From the process they are describing it could be fairly cheap and easy to construct once the mechanics are figured out. Large power plants would be more then happy to adjust their exhaust stacks to add something that got them an additional 5% power generation with no more moving parts.
You should also include that when you are going Diesel cogen (or coal) and trying to get efficiencies over 50% you are producing power in the MW not the kW. Needless to say, you aren't going to be fitting that in your basement anytime soon.
Well if you had a large enough septic tank you could used the methane that is generated in the septic tank to power your Fuel Cell. Usually this is done on farms with a couple hundred cattle where there is enough poop to go around.
I think a lot of the set design/ship design came down to a 'look and feel' argument, and your willingness to suspend disbelief.
If they went touch screen/laptop/shiny happy ship we would be back to either (take your pick) USS Enterprise-D or the Battlestar Pegasus (or maybe Voyager may be a better comparison). These ships are top of the line, fully crewed with the cream of the fleet, with top notch systems, equipment and fighter craft.
Instead the writers chose to use the Galactica (otherwise known as The Bucket). A ship that was at the end of its life cycle, on antiquated equipment, about to be decommissioned, shut down, and two steps ahead of being used for target practice. The ship is crewed with the misfits, rejects and unwanted of the fleet (including Adama if you read between the lines in a couple of episodes). Things are broken, get fixed and life goes on without a refit.
The writers consciously decided to avoid the 'Star Trek Look'. I think it allows for better story telling.
I understand that any given ship, character, plot ticket or Checkov's gun only lasts as long as the writers want them to last. The writers do understand this: Filling the screen with needless shoot-em-ups will not advance the story. So the writers have to be able to balance many things on the head of a pin: All of the characters and their current moods/direction, the enemies mood/direction, the current status of the equipment everybody has, the goals that the different sides have. Everyone has to have an investment in the outcome, the 'good guys' the 'bad guys' and the audience. Plus the writers have to produce 20 episodes per season. If we're being gentle, that means one episode written every two weeks. That takes a lot of energy.
If you want a good comparison, try Babylon 5. It as written for television, had a five year run (the fifth year was weak, but that was because the fourth season crammed fifth season material in when they were under threat of cancellation). But look at how the show is paced and the battle sequences are used to propel the plot instead of being the excuse for the plot.
If I wanted to watch an hour of mindless violence with no plot, I'd watch Starcraft or Homeworld replays (retouched with BSG ships) stored as movies.
It was implied tat the being that looked like a cylon (the one leading Starbuck around in her dreams and the mandalla) was not a cylon. So we don't know if the cylons know where Earth is.
There are two reasons for the pieces of paper/table top battle mock ups etc:
1. The in story version is because the humans had to restrict the amount of computer networking etc etc etc because of cylon infiltration and network destruction that could occur. So the Battlestar was designed to run 'low tech' and not be able to be infiltrated by the cylons that way. (Also if you want the shiny happy future-go watch Star Trek with all of their touch screen goodness).
2. It is a concession to the viewer. Viewers can relate to having to shuffle paper and push models on a table in order to gain perspective. This is used so the viewers can related to the characters a bit more.
Just updating firmware can be a tough task for people who have never done it before.
Replacing the camshaft on an engine isn't that hard. You go down to the parts store, buy the parts and install them.
The problem is normally starts at instruction #1: Remove head from engine (may be easier if engine is removed from car).
Yes, I own a Haynes manual for my car. Yes, their instructions are much clearer then my crude example. But a screw up in either case still leaves you without a car.
In reality still need the shop, tools and engine lift. And a second car so you can go the store to get more tools/parts after you get half way into it and realize that you are missing something (and your current car is taken apart). Cam shafts still take 4-8 hours swap (beginning to end). And that assumes you know what you are doing and there are no complications.
So installing someone else's firmware is about on par, it is a major undertaking that if you follow the instructions exactly correct you can get it right. If you screw it up and do not have the knowledge to help yourself out all you are left with is a pile of garbage for someone else to fix.
While you may need the orthopedic seat and to replace the camshaft to make it work, you still need a mechanic to do it or to own your own shop and tools (and skills) to do the work yourself. Most people do not own their own shop to do extensive engine work. Same with computer/firmware work.
The Open Organization of Lockpickers has a fairly in depth discussion of the Abloy series of locks. So far they do not know of anyone who can pick the most recent release of locks from Abloy (The Protec). The other series of locks do not appear to be subject to bumping. Still subject to Picking or decoding though.
I think the fear is that most people use Yale/Master/Cole for their locks. "Abloy is a hoighty toighty lock for rich people who want to feel safer".
