High octane gas has a higher ignition temperature. It's used in performance engines because they, for efficiency reasons, are designed to generate higher cylinder pressures. Higher cylinder pressures means higher temperatures (basic thermodynamics).
Having said that, high octane fuel actually contains fewer available BTU's than regular -- it's a trade off
Older cars ping because carbon deposits form on the valves. These deposits hold heat and become hot spots which can pre-detonate the fuel. The "ping" is the sound created when the wave front from the pre-detonated fuel slams into the wave front from the fuel ignited by the spark plug. This creates high pressure zones (at the intersection of the two wave fronts) that damage the pistons and valves.
Using higher octane fuel in older cars with worn engines reduces the "pinging" because the fuel's higher ignition point exceeds the temperature of the carbon deposits (so the carbon can not ignite the fuel). You can often achieve the same result by reducing the ignition advance -- which incurs the negative side effect of reducing power.
Obviously you don't own a Porsche; or, if you do, you'll be replacing the engine soon... High performance engines almost always require high octance because of their higher cylinder pressures.
Not totally true. It's mandated in some areas to add "Oxygenizers" to the gas -- essentially alcohol. These reduce the number of available Joules in the fuel in a trade off for lower emissions. The gasoline mixtures also changes from summer to winter (making it less volatile in the summer).
Some cars require higher octane fuel (as a Porsche would) because they run higher compression ratios and earlier ignition timing (resulting in higher cylinder pressures). This requires a fuel with a higher ignition point -- hence the requirement for high octane. High octane fuel actually has a lower energy output than regular. It's a trade off between fuel with a lower energy content and a higher engine efficiency.
In most modern cars, you are correct in saying that only 87 octane is required -- the computer will dynamically tune the engine to offset minor variations in the fuel. By using high octane fuel you'd only end up using slightly more fuel.
I have an older HP and I found that it was faster to do math with pen and paper than to try to use the calculator. If it's too complicated to do the calculation in my head (ie. paper) then I break out Maple, MathCad, or Mathematica -- whatever's available.
I still use a calculator to do the basic stuff (+-*/) to make sure I don't drop something; but, It never made any sense, to me, to not do the math. Calculators often find solutions through iteration, while, doing the calculus on paper often results in a simple, more direct solution.
Unfortunately, it seems humans learn by making mistakes. So, we've got to screw up (occasionally), before we figure out how to do it right. This does mean we'll have to go back and fix it.
You know, it's one thing to do it right. It's another to really, really fsck something up. Hopefully, they've recognized that there is a problem and will fix it. It won't make up for the damage already done; but, it'll help. Only time will tell.
Simply not true. If you want to irrigate the South-West, you have to divert the Colorado. The only other way to do it is to de-salinate mass quantities of sea-water. This too would have it's environmental impacts because it would require a.) A huge infrastructure on the coast damaging wet-lands, b.) create mass quantities of effluent in the form of waste-water, c.) require HUGE amounts of electricity.
there are often ways to do it better, perhaps lower the impact. There will still; however, be an impact.
No, we're not overpopulated. A sustainable population (depending upon who you talk to and depending upon the level of technology applied to things such as food production) may be as high as 100 Billion; but certainly is at least 20 Billion. Since we're only pushing 10 Billion, we have some room.
I wasn't (half-heartedly) referring to any mamby pansy little kill off a few 10's million war. I was referring to total, all-out, break out the all the weapons, no rules, war. Let's not play games here. I'm talking about killing off 80% or more of the world population due to use of nuclear weapons, resulting fall-out, nuclear winter, and use of biological weapons and chemical weapons en-mass.
Oh, wait, I don't think I condone this.
I think you missed the point. The fact we're here is going to have an effect. Period. That was the point.
Well, having a mass kill off of humans ( a war or two maybe) would be one temporary solution. However, I don't think it will really solve anything. In a few hundred (or thousand) years we'd be right back where we are now. (Based on historical fact where modern Humans (Homo Sapien Sapien) have only been around for a few ten's thousand years)
Generally true (also from production experience) although using compounds high in metal (like silver) generally produced slightly better results. Production costs generally don't support the small differences though, So you have to go with the combination of what works and is cheapest.
Solder paste is commonly used (commercially) to manufacture circuit boards. You put a silk screen overlay on the board and squeegee the paste through the silk screen onto the pads of the board. You then have the pick and place machine put all the components onto the board. The board / goop / components then goes into an oven where the assembly is heated enough to cause the solder to "melt" and flow. Voila -- complete board.
Of course, all of this is more or less automated...
Oh, and although I have soldered heat sinks on before, I prefer to use thermally conductive epoxies... I am a "Production Support Engineer" -- at least that's what my business cards say...
