oxygen is abundant. It's a byproduct of the fusion process in stars. It's usually found in oxides and can be found in large quantities there. If you have solar power available in quantity, you can break down the water or silicates or metal oxides to produce the raw metals and all the oxygen you could need.
Ummm, yeah it did. The pulseox meter required 62 uW. A watch sized device could theoretically generate between 100 and 600 uW per the article. The headband was generating 30uW/cm^2 for 3.7mW at 19C during their testing. The shirt required 0.5mW, was generating 0.8 to 5.5mW. All depending on the users activity level and the ambient conditions.
That We know what's best somehow reminded me of "We are the Borg. Lower your shields. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
That might work with some modification but you could see how that might not be a good idea (hyperthermia bad). They did mention an increase in power production when the wearer moves from outdoors to an air conditioned indoor environment.
It's better at conducting heat away from your skin than air; and, because it's extracting energy and using a small radiator as a heat sink, it remains colder than the skin. It only feels cold. It would never actually reach ambient because your body is keeping it above ambient, with the asumption that "ambient" is well below body temperature. From the article:
"At 22C, it produces about 30W/cm2, i.e., close to the theoretical limit of power generation on people at this temperature in a compact device. There is, however, a drawback of such high power generation: at lower ambient temperatures, the heat flow rapidly exceeds the sensation of discomfort and the device turns into uncomfortably cold object. For example, at 19C, the TEG already produces 3.7 mW, but the sensation of cold becomes too annoying. "
It is Vista. It's built from the same source tree. The Aero user interface is a bolt-on feature that you can turn off if you don't like it. Server 2003 was built from the same source tree as Windows XP (or at least started there before branching). Server 2008 R2 is built from the same source tree as Windows 7 (which begs the question, why aren't they changing the version name). That's just how it is.
For fun, lets use 99942 Apophis. It's orbital speed is 30.728 km/s. Now, I know it's the relative velocity that matters; and, the impact wouldn't be at this speed... For argument sake though, I'll use that velocity. Its mass based on the most recent estimates is 2.7x10^12 kg. The kinetic energy is therefor 2.5x10^21 J. Earth receives 174x10^15 J/s total (of which 30% is reflected, blah blah blah). That's 15x10^21 J/24h. So, the kinetic energy of 99942 Apophis, a 270 m diameter rocky NEA, is equivalent to 17% of the total energy received by Earth from the Sun in one day.
Now, a more realistic number for 99942 Apophis is based on the difference in orbital speeds, which is only 2.4x10^18 J, 3 orders of magnitude lower. This is 0.016 % of the energy received by the Earth each day. I'll stop now.
by causing more of it to burn up in the atmosphere you're just shifting the energy input from the Earth's crust to the atmosphere. The damage to the crust will be less or less in any one spot; but, the atmosphere will heat up more. You can end up incinerating everything on the surface that way.
It doesn't quite work like that. anything that is big enough to be a threat... 1 impact, 1000 impacts, the same amount of energy gets released into the system -- that system being Earth. So, what's your goal here? Liquify a region of the crust, or heat the atmosphere to the point that everything on the surface is incinerated, or both?
And on Monday, December 22nd, AT&T's billing department, with the full support of legal, bills Dan Lyons for the increase in the cost of data transfer on the backhaul for December 19th.
Turns out people are interested in real-time tracking of small variations in environmental data. USGS and NOAA, to name two, pay for 0.1% accuracy or better in their instruments. I have an 0.01% barometer sitting in my desk drawer.
You got your units wrong. That's a 115 kPa sensor, or 16.7 PSIA. It's a barometer; a baro of 1.5% accuracy. A waterproof UL / IS / FM approved water level transducer in a rugged welded stainlesss steel casing in roughly the same accuracy range (1%) will cost you a few hundred dollars.
The chemistry is the same but the physical construction and material choices may be different in order to optimize the cell for it's intended use. A battery that needs to supply 3 amps continuously may be constructed differently than a battery that must supply a 100 amp pulse current. For example, one cell may have a simple wire post as an electrode while the other may have a fluted or corrugated metal electrode (increasing the surface area). These differences may not be obvious from the exterior of the cell, which may be made to a standard form factor.
If life had existed for long enough and in a large enough population to create the necessary carbon stores for these hypothetical reservoirs, it would probably still be present in some form.
I'm not saying that I agree with it. The (attempt at) the stick used was economic and trade sanctions. That didn't work. It's clear the Iranian government will do what ever it wants to do in either case.
There are many delivery methods for "the stick". A Buff is just one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
oxygen is abundant. It's a byproduct of the fusion process in stars. It's usually found in oxides and can be found in large quantities there. If you have solar power available in quantity, you can break down the water or silicates or metal oxides to produce the raw metals and all the oxygen you could need.
coal is carbon. carbon is quite common in space. As for oil, use methane instead. There are whole planets of the stuff out there.
You have to have a heat sink as well as a source. Some component would have to remain outside to act as a radiator.