Interior locks in general commercial and residential are refered to as "privacy" locks, not "security" locks. Privacy locks give just that, privacy. They are designed to to able to be released with a pen or screwdriver through the access hole that in the door handle. Check out a bathroom door with a 'privacy lock' on it some time.
Most power plants are co-gen plants these days. The energy recovered through a steam generator runs around 5-10% of the total energy of the system. Before fuel cells existed the only choice to get more efficient power generation was to build bigger and bigger power plants.
The problem with miniaturization is that the tolerances are much tighter and harder to produce on a mass scale. That is why we don't have gas turbines that fit in our cars. The tolerances on a turbine that is only a foot across may be in microns. Its alot easier to produce one thirty feet across when the tolerances are measured in thousands of an inch and you can more accurately predict the expansion of the turbine blades when they are in use.
Big stationary power plants are surprisingly efficient. The natural gas plants regularly run a total efficiency in the range of 50% (exact numbers are very guarded). This assumes that the plant runs second stage steam turbines in line with the gas turbine.
Also I have heard that GE has a coal gassification turbine that runs in the area of 60% efficient. And that is with the waste and pollution controls factored into the energy cost.
Short form:
I believe you are missing the point. Fuel cells use the same reactions as buring fuel, only under a very controlled circumstance. Fuel cells do not act like batteries.
Longer form (with a small amount of chemistry):
If you start with a hydrocarbon (methane, gasoline etc). It is made up of Hydrogen and Carbon. Methane being CH4. There is a certain amount of energy in the bonds holding those together. If you introduce Oxygen (O2) and an initiating energy (a spark), the following happens:
(I'll skip the rest of heavy organic chemistry lecture. The short form is here but be ready to consult an organic chemistry and and a combustion theory book for the nitty gritty details.)
From there you have a series of other chemical reactions where energy is released as the compounds break down into CO2 and H20 (Carbon Dioxide and Water).
The amount of energy released is fixed by the amount of methane burned. (I am assuming an idealized stoichiometric reaction with no left overs or pollutants) The method of capturing and using the energy released is what is important.
If you burn the fuel you get: heat and pressure. From there you can use it to generate steam power, electrical power, etc etc etc. The current efficiencies on gasoline engines (in your car) is running around 30%. Most of the waste energy goes out the tail pipe or the radiator. If you are planning on producing electrical energy or driving a vehicle from the power of the engine, you also have to start considering drive train losses.
In a fuel cell: energy is provided to strip chemical bonds that hold methane together, then hydrogen is seperated and then allowed to recombine with the oxygen to make water, the carbon forms carbon dioxide. The second two reactions produce energy. The trick to the fuel cell is that less of the energy is wasted in lost heat, pressure, etc. Efficiencies in fuel cells easily run over forty percent, are quieter and have less drive train losses. The electrical power drives the motor directly with no transmission or gear losses.
IT isn't just that the judge is 'happy' with IBM. IBM's case is very carefully rooted in case law and the evidence produced. So when IBM decides to 'put the hammer down' it has someplace to hang its hat while it does it.
SCO also got a law firm that specializes in dragging things out so the other side will want to come to the table and settle. They just throw delay and delay at you until you throw your hands up in the air and give them money so they go away. They just didn't factor on the idea that IBM does not settle when the issue at hand threatens their (long term) business model.
Once you keep in mind that the law firm SCO hired (BSF) is there to wear people down and force them to settle out of court, all of their tactics make sense. IBM on the other hand has been playing a very clean, very professional game and has been methodically boxing off SCO's avenues of attack over time. I beleive the issue at hand as to how the two sides are conducting their suits comes down to this: SCO is trying to chisel some money out of IBM. IBM is out to win.
If I remember correctly: BSF was paid partially in SCO shares. That would make BSF interested in the financiall well being of the company. If they are not acting in the best interest of the company (like a pump and dump scam) there could be some trouble for that law firm. Let alone the possible corporate veil piercing etc etc.
If it turns out that SCO had nothing though, IBM may be able to pierce the corporate veil and go after the board of directors, the shareholders and anybody who backed them. If it turns out that some other large corporation put SCO up to this (financially or otherwise) they could be in alot of trouble (let alone McBride et. al.).
At one point... Wikipedia hand a temporary ban on the entire IP range from the House of Representatives for doing exactly what you were describing in the last paragraph. I don't know if they came to a consensus for a solution though.
The rich can afford to get the next shiny thing. The poor still pick up the scraps. The law will make it that anyone who can't afford new will have to go without. No one said the law was not being implemented, just the testing will be free for the first six months.
