag order. Not that I would care; I would never say anything here I wouldn't want to be public knowledge, but many in the
Whomever modded this "Troll" ought to note that it IS a good point, troll or not.
We the taxpayers have to pay for these voting machines. The supposed advantage of the voting machines is that they save us the cost and time of a manual count. Well, if the machines are not trusted, and we are going to have to do a manual paper count anyways, then where is the added value?
I did something similar, although not as uh, deep.
Back in my fusion days, we used a water cooled turbomolecular pump for our high vac. Main experiment was being done in one room, and the water supply was down the hall. So of course, we just ran tubing down the hall to the pump, and then back again to the drain.
One night the tubing came loose. When I came in in the morning, the floor was an inch deep in water. Luckily the tubing had come loose downstream of the pump, so it was fine. Amazingly, none of the high voltage equipment was damaged, although we couldn't turn it on for days while the whole lab dried.
So we fixed up the tubing to make damned sure that it wouldn't come loose again. You can imagine the look on my face when I came in one morning a few weeks later to find the whole lab an inch deep in water again! However, when I checked the tubing, it was fine. I was completely befuddled. After some investigation, I found out that a pipe had burst underneath the foundation, and we had to call a plumber. I was soo pissed that we had dried the lab out just to have it get wet again. We bought new carpet, but the smell never completely went away.
Actually, I believe when the grandparent post was referring to LH2/LOX as being "best", "best" was defined as "having the highest specific impulse of any chemical fuel currently used". It is the specific impulse of the fuel which determines the fuel mass to rocket mass ratio. In this case, JM is right, as LH2/LOX has the highest specific impulse of any chemical fuel (550 seconds IIRC). However, you are correct that LOX/Kerosene is a much, much easier fuel to work with, which still has a decent specific impulse (350 seconds IIRC). Of course, the choice of fuel only puts a limit on how high your specific impulse can be - no engine is 100% efficient, and engine efficiency will reduce those numbers below their ideal values. Frankly, I agree with you - I'd rather work with Kerosene than LH2 any day.
BTW, for those readers who don't know what specific impulse is (or why it is measured in seconds of all things): specific impulse is a measure of the amount of impulse (=force * time) which a specific amount of fuel produces. A pound of fuel will produce a pound of thrust for X seconds, where X is the specific impulse. Ion and plasma engines can have specific impulses in the 1000's of seconds, but have a very low thrust.
BTW, Burt Rutan was a childhood hero of mine. I've heard of him crashing, but I've never heard of him failing. I've always thought that his team will be the one to win the X prize.
I don't believe the grandparent post referred to their computer as being attached to a network. It has become a pernicious assumption that all computers are networked these days. I have a non-networked computer, and although it is behind locked doors, I use a password on it just for peace of mind. However, I find the recently common assumption that all computers are networked to be a real pain. Ever tried working on a program where all the documentation is html links? Not easy when you are on an isolated computer. It has become so bad that software boxes have as the computer requirements something like: Pentium 200 Mhz or better, 128MB RAM, at least 1 GB Hard Drive space, etc. but neglect to mention that Internet connectivity is required for use. Not everybody uses their computer as a websurfing device. It is still true that the most secure computer is one which is not attached to a network. You can try to tunnel into the computer I am typing this from, but I dare you to get the data on my other one!
Um, the way things work in the United States is that matters of public interest are usually open to public knowledge. How well do you think it would have gone over if Bush had said, "well, we know who was behind the Trade Towers attack, but we're not going to tell you, because it's classified. You'll just have to trust us." If that happened, there would be senators hanging from lightpoles in Washington. A democracy requires openness, or it doesn't work, and that is one area where the Bush administration has had a problem since long before 9/11.
Of course, Dean would do well to open up those sealed files of his too. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hey isn't that a link to an article by the same Bob Novak that leaked the name of a CIA agent and caused the investigation inside the White House? An impartial observer, I am sure.
It's funny how all the Republicans keep talking about Hillary running. Nobody wants her to run for President as much as they do.
I used to have a girlfriend who really liked caffeine.
She bought some Water Joe... and made coffee with it!
It is the Li-6 that generates the additional tritium when it is hit by neutrons. A useful reference. The tritium must be regenerated because it is rather expensive. Deuterium on the other hand is cheap and plentiful, and thus does not require regeneration.