Ummm, yeah it did. The pulseox meter required 62 uW. A watch sized device could theoretically generate between 100 and 600 uW per the article. The headband was generating 30uW/cm^2 for 3.7mW at 19C during their testing. The shirt required 0.5mW, was generating 0.8 to 5.5mW. All depending on the users activity level and the ambient conditions.
That We know what's best somehow reminded me of "We are the Borg. Lower your shields. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
That might work with some modification but you could see how that might not be a good idea (hyperthermia bad). They did mention an increase in power production when the wearer moves from outdoors to an air conditioned indoor environment.
It's better at conducting heat away from your skin than air; and, because it's extracting energy and using a small radiator as a heat sink, it remains colder than the skin. It only feels cold. It would never actually reach ambient because your body is keeping it above ambient, with the asumption that "ambient" is well below body temperature. From the article:
"At 22C, it produces about 30W/cm2, i.e., close to the theoretical limit of power generation on people at this temperature in a compact device. There is, however, a drawback of such high power generation: at lower ambient temperatures, the heat flow rapidly exceeds the sensation of discomfort and the device turns into uncomfortably cold object. For example, at 19C, the TEG already produces 3.7 mW, but the sensation of cold becomes too annoying. "
Most of this was published a long time ago. It has been available information in any major university library for decades. There's no turning back.
I wish I had a cube. I'm in the corner of a common area in a lab, with a community workbench right behind my chair.
It is Vista. It's built from the same source tree. The Aero user interface is a bolt-on feature that you can turn off if you don't like it. Server 2003 was built from the same source tree as Windows XP (or at least started there before branching). Server 2008 R2 is built from the same source tree as Windows 7 (which begs the question, why aren't they changing the version name). That's just how it is.
Dual boot to FreeDOS or DR-DOS. Drivers are a problem sometimes with modern hardware; but, DOS still exists.
WinME was horrible. HUGE memory leaks. Unstable. It was a kludge on Win98SE to fill in for the (late) WinXP desktop.
"Dart"
"WorldCastings"
For fun, lets use 99942 Apophis. It's orbital speed is 30.728 km/s. Now, I know it's the relative velocity that matters; and, the impact wouldn't be at this speed... For argument sake though, I'll use that velocity. Its mass based on the most recent estimates is 2.7x10^12 kg. The kinetic energy is therefor 2.5x10^21 J. Earth receives 174x10^15 J/s total (of which 30% is reflected, blah blah blah). That's 15x10^21 J/24h. So, the kinetic energy of 99942 Apophis, a 270 m diameter rocky NEA, is equivalent to 17% of the total energy received by Earth from the Sun in one day.
Now, a more realistic number for 99942 Apophis is based on the difference in orbital speeds, which is only 2.4x10^18 J, 3 orders of magnitude lower. This is 0.016 % of the energy received by the Earth each day. I'll stop now.
I drink coffee: Black all day long except the first cup some mornings which is basically cafe au lait (call it breakfast).
by causing more of it to burn up in the atmosphere you're just shifting the energy input from the Earth's crust to the atmosphere. The damage to the crust will be less or less in any one spot; but, the atmosphere will heat up more. You can end up incinerating everything on the surface that way.
It doesn't quite work like that. anything that is big enough to be a threat... 1 impact, 1000 impacts, the same amount of energy gets released into the system -- that system being Earth. So, what's your goal here? Liquify a region of the crust, or heat the atmosphere to the point that everything on the surface is incinerated, or both?
And on Monday, December 22nd, AT&T's billing department, with the full support of legal, bills Dan Lyons for the increase in the cost of data transfer on the backhaul for December 19th.
Turns out people are interested in real-time tracking of small variations in environmental data. USGS and NOAA, to name two, pay for 0.1% accuracy or better in their instruments. I have an 0.01% barometer sitting in my desk drawer.
You got your units wrong. That's a 115 kPa sensor, or 16.7 PSIA. It's a barometer; a baro of 1.5% accuracy. A waterproof UL / IS / FM approved water level transducer in a rugged welded stainlesss steel casing in roughly the same accuracy range (1%) will cost you a few hundred dollars.
The chemistry is the same but the physical construction and material choices may be different in order to optimize the cell for it's intended use. A battery that needs to supply 3 amps continuously may be constructed differently than a battery that must supply a 100 amp pulse current. For example, one cell may have a simple wire post as an electrode while the other may have a fluted or corrugated metal electrode (increasing the surface area). These differences may not be obvious from the exterior of the cell, which may be made to a standard form factor.
If life had existed for long enough and in a large enough population to create the necessary carbon stores for these hypothetical reservoirs, it would probably still be present in some form.
I'm not saying that I agree with it. The (attempt at) the stick used was economic and trade sanctions. That didn't work. It's clear the Iranian government will do what ever it wants to do in either case.
There are many delivery methods for "the stick". A Buff is just one of them.
That is essentially an act of war. So, if your aim is to start one, this might do it.
There are two ways to affect change in this case: The stick and the carrot. The stick hasn't worked in 25 years. He's chosen to give the carrot a try.