I see that my perception of fuel prices has been skewed by bulk contracts, which have been my only experience with fuel purchases at airports. I did not realize the markup was so high.
JP-4 is not especially rare; it is just optimized for cold weather. I think the Canadian military uses it. Here is a reference supporting that identification of the fuel used.
The only price reference I could find for JP-4 was in a West Virginia document from 1988 about taxes. Anyway, $0.41 per gallon there and then.
JP-4 is designed for colder weather, and has a flash point of -40F. Gasoline has a very low flash point, so it would be suitable to add for the purpose of reducing the resultant flash point. Here is a link to a decent summary of jet fuel types: www.goatse.cx
One could argue that they dump fuel less than the other aircraft in the airwing, because they hold so little of it. Of course the argument is less fun if actual data is used.
Fuel does evaporate more easily at high altitude. Perhaps you have seen a demonstration of water boiling at room temperature in a vacuum. Fuel will do the same thing. The atmospheric pressure at altitude is, of course, lower than it is at sea level, so evaporation is quicker.
Countering that, though, is the cold. Lower temperatures reduce vapor pressures of all liquids. (Generalization is included to invite counter-example.)
Many planes will pressurize fuel tanks to reduce evaporation, as well as assist fuel transfer. Also common are fuel pre-heaters to aid in combustion.
Jet fuel is cheaper than gasoline. One reason is that it is a lower grade fuel. Turbines don't need the volatility of an internal combustion engine.
Another reason is that the infrastructure for distribution is a bit simpler. Jet fuel is delivered to airports, where it is sold in bulk (relative to auto fuel, anyway).
The article also said that it would cost below $1 per peak watt, which I take to mean slightly below. I wonder if we are comparing cost to manufacture with price to buy.... The price I quoted is for a currently available product.
Where I work, we have a pretty strong culture of enforcing "if your phone goes off during a meeting, you buy a round of beer." Even when there isn't an opportunity to collect, there is enough of a stigma to cause the offender to scramble to silence the phone quickly.
''(iii) The manufacturer shall ensure that any software used in connection with the voting system is not transferred over the Internet.
That may be more reasonable if it is taken to mean that during use, the voting machine is not tranferring software over the internet. I'm sure a team of lawyers would have to reword that section to make it say that, as right now it seems ambiguous, ridiculous, or both.
My wife put up some windchimes, made of metal with a wooden striker. I found they sounded much better with a rubber band wrapped around each tube. It would cause a more rapid decay in volume. That wasn't quite good enough, though, so I found a sheltered area that doesn't get much wind to hang it in.
We also have one that is made of bamboo. It sounds better, probably because it is quieter.
You can also try stuffing the tubes with some damping material, like packing peanuts or expanding foam. Use this if you need to sabotage your own wind chimes, for whatever reason.
I thought it was the two chevrons used in the logo on the hood. I guess it is kind of silly to name a car after a hood ornament when you could name it after the engine.
I read something years ago about hemp being a great substitute for trees in the paper industry. The benefits were due to quick growth times (under a year), which led to being able to get five times as much pulp as from an equivalent acreage of trees. The only problem is that hemp looks like marijuana, so is illegal to grow in many places.
It was before my time, but I hear that the original reason hemp was made illegal was to protect the paper industry. That just morphed over time into the war on marijuana. I don't smoke, but I have been known to use paper.
I don't know WTF is wrong with all these people complaining that "starbucks coffee is burnt" either -- it's not the best there is, but it's decent, and of course about 5 billion times better than traditional American coffee.
Many of the fiercest arguments I've heard revolve around 'which is better.' Of course, coffee is a matter of taste, so different people will like different brews. Likewise, different coffee beverages are appropriate at different times; breakfast and after dinner are two different occasions that call for different brews, in my opinion.
My father-in-law likes Budweiser, while I prefer Sam Adams. Of course, a long-term drinking event and a NASCAR race each call for a lighter beer, as does breakfast. Similar differences can be found in wine.
Generally, it seems that it is the people who use their beverage preferences to make up a large part of their personal identities who argue most vehemently in favor of their preferences. Better would be to sample widely, try what the locals drink, and don't look down on people because of their [fucked-up] tastes.