One planet + 6-10 Billion people living in an industrial society = a planet where there is no viable "natural" ecosystem. A population this large is simply going to have an effect on the ecosystem
We're going to divert rivers. We're going to alter the natural habitats of pretty much all life on the planet. Animal species will go extinct (unless we take the time to specifically preserve each and every one). We're going to change the mixture of gases in the air...
At some point, everyone is going to have to come to grips with this. The Earth can't support this many people and still exist in it's "Natural" state. The hard part is not screwing it totally up and ending up with a toxic environment.
Eventually, the land's all going to be either populated area (city / suburb), agricultural, or a managed wildlife "park".
Ok, so they sue your wife and she's found liable for $100k. You're still screwed. Or, they sue your 12 year old daughter -- wait, she's under age. Oh yeah, you, as the parent, are responsible for making sure that your children don't break any laws; so, you're held liable (contributing to the delinquency of a minor or the like...)
The point was, this was hardware encryption with a physical key (a usb dongle & usb based key-like device containing the encryption key). If I'm asked for the key and don't turn it over, I'm in trouble. If I do turn it over, They're in -- even if they have to move the drive and daughter card into another machine.
BTW, if you check deeper into the website, you'd find that it's not the motherboard doing the encryption. It's a daughter card attached to the back of the drive, between the drive and the MB. The board mentioned simply comes with all the parts needed to make it happen, in the box. Theoretically (although I didn't see it packaged this way) you could just order the encryption board separately.
And many of the gliders were overloaded (one had a jeep in it and fell like a rock). And they tried to land them in fields without knowing how flat the fields actually were. And many missed the fields (trees and gliders don't mix well). And...
When the police sieze your computer and discover the lock, they can have a judge demand you turn over the key. When you don't, your in contempt of court... And they can then hold you, in jail, until you agree to comply. You could fight it if you want to; although, I wouldn't recommend it.
I seem to recall that this solution is available (or maybe they're working on it. ) So, I'd have to ask "Why aren't they using it yet?" or suggest you check into it and present it to the appropriate people up the political food chain.
Actually this isn't so bad. There's lots of stable uranium on Earth anyway. Uranium is actually a naturally occuring element here that's surprisingly common... We've released some of it in a soluble form. The bacteria just lock it back up (like it was to begin with).
The key is: less radiation released into the air. Coal burning actually releases more radioactive material into the air (from the smoke stacks) than does a nuclear plant. The waste products from a reactor aren't generally considered pollution -- they're considered waste; and are well contained (generally)
There's a well known solution to this, which they're working on (for other reasons). If you bombard the "waste" with neutrons, you break down the material into smaller isotopes (throught fission). The result is material which is very highly radioactive; but, the materials have much shorter half lives.
It's conceivable to build a nuclear plant like this, where the neutron beam is "tuned" to the ideal energy to cause fission in whatever the target material is. It's not necessarily very fficient.
A neutron source isn't easy to build. Ask DOE -- they're currently building one in Oak Ridge. Traditionally they'd build a breader reactor. These aren't very environmentally friendly though, and not very politically palletable. So, the idea is to build a Neutron Spallation source, which generated neutrons by bombarding a dense target material with a beam from a more traditional particle accelerator. It's proving to be a difficult task...
Slashdot Mirror
High octane gas has a higher ignition temperature. It's used in performance engines because they, for efficiency reasons, are designed to generate higher cylinder pressures. Higher cylinder pressures means higher temperatures (basic thermodynamics).
Having said that, high octane fuel actually contains fewer available BTU's than regular -- it's a trade off
Older cars ping because carbon deposits form on the valves. These deposits hold heat and become hot spots which can pre-detonate the fuel. The "ping" is the sound created when the wave front from the pre-detonated fuel slams into the wave front from the fuel ignited by the spark plug. This creates high pressure zones (at the intersection of the two wave fronts) that damage the pistons and valves.
Using higher octane fuel in older cars with worn engines reduces the "pinging" because the fuel's higher ignition point exceeds the temperature of the carbon deposits (so the carbon can not ignite the fuel). You can often achieve the same result by reducing the ignition advance -- which incurs the negative side effect of reducing power.
Not totally true. It's mandated in some areas to add "Oxygenizers" to the gas -- essentially alcohol. These reduce the number of available Joules in the fuel in a trade off for lower emissions. The gasoline mixtures also changes from summer to winter (making it less volatile in the summer).
Some cars require higher octane fuel (as a Porsche would) because they run higher compression ratios and earlier ignition timing (resulting in higher cylinder pressures). This requires a fuel with a higher ignition point -- hence the requirement for high octane. High octane fuel actually has a lower energy output than regular. It's a trade off between fuel with a lower energy content and a higher engine efficiency.