People using the system described as (paraphrasing here): sitting down in your couch/comfy chair and resting your elbows on your knees with your hands in front of you. From there you control the game. So you are sitting in a comfy seat in a comfy position to play your game.
And as far as I know..... (I don't have the facts in front of me). Microsoft was having to sell 10-15 games per console to break even on the Xbox by the end (assuming they are making $10/game). So Microsoft may have lost money on every console they sold, even after the games were sold.
On the flip side: Nintendo's consoles have always made money. The games are just gravy on top.
Slashdot Mirror
From the process they are describing it could be fairly cheap and easy to construct once the mechanics are figured out. Large power plants would be more then happy to adjust their exhaust stacks to add something that got them an additional 5% power generation with no more moving parts.
So I need to change the sulfur filter once a year. Its not like anything else a house doesn't need maintenance.
You should also include that when you are going Diesel cogen (or coal) and trying to get efficiencies over 50% you are producing power in the MW not the kW. Needless to say, you aren't going to be fitting that in your basement anytime soon.
Well if you had a large enough septic tank you could used the methane that is generated in the septic tank to power your Fuel Cell. Usually this is done on farms with a couple hundred cattle where there is enough poop to go around.
There are actually several fuel cell competitors out there right now. MTI comes to mind.
If they went touch screen/laptop/shiny happy ship we would be back to either (take your pick) USS Enterprise-D or the Battlestar Pegasus (or maybe Voyager may be a better comparison). These ships are top of the line, fully crewed with the cream of the fleet, with top notch systems, equipment and fighter craft.
Instead the writers chose to use the Galactica (otherwise known as The Bucket). A ship that was at the end of its life cycle, on antiquated equipment, about to be decommissioned, shut down, and two steps ahead of being used for target practice. The ship is crewed with the misfits, rejects and unwanted of the fleet (including Adama if you read between the lines in a couple of episodes). Things are broken, get fixed and life goes on without a refit.
The writers consciously decided to avoid the 'Star Trek Look'. I think it allows for better story telling.
I understand that any given ship, character, plot ticket or Checkov's gun only lasts as long as the writers want them to last. The writers do understand this: Filling the screen with needless shoot-em-ups will not advance the story. So the writers have to be able to balance many things on the head of a pin: All of the characters and their current moods/direction, the enemies mood/direction, the current status of the equipment everybody has, the goals that the different sides have. Everyone has to have an investment in the outcome, the 'good guys' the 'bad guys' and the audience. Plus the writers have to produce 20 episodes per season. If we're being gentle, that means one episode written every two weeks. That takes a lot of energy.
If you want a good comparison, try Babylon 5. It as written for television, had a five year run (the fifth year was weak, but that was because the fourth season crammed fifth season material in when they were under threat of cancellation). But look at how the show is paced and the battle sequences are used to propel the plot instead of being the excuse for the plot.
If I wanted to watch an hour of mindless violence with no plot, I'd watch Starcraft or Homeworld replays (retouched with BSG ships) stored as movies.
It was implied tat the being that looked like a cylon (the one leading Starbuck around in her dreams and the mandalla) was not a cylon. So we don't know if the cylons know where Earth is.
There are two reasons for the pieces of paper/table top battle mock ups etc: 1. The in story version is because the humans had to restrict the amount of computer networking etc etc etc because of cylon infiltration and network destruction that could occur. So the Battlestar was designed to run 'low tech' and not be able to be infiltrated by the cylons that way. (Also if you want the shiny happy future-go watch Star Trek with all of their touch screen goodness). 2. It is a concession to the viewer. Viewers can relate to having to shuffle paper and push models on a table in order to gain perspective. This is used so the viewers can related to the characters a bit more.
Soze says this can mean only one thing: STEALTH WHALES!
Replacing the camshaft on an engine isn't that hard. You go down to the parts store, buy the parts and install them.
The problem is normally starts at instruction #1: Remove head from engine (may be easier if engine is removed from car). Yes, I own a Haynes manual for my car. Yes, their instructions are much clearer then my crude example. But a screw up in either case still leaves you without a car. In reality still need the shop, tools and engine lift. And a second car so you can go the store to get more tools/parts after you get half way into it and realize that you are missing something (and your current car is taken apart). Cam shafts still take 4-8 hours swap (beginning to end). And that assumes you know what you are doing and there are no complications. So installing someone else's firmware is about on par, it is a major undertaking that if you follow the instructions exactly correct you can get it right. If you screw it up and do not have the knowledge to help yourself out all you are left with is a pile of garbage for someone else to fix.
