Also, bearing in mind that the bel scale is logarithmic - 550dBel is enough to probably tear a chunk out of the planet - imagine nuclear detonation shockwave scale noise!
Hmm... 55db in W/m^2 is about... 1x10^30. Yeah, that's a lot of energy. We could use these as a future energy solution - if they take 1500W in, and put out millions of exawatts...
Google says:
The Juicer is... easy to use, has excellent handling and response. comfortable and inviting interior; superior towing and cargo-hauling versatility.
1 It doesn't need to delay the launch, it can be done concurrently - much like they don't stop fuelling even until the damn thing is beginning to leave the ground
2 Inuslation[sic] Cryogenic insulators aren't that expensive - for liquid He the cost is greater, but not that much - He is liquid below 3.8k only. A good vacuum is a good vacuum. And to be honest, it wouldn't need to be *that* great to do the job - an average thermos would do the trick - it's how we transported lox for experiments back at uni.
Point taken, but all they're talking about is ice forming on the pipe in the few hours before launch while it's all being primed, so any insulation or heating implements could be jettisoned prior to launch. The solution could be as low tech as somebody getting up there with a hot air blower.
My point was that a lot seemingly complex issues have cheap, easy solutions. People love to overcomplicate.
1. As long as it takes for the ice to be removed before launch
2. Really? how much did you pay for your last thermos? You must have been ripped off. And if it's icing up, then no, it isn't insulted like that.
3. Again, it only needs to be done directly before launch
RTFA, AC. All they're worried about is ice falling off it when it launches. If ice is removed before launch, it's a non issue.
1. Durrr geee not all de-icers are flammable (ever been in an aeroplane? that pink crap they spray on the wings is de-icer. it's ethanol with anti-combustion agents blended in.
2 you could wrap it in a vacuum sleeve. very thin, very light, very efficient.
3 er, no. you need a varying temperature gradient for that - the purpose of the air would not be to heat the pipe, just to prevent moisture from being in the air around it. picture a hairdrier.
Uh, no. The particulate matter being moved there is incredibly light - because the atmosphere is so much thinner, the energy attainable with a surface area of turbine is proportionally less. Solar power is a much better idea.
No, the laws which piss me off are those which make me unable to do things with my time as I choose them, things which could only possibly affect me, such as (not that I'm into this kind of thing), but in the UK sado-masochism is illegal. It counts as assault. It's illegal for me to drive on my own land, if I have no driving license. It's illegal for me to wire my own house, even if i live in the middle of nowhere. It's illegal for me to lay my own network cables. It's illegal for me to posess or purchase non-addictive drugs - seriously, what's up with that?
Hear hear! And, with my trusty landy by my side, I can cruise straight over them, thereby bypassing the need to steer. Ah, trusty roundabouts. Trusty landy. Trusty blind/deaf/dumb british police.
Call me silly, but how is 'making computers safer' a good thing? I don't *need* protecting from the big bad wide world, there are enough intrusions into my life to make it 'safer' as it is - each and almost every one of them pisses me off.
By placing nearby particles in a specific enough configuration you can produce a volume where the probability of anything being there is near as damnit zero - which coveres everything, everywhere - an electron over jupiter has an extremely low probability of tunneling to anywhere near our hole (although it does, in some small way, exist there), but it's existence there is so infintesimal it can be called zero.
You can actually guarantee that it will be empty, by creating wave functions that overlap in such a fashion that the probability of a particle being in that space is, in fact, 0, or, by creating wavefunctions which when combined state that the probability of there not being something in that location is infinite. Picture two asymptotic curves joining at a vertical axis, mirrored.
There are a lot of extremely odd quantum effects which aren't physically possible, in any classical or comprehensible universe, however do happen. For instance, it's possible to create a negative temperature. Not negative, as in minus 22 farenheit, but negative, as in below absolute zero!
This happens when you rapidly invert the polarity of a magnetic field in which is contained a bose-einstein condensate - in the time that it takes for the condensate to re-align it's spin, it has a rapid change from a negative temperature to a positive temperature once more. The energy of a negative temperature is, actually, greater than that of an infinite positive temperature!
Anyway, enough quantum rambling. If you don't believe me, look here.
Probably not, no. The major stumbling block in satellite imagery is atmospheric distortion, as you say. Even with adaptive optics and intense post-processing the degree of blur caused by particulate scattering and heat lensing effects cannot be corrected. The only way that I can see this working is if a grid of (high power) infrared lasers, each tuned to a slightly different frequency, were pointed at the target being photographed, in such a fashion that if projected in a perfectly straight line they'd cover it completely with a 1x1 mm resolution or what have you - from where those lasers end up you might be able to do some adapation, but to be honest by the time you'd bounced a laser off the planet and back , and then processed the signal, the conditions would have changed.
So, all in all, no, this won't affect the absolute resolution limit on satellite photography, advances in adaptive optics and post-processing will.
I row for britain. At 6'3", and 120kg, I'm clinically obese. Funny that, don't have an ounce of fat on my body. BMI seriously sucks as an indicator of health.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, your sed syntax shows it.
Also, bearing in mind that the bel scale is logarithmic - 550dBel is enough to probably tear a chunk out of the planet - imagine nuclear detonation shockwave scale noise!
Hmm... 55db in W/m^2 is about... 1x10^30. Yeah, that's a lot of energy. We could use these as a future energy solution - if they take 1500W in, and put out millions of exawatts...
Google says: The Juicer is... easy to use, has excellent handling and response. comfortable and inviting interior; superior towing and cargo-hauling versatility.