Yes, it is definitely the leads which are the worry. This was the reason for the switch to bipolar leads. However, there is a significant difference between a wide-band EMP at a distance and the large currents induced by NMRI machines. The body acts as an excellent filter against high-freq EM radiation, and it is largely the 1000 Hz frequencies which penetrate to the leads. It would be very, very difficult to make an EMP weapon which would approach the magnitude of EM radiation which is generated in the bore of an MRI machine, except for the case of someone standing right next to the weapon (like, close enough to be hurt by the exploding wires). For a narrowband EMP weapon, it may be possible to make a pacemaker-killer; testing done on microwaves has shown that the 60 Hz transformer powering the microwave causes more interference than the microwaves themselves. I agree that testing and modeling are the way to approach this, not speculation. I am merely pointing out that much of this testing has already been done, and pacemaker design is already dealing with threats similar to that posed by EMP.
If you follow your link, down to the part where it talks about chainsaws and welders being likely risks, you will notice that a large component of that risk is actual leakage current in your body. Leakage current from a voltage source connected to your body is very different from an EMP, and can certainly be very risky for pacemakers. Luckily, when a pacemaker receives an interfering signal, it will only malfunction for as long as the interfering signal is present. This means if you let go of the chainsaw, your pacemaker will start working fine again (although dropping a chainsaw could be bad for your feet). This also means, in the hypothetical case of a general with a pacemaker discussed above, that the general's pacemaker will only stop working for a brief moment of time (the duration of the electromagnetic pulse). After that, the general will be fine, and have to deal with the effects of the EMP on his computers and comm systems, which will be toast.
If you have experienced interference from objects you have not been touching, I'd be interested to know about it.
I don't know that it was the conspiracy theories that made the election officials so dismissive of concerns about electronic voting. It seems to me they were dismissive of the concerns about e-voting before any of these conspiracy theories began to propogate. I think the main reasons why election officials like electronic voting so much is that it makes their job easier, and it seems all high-tech and modern. The concerns about it seem like the typical luddite worries about change to them.
If anything, I think that the conspiracy theories will do more to get their attention - after all, it's their job to make sure that people have confidence in the election results. Having a bunch of backwoods farmers saying "I don't trust the results from your damn computers" is one thing. Having Los Alamos computer scientists saying "I don't trust the results from your damn proprietary software" is quite another, and I think they are waking up to that.
Believe it or not, most modern pacemakers are fairly well shielded against EMP. Most of the problems that were had with people being near microwaves, etc. were with older designs of pacemakers. They have to put the warning signs on microwaves because you never know who has an old pacemaker. However, the amount of old (unipolar lead) pacemakers still around is rather small. Any EMP which damages the new designs is going to make every muscle in your body twitch, and do heart damage to those without pacemakers too.
I'm afraid I don't have a link, but I could refer you to the Report of Task Group 34, from the American Association or Physicists in Medicine, section IV. Don't ask why I have that paper lying around my office - it's a long story. The basic gist is, pacemakers are already encased in a Faraday cage.
I believe the TT quote is:
"'Many are my names in many countries,' he said. 'Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkun to the Dwarves; Olorin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incanus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.'" ("The Two Towers" p. 353)
With regards to the above discussion about wastes and the carbon cycle, I thought it might be interesting to provide some numbers in order to provide a bit of perspective.
In 1996, the US used 364.6 million tons of oil.
source
In 1996, the US also generated 209.7 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste, of which 38% was paper, and 13% was yard clippings. source
So it can be seen that the amount of solid, burnable waste which is generated (in municipal areas alone) in the US is the same order of magnitude as the amount of oil, in terms of approximate carbon weight. Interestingly, 30% of that waste was burned in incinerators, adding to our net carbon into the atmosphere. It would appear that if the carbon were converted to a more useable form and burned in place of petroleum, then yes, we could operate in a carbon neutral economy.
Of course, for ~real~ big numbers in energy, look to the atmospheric water cycle. (1.2*10^24 J/year transferred; equal to 2.26*10^14 barrels equivalent/year)
I remember when I first heard of Bountyquest. I checked it out, and actually did some searching to see if there was any low-hanging fruit. Unfortunately, if someone is offering a few $1000s to find prior art, usually it's hard to find. However, I thought the idea was a very good one. The whole point is to attract people who have worked in the field of the patent in question, because they would be the ones who would know about the prior art. Say if someone had a patent on "hypersonic oil pumps". Well, most people don't pay much attention to the hypersonic pump field, and most patent attorneys don't either. But if you are someone with 20 years of experience in that field, and you remember back in '78 when those guys in Minnesota were working on the Fido project, well, provide some proof and you just pocketed $20k. (Example completely hypothetical: I'd be surprised if there actually were hypersonic oil pumps) For the system to work, Bountyquest had to have experts from various fields drop by to see if there was anything from their particular field. It also benefits the experts in that field, by not only giving them money, but by keeping bad patents from cluttering the technological landscape in that field. Programmers, see the advantages of this?