Since most responses ignore the question and talk about cabling (cable is not a gadget, electronic or otherwise), I will supply a few lame ideas:
Weather monitoring station. Probably somewhere high up for the sensors, with a more convenient location for the display. Presumably, these will be LAN appliances some day, needing only ethernet.
Digital interface for an aerial antenna. If you ever want to transmit pirate TV like the telestreet movement in Italy, or do the A/D conversion of over-the-air television closer to the source.
Lighting control bus. Like X-10 works over power lines, perhaps more flexibility would be available if the control circuit has its own data bus.
Irrigation control. Depending on climate, of course.
I missed the part where you were concerning your comment with the storage medium for energy. It seemed you were referring to both hydrogen and electricity as energy sources, which is of course ridiculous, hence my sarcasm.
Considering that hydrogen is only really viable as a short-term method of storing energy (used as a way to smooth out the demand curve and increase portability), it does not seem to be in danger of escaping into space. I would think that any ozone we have left in the upper atmosphere would turn the (lightweight) hydrogen into (heavyweight, relatively) water, helping prevent its gravititational escape. Same for ultraviolet radiation.
Biomass fuels are lauded for being carbon-neutral, which is a good temporary solution to an excess of CO2 in the air. (In effect buying time before we need to actively reduce the free-air carbon) Rather than using crops grown for fuel as a source for carbon intended for sequestering, perhaps just increasing the plant mass in the forests would be more practicable. Maybe some day we will be building high-rise structures out of carbon fiber, providing more non-fuel use of carbon.
Back to batteries, and coming full-circle back to hydrogen: It seems like fuel cells are the up-and-coming method for remote production of electricity. As I understand it, the materials used are less hazardous than a typical battery, and the energy density is somewhat greater. All that is missing is a bunch of tidal turbines to harness ocean energy and make hydrogen or some other suitable fuel.
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yes, this electric power thing is definitely the way to go. Electrons are all around us, they just need to be harnessed. Using subatomic particles is also one step better for the environment than using hydrogen by itself.
Just one thing: How do you get the electrons to move and do work? Perhaps if there were some method of applying an "electromotive force," the idea would be complete.
Any existing authorities on Mars would, of course, have jurisdiction over any martian terraforming activities. Yes, other countries would have a right to object. People object to things all the time.
In the (apparent) case of there being no existing authorities on Mars, terraforming said planet would be an unregulated enterprise, with no need to conform with any Earth-bound zoning regulations at all. If the various governments with the means to do this all agree not to, then perhaps some non-governmental entity would step into the void and do it with private funds. You know, like Dr. Evil did with the volcano.
Slashdot Mirror
I see that my perception of fuel prices has been skewed by bulk contracts, which have been my only experience with fuel purchases at airports. I did not realize the markup was so high.
The only price reference I could find for JP-4 was in a West Virginia document from 1988 about taxes. Anyway, $0.41 per gallon there and then.
JP-4 is designed for colder weather, and has a flash point of -40F. Gasoline has a very low flash point, so it would be suitable to add for the purpose of reducing the resultant flash point. Here is a link to a decent summary of jet fuel types: www.goatse.cx
One could argue that they dump fuel less than the other aircraft in the airwing, because they hold so little of it. Of course the argument is less fun if actual data is used.
Countering that, though, is the cold. Lower temperatures reduce vapor pressures of all liquids. (Generalization is included to invite counter-example.)
Many planes will pressurize fuel tanks to reduce evaporation, as well as assist fuel transfer. Also common are fuel pre-heaters to aid in combustion.
Another reason is that the infrastructure for distribution is a bit simpler. Jet fuel is delivered to airports, where it is sold in bulk (relative to auto fuel, anyway).
The article also said that it would cost below $1 per peak watt, which I take to mean slightly below. I wonder if we are comparing cost to manufacture with price to buy.... The price I quoted is for a currently available product.
Best comment I have yet read on Slashdot. (emphasis mine)
Where I work, we have a pretty strong culture of enforcing "if your phone goes off during a meeting, you buy a round of beer." Even when there isn't an opportunity to collect, there is enough of a stigma to cause the offender to scramble to silence the phone quickly.