In most modern cars, you are correct in saying that only 87 octane is required -- the computer will dynamically tune the engine to offset minor variations in the fuel. By using high octane fuel you'd only end up using slightly more fuel.
Wait until their stock drops when it's apparent to Wall Street that IBM's gonna trounce them.
I still use a calculator to do the basic stuff (+-*/) to make sure I don't drop something; but, It never made any sense, to me, to not do the math. Calculators often find solutions through iteration, while, doing the calculus on paper often results in a simple, more direct solution.
You know, it's one thing to do it right. It's another to really, really fsck something up. Hopefully, they've recognized that there is a problem and will fix it. It won't make up for the damage already done; but, it'll help. Only time will tell.
there are often ways to do it better, perhaps lower the impact. There will still; however, be an impact.
I wasn't (half-heartedly) referring to any mamby pansy little kill off a few 10's million war. I was referring to total, all-out, break out the all the weapons, no rules, war. Let's not play games here. I'm talking about killing off 80% or more of the world population due to use of nuclear weapons, resulting fall-out, nuclear winter, and use of biological weapons and chemical weapons en-mass.
Oh, wait, I don't think I condone this.
I think you missed the point. The fact we're here is going to have an effect. Period. That was the point.
Not really, because the radio stations pay a royalty fee for each and every song each time they play it.
Well, having a mass kill off of humans ( a war or two maybe) would be one temporary solution. However, I don't think it will really solve anything. In a few hundred (or thousand) years we'd be right back where we are now. (Based on historical fact where modern Humans (Homo Sapien Sapien) have only been around for a few ten's thousand years)
Generally true (also from production experience) although using compounds high in metal (like silver) generally produced slightly better results. Production costs generally don't support the small differences though, So you have to go with the combination of what works and is cheapest.
Of course, all of this is more or less automated...
Oh, and although I have soldered heat sinks on before, I prefer to use thermally conductive epoxies... I am a "Production Support Engineer" -- at least that's what my business cards say...
'nuf said...
We're going to divert rivers. We're going to alter the natural habitats of pretty much all life on the planet. Animal species will go extinct (unless we take the time to specifically preserve each and every one). We're going to change the mixture of gases in the air...
At some point, everyone is going to have to come to grips with this. The Earth can't support this many people and still exist in it's "Natural" state. The hard part is not screwing it totally up and ending up with a toxic environment.
Eventually, the land's all going to be either populated area (city / suburb), agricultural, or a managed wildlife "park".
one way or another, you're screwed.
BTW, if you check deeper into the website, you'd find that it's not the motherboard doing the encryption. It's a daughter card attached to the back of the drive, between the drive and the MB. The board mentioned simply comes with all the parts needed to make it happen, in the box. Theoretically (although I didn't see it packaged this way) you could just order the encryption board separately.
And many of the gliders were overloaded (one had a jeep in it and fell like a rock). And they tried to land them in fields without knowing how flat the fields actually were. And many missed the fields (trees and gliders don't mix well). And...
When the police sieze your computer and discover the lock, they can have a judge demand you turn over the key. When you don't, your in contempt of court... And they can then hold you, in jail, until you agree to comply. You could fight it if you want to; although, I wouldn't recommend it.
Soon enough, we will be bowing to the robot overlords! BOW BEFORE YOUR MASTER!
I seem to recall that this solution is available (or maybe they're working on it. ) So, I'd have to ask "Why aren't they using it yet?" or suggest you check into it and present it to the appropriate people up the political food chain.
Actually this isn't so bad. There's lots of stable uranium on Earth anyway. Uranium is actually a naturally occuring element here that's surprisingly common... We've released some of it in a soluble form. The bacteria just lock it back up (like it was to begin with).
The key is: less radiation released into the air. Coal burning actually releases more radioactive material into the air (from the smoke stacks) than does a nuclear plant. The waste products from a reactor aren't generally considered pollution -- they're considered waste; and are well contained (generally)
It's conceivable to build a nuclear plant like this, where the neutron beam is "tuned" to the ideal energy to cause fission in whatever the target material is. It's not necessarily very fficient.
A neutron source isn't easy to build. Ask DOE -- they're currently building one in Oak Ridge. Traditionally they'd build a breader reactor. These aren't very environmentally friendly though, and not very politically palletable. So, the idea is to build a Neutron Spallation source, which generated neutrons by bombarding a dense target material with a beam from a more traditional particle accelerator. It's proving to be a difficult task...
Sturdy DNA with lots of duplicate genes and robust repair mechanisms.