I hope that a successor to Bountyquest appears soon. There is no reason that someone else cannot offer rewards for proof of prior art - even in the Amazon case! Although the Amazon case is really more about whether doing something already done, but claiming it is new because it is on the internet, is valid as an invention. I think most slashdotters would agree that it shouldn't be (otherwise we basically have a 20 year moratorium on internet innovation).
From elsewhere on the article webpage (http://specials.silicon.com/as2003/analysis2.html )
"Someone who could well have fallen into this category this year but didn't make the list at all is SCO CEO Darl McBride. He has led his company's charge to get credit for what it claims is some of its code turning up in Linux. So far the row has taken the form of a lawsuit brought against IBM, headlines in the media and SCO invoicing some users for Linux roll outs.
However, when asked what happened when his company was served with a request to pay a SCO licence for Linux, panellist Ric Francis, Safeway's CIO, said: "I told them to stick it. At the end of the day it is never going to fly. It's the last dying breath of a company that is never going to make money."
McBride - in the headlines yes, agenda setting no. There is a difference. "
I doubt it. This is /. after all - if you can't bash someone for posting personal thoughts on the web here, where can you? ;)
It is very nice of you to defend Mr. Dvorkin. I agree that black humor is sometimes the best way to deal with the slings and arrows of this life. Dvorkin appears to have a good sense of humor (at least, good for him, which is what really matters), so I expect that he will do fine. The real risk in unemployment is not losing your job, or your money, but rather your life, hope and mind. Some people take it very hard. As long as circumstances can get better, losing a job is only a temporary setback.
I've been there. I spent a year not getting a paycheck, lost my girlfriend, got evicted - the whole nine yards. I have much sympathy for what many people (inside and outside the so-called "tech sector") are going through. I'm sorry things are so bad in Denver right now. It will get better. I was on the leading wave (1999-2000). Now I have a good job with a great boss, and will likely be quiting sometime in the next year to start another business (yes, the boss knows). Maybe I ought to look at Denver...
Oh, and to anyone who is going through the unemployment blues, here are some lessons I learned:
1) Don't take it out on those around you. Your friends and family will stick by you, but it's not their fault and they don't deserve it.
2) Consider a career change. Maybe it's for you, maybe it's not. I was stubborn - I refused to join the "tech sector" even though that's where all the jobs were (I still get a little angry when I hear IT called that - like nuclear fusion research doesn't involve technology). I think I made the right decision for me, but it cost me a year of agony. There are other industries hiring right now. Know any unemployed nurses? If a job is more important to you than doing what you do, follow the jobs.
3) Don't sit and sulk. Make friends with people around you. First, because friends are good, and secondly, because that's likely how you'll be hired. I got my job after mentioning to my barber that I was a physicist. Turned out she had another customer who was hiring physicists...
Very well put. And me without any mod points today...
The article, in addition to being a dupe , also calls the director of the NHMFL "Jeff Crow". Last time I talked to him, his name was Jack.
From the Fusion FAQ:
*** H. What is aneutronic fusion?
Some researchers feel the advantages of neutron-free fusion reactions offset the added difficulties involved in getting these reactions to occur, and have coined the term
"aneutronic fusion" to describe these reactions.
The best simple answer I've seen so far is this one: (I've done some proofreading and modified the notation a bit.) [ Clarifying notes by rfheeter are enclosed in brackets like this.]
>From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
>Risto Kaivola wrote:
[[ Sorry I don't have the date or full reference for this anymore;
this article appeared in sci.physics.fusion a few months ago.]]
>>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion? The term aneutronic
>>confuses me considerably. Could you give me an example of
>>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced
>>using such a reaction? Can there be a fusion reaction in which
>>a neutron is never emitted?
>
>Examples:
>
>D + He3 --> He4 + p + 18.1MeV
>(deuteron + helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + energy)
>
>p + Li6 --> He4 + He3 + 4.0MeV
>(proton + lithium-6 --> helium-4 + helium-3 + energy)
>
>D + Li6 --> 2 He4 + 22.4MeV
>(deuteron + lithium-6 --> 2 helium-4's + energy)
>
>p + B11 --> 3 He4 + 8.7Mev
>(proton + boron-11 --> 3 helium-4's + energy)
>
>All of these reactions produce no neutrons directly.