That may be more reasonable if it is taken to mean that during use, the voting machine is not tranferring software over the internet. I'm sure a team of lawyers would have to reword that section to make it say that, as right now it seems ambiguous, ridiculous, or both.
We also have one that is made of bamboo. It sounds better, probably because it is quieter.
You can also try stuffing the tubes with some damping material, like packing peanuts or expanding foam. Use this if you need to sabotage your own wind chimes, for whatever reason.
I thought it was the two chevrons used in the logo on the hood. I guess it is kind of silly to name a car after a hood ornament when you could name it after the engine.
In this example, I was one of the others.
I had to gnaw my arm off to make it through that one alive, it was so horrible.
Actually, the ugly boob was Justin Timberlake.
That is one way, but a better way is WiFi Speed Spray.
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
Earl-eye in the morning!
Shave his belly with a rusty razor,
Shave his belly with a rusty razor,
Shave his belly with a rusty razor,
Earl-eye in the morning!
It was before my time, but I hear that the original reason hemp was made illegal was to protect the paper industry. That just morphed over time into the war on marijuana. I don't smoke, but I have been known to use paper.
Many of the fiercest arguments I've heard revolve around 'which is better.' Of course, coffee is a matter of taste, so different people will like different brews. Likewise, different coffee beverages are appropriate at different times; breakfast and after dinner are two different occasions that call for different brews, in my opinion.
My father-in-law likes Budweiser, while I prefer Sam Adams. Of course, a long-term drinking event and a NASCAR race each call for a lighter beer, as does breakfast. Similar differences can be found in wine.
Generally, it seems that it is the people who use their beverage preferences to make up a large part of their personal identities who argue most vehemently in favor of their preferences. Better would be to sample widely, try what the locals drink, and don't look down on people because of their [fucked-up] tastes.
Weather monitoring station. Probably somewhere high up for the sensors, with a more convenient location for the display. Presumably, these will be LAN appliances some day, needing only ethernet.
Digital interface for an aerial antenna. If you ever want to transmit pirate TV like the telestreet movement in Italy, or do the A/D conversion of over-the-air television closer to the source.
Lighting control bus. Like X-10 works over power lines, perhaps more flexibility would be available if the control circuit has its own data bus.
Irrigation control. Depending on climate, of course.
Whole house audio.
Whole house video.
Toaster network.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head, except for the obvious computer network thing, of course.
Considering that hydrogen is only really viable as a short-term method of storing energy (used as a way to smooth out the demand curve and increase portability), it does not seem to be in danger of escaping into space. I would think that any ozone we have left in the upper atmosphere would turn the (lightweight) hydrogen into (heavyweight, relatively) water, helping prevent its gravititational escape. Same for ultraviolet radiation.
Biomass fuels are lauded for being carbon-neutral, which is a good temporary solution to an excess of CO2 in the air. (In effect buying time before we need to actively reduce the free-air carbon) Rather than using crops grown for fuel as a source for carbon intended for sequestering, perhaps just increasing the plant mass in the forests would be more practicable. Maybe some day we will be building high-rise structures out of carbon fiber, providing more non-fuel use of carbon.
Back to batteries, and coming full-circle back to hydrogen: It seems like fuel cells are the up-and-coming method for remote production of electricity. As I understand it, the materials used are less hazardous than a typical battery, and the energy density is somewhat greater. All that is missing is a bunch of tidal turbines to harness ocean energy and make hydrogen or some other suitable fuel.
You need to re-check the details of that formula. This should get you started.
...or there is communications infrastructure between you and the sea, which, of course, is the missing element in Afghanistan.
Yes, this electric power thing is definitely the way to go. Electrons are all around us, they just need to be harnessed. Using subatomic particles is also one step better for the environment than using hydrogen by itself.
Just one thing: How do you get the electrons to move and do work? Perhaps if there were some method of applying an "electromotive force," the idea would be complete.
In the (apparent) case of there being no existing authorities on Mars, terraforming said planet would be an unregulated enterprise, with no need to conform with any Earth-bound zoning regulations at all. If the various governments with the means to do this all agree not to, then perhaps some non-governmental entity would step into the void and do it with private funds. You know, like Dr. Evil did with the volcano.