Stay and watch the credits - about 3 or 4 minutes into them there are some bonus scenes from the guide!
1 It doesn't need to delay the launch, it can be done concurrently - much like they don't stop fuelling even until the damn thing is beginning to leave the ground
2 Inuslation[sic] Cryogenic insulators aren't that expensive - for liquid He the cost is greater, but not that much - He is liquid below 3.8k only. A good vacuum is a good vacuum. And to be honest, it wouldn't need to be *that* great to do the job - an average thermos would do the trick - it's how we transported lox for experiments back at uni.
3. See 1.
Point taken, but all they're talking about is ice forming on the pipe in the few hours before launch while it's all being primed, so any insulation or heating implements could be jettisoned prior to launch. The solution could be as low tech as somebody getting up there with a hot air blower.
My point was that a lot seemingly complex issues have cheap, easy solutions. People love to overcomplicate.
1. As long as it takes for the ice to be removed before launch
2. Really? how much did you pay for your last thermos? You must have been ripped off. And if it's icing up, then no, it isn't insulted like that.
3. Again, it only needs to be done directly before launch
RTFA, AC. All they're worried about is ice falling off it when it launches. If ice is removed before launch, it's a non issue.
Yes, but how does it look to potential customers if they won't run their own software?
'no no, the software is for you, we don't use it because, er... it's too good for us! yeah, too good...'
It's as much a publicity stunt as it is anything else for them to do this migration.
1. Durrr geee not all de-icers are flammable (ever been in an aeroplane? that pink crap they spray on the wings is de-icer. it's ethanol with anti-combustion agents blended in. 2 you could wrap it in a vacuum sleeve. very thin, very light, very efficient. 3 er, no. you need a varying temperature gradient for that - the purpose of the air would not be to heat the pipe, just to prevent moisture from being in the air around it. picture a hairdrier.
Spray de-icer on it? Wrap it in an insulator? Blow warm dry air over it? Why can't there be a low tech solution to this?
Bollocks. good point. thunder-thunder-thunderbirds! by the powerrrrr of tracey island... I, have, the power!
Apple steal for the "Future Cat" operating system
Thundercats are go!
What, exactly, is Longhorn going to do? They seem to have dropped more features from it than there were in the first place!
Uh, no. The particulate matter being moved there is incredibly light - because the atmosphere is so much thinner, the energy attainable with a surface area of turbine is proportionally less. Solar power is a much better idea.
No, the laws which piss me off are those which make me unable to do things with my time as I choose them, things which could only possibly affect me, such as (not that I'm into this kind of thing), but in the UK sado-masochism is illegal. It counts as assault. It's illegal for me to drive on my own land, if I have no driving license. It's illegal for me to wire my own house, even if i live in the middle of nowhere. It's illegal for me to lay my own network cables. It's illegal for me to posess or purchase non-addictive drugs - seriously, what's up with that?
Hear hear! And, with my trusty landy by my side, I can cruise straight over them, thereby bypassing the need to steer. Ah, trusty roundabouts. Trusty landy. Trusty blind/deaf/dumb british police.
do something good with it (make computers safer)
Call me silly, but how is 'making computers safer' a good thing? I don't *need* protecting from the big bad wide world, there are enough intrusions into my life to make it 'safer' as it is - each and almost every one of them pisses me off.
By placing nearby particles in a specific enough configuration you can produce a volume where the probability of anything being there is near as damnit zero - which coveres everything, everywhere - an electron over jupiter has an extremely low probability of tunneling to anywhere near our hole (although it does, in some small way, exist there), but it's existence there is so infintesimal it can be called zero.
You can actually guarantee that it will be empty, by creating wave functions that overlap in such a fashion that the probability of a particle being in that space is, in fact, 0, or, by creating wavefunctions which when combined state that the probability of there not being something in that location is infinite. Picture two asymptotic curves joining at a vertical axis, mirrored.
There are a lot of extremely odd quantum effects which aren't physically possible, in any classical or comprehensible universe, however do happen. For instance, it's possible to create a negative temperature. Not negative, as in minus 22 farenheit, but negative, as in below absolute zero!
This happens when you rapidly invert the polarity of a magnetic field in which is contained a bose-einstein condensate - in the time that it takes for the condensate to re-align it's spin, it has a rapid change from a negative temperature to a positive temperature once more. The energy of a negative temperature is, actually, greater than that of an infinite positive temperature!
Anyway, enough quantum rambling. If you don't believe me, look here.
Ah, yes, you're right, I understand entirely. Thankyou. Just bear with me while I go re-arrange the universe to correspond with what you just said.
Think it might be a while before we deplete the universe of Si.... could this hold up quantum computing?
Probably not, no. The major stumbling block in satellite imagery is atmospheric distortion, as you say. Even with adaptive optics and intense post-processing the degree of blur caused by particulate scattering and heat lensing effects cannot be corrected. The only way that I can see this working is if a grid of (high power) infrared lasers, each tuned to a slightly different frequency, were pointed at the target being photographed, in such a fashion that if projected in a perfectly straight line they'd cover it completely with a 1x1 mm resolution or what have you - from where those lasers end up you might be able to do some adapation, but to be honest by the time you'd bounced a laser off the planet and back , and then processed the signal, the conditions would have changed.
So, all in all, no, this won't affect the absolute resolution limit on satellite photography, advances in adaptive optics and post-processing will.
I row for britain. At 6'3", and 120kg, I'm clinically obese. Funny that, don't have an ounce of fat on my body. BMI seriously sucks as an indicator of health.
RFC 1149
101!