[[ Hence "aneutronic." ]]
>There are also other reactions that have multiple branches possible,
>some of which do not produce neutrons and others that do
>(e.g., D + D, p + Li7).
>
>The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get
>any neutrons. There are 2 hurdles here. The first is getting the
>fuel to smack together hard enough and often enough for fusion
>to occur.
>The easiest fusion reaction is D + T --> He4 + n (the D-T fuel
>cycle). A magnetic reactor can initiate fusion in one of these
>things at about a temperature of 10keV.
[1 keV = 1000 eV = 11,000,000 (degrees) kelvin, more or less].
>The other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example
>about 50KeV for the D+He3 reaction). This is a big factor of 5.
>The second hurdle is neutron production via "trash" (secondary)
>reactions. That is, the main reaction may be neutron-free,
>but there will be pollution reactions that may emit neutrons.
[ The products of the main reaction, e.g. He3, can be trapped in
your reactor temporarily, and fuse with other ions in the system
in messy ways. ]
>Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron
>emission. For example, the D+He3 reaction will also have some D+D
>reactions occuring.
[ Because in your reactor you will have a lot of Ds and He3s, and
the Ds will collide with each other as well as with the He3s. ]
>At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction
>cross-section for D+D reactions is about 1/2 of the D+He3
>cross-section, so there will be some generation of neutrons from
>the 50% branch reaction of D + D-->He3 + n.
>Also, the other 50% goes to T+p, The triton (T) will then undergo
>a D-T reaction and release another neutron.
[ Because the cross-section for D-T reactions is much higher.]
>If the reactor is optmized (run in a He3 rich mode) the number
>of neutrons can be minimized. The neutron power can be as low
>as about 5% of the total. However, in a 1000 megawatt reactor,
>5% is 50 MW of neutron power. That is [still] a lot of neutron
>irradiation. This lower neutron level helps in designing
>structural elements to withstand neutron bombardment, but it
>still has radiation consequences.
>
>On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-B11 reaction
>is completely neutron free, but of course it is much har
The name of the article is rather appropriate for this discussion!
Thank you for the good link.
For those who don't follow the link, it is about the economics of breaking actual "real world" windows, not MS Windows.
I know a Brit who lives in the US... a funny guy...
Apparently the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles doesn't know what "Bollocks" means, because that's what his vanity license plate says.
Deuteron colliders use the following two reactions:
/. is a physics geek?), T= triton (thats a deuteron with an extra neutron, or a hydrogen with 2 extra neutrons) p= proton (a hydrogen nucleus) n = neutron, and He3 is Helium-3, like a regular Helium nucleus minus a neutron. You might notice that the particles recieve energy in inverse proportion to their mass. This is usually the case in nuclear kinematics.
D+D -> T( +1.0 MeV) + p (+3.0 MeV)
OR
D+D -> He3 (+0.82 MeV) + n (+2.45 MeV)
These reactions occur with approximately equal probability. The neutron reaction is usually the easy one to detect, and can be used to find your fusion rate. If the kid's fusor had been generating a higher neutron flux, they could have used a thicker moderator as an attenuator to find out what the neutron energy was, in order to verify that the neutrons were actually from deuterium fusion.
Oh, btw for the non-physicists out there (what, not everyone on
The reaction is definitely not the p-p chain. The reaction cross section for p-p is much, much smaller than D-D. The difference between D-D and p-p is as great as the difference between your gasoline engine and D-D.
If I remember correctly, the two possible deuteron fusion reactions go like this:
D+D -> T (+3.0 MeV) + p (+1.0 MeV)
OR
D+D -> He3 (+0.82 MeV) + n (+2.45 MeV)
These reactions occur with approximately equal probabilities, depending on the input kinetic energy.
I don't think you get gammas from the reaction itself, but you will get high energy X-rays when the product particles run into whatever you are using for shielding.
Neutrons are actually much more dangerous than gammas.
To calculate the mass defect, just use E=mc^2. So for the Triton generating reaction, mass defect = (3+1) MeV/c^2 = 4 Mev/c^2.
Oh, and an MeV is equal to 1.6*10^-13 Joules, if you need it in metric. Why we don't just use metric for nuclear physics, I don't know.
For further information, you might find the following link useful: NRL Plasma Formulary