While you may need the orthopedic seat and to replace the camshaft to make it work, you still need a mechanic to do it or to own your own shop and tools (and skills) to do the work yourself. Most people do not own their own shop to do extensive engine work. Same with computer/firmware work.
The Open Organization of Lockpickers has a fairly in depth discussion of the Abloy series of locks. So far they do not know of anyone who can pick the most recent release of locks from Abloy (The Protec). The other series of locks do not appear to be subject to bumping. Still subject to Picking or decoding though. I think the fear is that most people use Yale/Master/Cole for their locks. "Abloy is a hoighty toighty lock for rich people who want to feel safer".
Interior locks in general commercial and residential are refered to as "privacy" locks, not "security" locks. Privacy locks give just that, privacy. They are designed to to able to be released with a pen or screwdriver through the access hole that in the door handle. Check out a bathroom door with a 'privacy lock' on it some time.
The problem with miniaturization is that the tolerances are much tighter and harder to produce on a mass scale. That is why we don't have gas turbines that fit in our cars. The tolerances on a turbine that is only a foot across may be in microns. Its alot easier to produce one thirty feet across when the tolerances are measured in thousands of an inch and you can more accurately predict the expansion of the turbine blades when they are in use.
Also I have heard that GE has a coal gassification turbine that runs in the area of 60% efficient. And that is with the waste and pollution controls factored into the energy cost.
CH4 + O2 + Energy --> CH3 + H02 (Chain initiation)
(I'll skip the rest of heavy organic chemistry lecture. The short form is here but be ready to consult an organic chemistry and and a combustion theory book for the nitty gritty details.)
From there you have a series of other chemical reactions where energy is released as the compounds break down into CO2 and H20 (Carbon Dioxide and Water).
The amount of energy released is fixed by the amount of methane burned. (I am assuming an idealized stoichiometric reaction with no left overs or pollutants) The method of capturing and using the energy released is what is important.
If you burn the fuel you get: heat and pressure. From there you can use it to generate steam power, electrical power, etc etc etc. The current efficiencies on gasoline engines (in your car) is running around 30%. Most of the waste energy goes out the tail pipe or the radiator. If you are planning on producing electrical energy or driving a vehicle from the power of the engine, you also have to start considering drive train losses.
In a fuel cell: energy is provided to strip chemical bonds that hold methane together, then hydrogen is seperated and then allowed to recombine with the oxygen to make water, the carbon forms carbon dioxide. The second two reactions produce energy. The trick to the fuel cell is that less of the energy is wasted in lost heat, pressure, etc. Efficiencies in fuel cells easily run over forty percent, are quieter and have less drive train losses. The electrical power drives the motor directly with no transmission or gear losses.
IT isn't just that the judge is 'happy' with IBM. IBM's case is very carefully rooted in case law and the evidence produced. So when IBM decides to 'put the hammer down' it has someplace to hang its hat while it does it.
Once you keep in mind that the law firm SCO hired (BSF) is there to wear people down and force them to settle out of court, all of their tactics make sense. IBM on the other hand has been playing a very clean, very professional game and has been methodically boxing off SCO's avenues of attack over time. I beleive the issue at hand as to how the two sides are conducting their suits comes down to this: SCO is trying to chisel some money out of IBM. IBM is out to win.
If I remember correctly: BSF was paid partially in SCO shares. That would make BSF interested in the financiall well being of the company. If they are not acting in the best interest of the company (like a pump and dump scam) there could be some trouble for that law firm. Let alone the possible corporate veil piercing etc etc.
If it turns out that SCO had nothing though, IBM may be able to pierce the corporate veil and go after the board of directors, the shareholders and anybody who backed them. If it turns out that some other large corporation put SCO up to this (financially or otherwise) they could be in alot of trouble (let alone McBride et. al.).
At one point... Wikipedia hand a temporary ban on the entire IP range from the House of Representatives for doing exactly what you were describing in the last paragraph. I don't know if they came to a consensus for a solution though.
People using the system described as (paraphrasing here): sitting down in your couch/comfy chair and resting your elbows on your knees with your hands in front of you. From there you control the game. So you are sitting in a comfy seat in a comfy position to play your game.
And as far as I know..... (I don't have the facts in front of me). Microsoft was having to sell 10-15 games per console to break even on the Xbox by the end (assuming they are making $10/game). So Microsoft may have lost money on every console they sold, even after the games were sold. On the flip side: Nintendo's consoles have always made money. The games are just gravy on top.