While antimony is currently inexpensive, it is also rather rare. This would appear to put a limit on the expansion possibilities for the battery if they continue to use it.
We made punch card decks to run assembly language on the school district's IBM 1440. We made the cards after hours, when the computer input class wasn't using them. They had a Fortran compiler but we were told the huge deck of cards made it not feasible for student programs. This was the project of a counsellor, and the grade didn't count in our average.
My program was Conway's Life, and I got it to run.
Why do you bring up potassium? I never did. Potassium-40 is indeed much less dangerous. There is an alpha emitter in the decay chain of radon, too. It is pretty nasty.
1.2 trillion Becquerels of Plutonium is almost none?
From Wikipedia, compare: "The highest levels found (of Pu-239 and Pu-240 combined) were 15 becquerels per square meters" and "up to 35 bq / kg plutonium 241 in leaf litter" to "4.7Mbq / kg" for cesium contamination. I consider 50 to 4,700,000 to be almost none. (I'm not sure how to compare a square meter to a kilogram, though).
First off, I don't think radon is the leading source of radiation dose to the population; the leading source is natural radioactivity. It may be true that radon is the leading source of artificial radiation dose to the population.
Why would you think that radon is unnatural? It is a decay product of naturally occurring uranium and thorium. Perhaps CT scans, which feature artificial radiation, are more important for some people, but there are a large number exposed to high radon levels.
LNT may or may not be correct, but it is the most conservative model.
I have to agree about Canticle, although I really don't remember whether I finished it or not.
If I'm going to read something depressing, at least it should be short. Each an Explorer, by Isaac Asimov, was pretty depressing, but at least it was short.
Whether we can afford to burn oil until it runs out isn't known, especially since what counts as oil changes. There is for sure enough coal that we can dig up to cause big problems.
What we can do about it is to replace coal with nuclear, electrify most transportation, change refining processes (no more coke for iron) and use different material for cement. What's left we can offset by grinding up the right rocks to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Well, that's my recommendation anyhow. I don't expect to live the fifty years or so before we face serious consequences.
Right now with gas prices dropping to below $3 a gallon in my area, a Prius operating at 50 MPG costs 6 cents a mile in fuel. How does the Tesla compare?
I make it as about four cents, assuming you pay the national average for power. But, a Prius is not the proper comparison. A BMW 5 series is about right. Really, the question is whether the quiet ride and performance is worth the lack of range - fuel costs don't matter to these people.
I used the GMP. It includes an isprime() function. I've been meaning to install it on my computer, and the assertion by sexconker gave me the motivation to actually do it. It just took a simple decrement by two and test for primality loop.
I think it is far more likely that we'll extend human lifespans than that we will achieve such speeds. Who cares if it takes 1,000 years to get to another star if you're going to live for millions?
Planetary change is a normal thing, and will continue as the sun's output varies (and the sun eventually dies). This will happen NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. The Earth has warmed and cooled many time in the past without human intervention.
Yes, but when has it warmed this fast? The last time I can find is the end of the last snowball Earth episode (which was much faster). I would at least like to see us slow it down, and I think promoting nuclear power and electric cars is our best bet.
The earth's tilt doesn't matter, it is just at 23 degrees fairly small and I was ignoring it. It is the rather the sun's that matters, as it is just our closest example of a star. The sun doesn't rotate in the plane of the galaxy, and there is no reason to think that other stars preferentially do, either. Since a pulsar is created in a supernova there is even another randomizing event involved. A pulsars axis is not going to be governed by the galaxy's plane.
The Earth is tilted on its axis by 23 degrees, as you later point out it is tilted at 60 degrees compared to the galactic ecliptic. These do not match. As far as I can tell the orientation of a star's rotational axis is random, and probably uniformly distributed.
Assuming a pulsar's magnetic field is roughly aligned with its rotational axis, we would not even see distant pulsars in this galaxy if their axis was perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy.
In practice, most pulsars in a given galaxy probably rotate/emit more or less in the galactic plane...
I don't think so. The Milky Way doesn't follow the equator, for example. Also, if they rotated in the galactic plane their emissions would be perpendicular to the plane.
Unfortunately, all of mine did break. Just bad luck, I guess. I am now using a 23" 2048x1152 monitor I've had for a couple of years, and it cost much less than my late lamented 19" CRT. I guess most people just don't care.
Even storing every position would take the matter content of a small galaxy.
Nah, the total number of positions is only 10 to the 43 to 47 power, which is fewer than the atoms in the Earth. I wouldn't hold my breath on when we'll get them all calculated, though.
This has nothing to do with carbon offsets. You plant a forest, you get an offset. If the forest is chopped down the offset should go away, but it probably won't.
The area of the Earth is 510 trillion square meters. Human emitted carbon dioxide currently adds about 1.7 watts per square meter. The total energy used by man is only 15 trillion watts.
Slashdot Mirror
While antimony is currently inexpensive, it is also rather rare. This would appear to put a limit on the expansion possibilities for the battery if they continue to use it.
Other than an operating nuclear reactor, neutron radiation is pretty rare. Which sill leaves you with the gammas, of course.
We made punch card decks to run assembly language on the school district's IBM 1440. We made the cards after hours, when the computer input class wasn't using them. They had a Fortran compiler but we were told the huge deck of cards made it not feasible for student programs. This was the project of a counsellor, and the grade didn't count in our average.
My program was Conway's Life, and I got it to run.
Why do you bring up potassium? I never did. Potassium-40 is indeed much less dangerous. There is an alpha emitter in the decay chain of radon, too. It is pretty nasty.
From Wikipedia, compare: "The highest levels found (of Pu-239 and Pu-240 combined) were 15 becquerels per square meters" and "up to 35 bq / kg plutonium 241 in leaf litter" to "4.7Mbq / kg" for cesium contamination. I consider 50 to 4,700,000 to be almost none. (I'm not sure how to compare a square meter to a kilogram, though).
Why would you think that radon is unnatural? It is a decay product of naturally occurring uranium and thorium. Perhaps CT scans, which feature artificial radiation, are more important for some people, but there are a large number exposed to high radon levels.
LNT may or may not be correct, but it is the most conservative model.
Radon isn't the end of the decay chain. The worst step in the decay chain is 210 Pb, with a half life of 22 years, quite comparable to cesium.
There was almost no plutonium release at Fukushima. Nearly all the long term contamination is from cesium.
I have to agree about Canticle, although I really don't remember whether I finished it or not.
If I'm going to read something depressing, at least it should be short. Each an Explorer, by Isaac Asimov, was pretty depressing, but at least it was short.
Whether we can afford to burn oil until it runs out isn't known, especially since what counts as oil changes. There is for sure enough coal that we can dig up to cause big problems.
What we can do about it is to replace coal with nuclear, electrify most transportation, change refining processes (no more coke for iron) and use different material for cement. What's left we can offset by grinding up the right rocks to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Well, that's my recommendation anyhow. I don't expect to live the fifty years or so before we face serious consequences.
I make it as about four cents, assuming you pay the national average for power. But, a Prius is not the proper comparison. A BMW 5 series is about right. Really, the question is whether the quiet ride and performance is worth the lack of range - fuel costs don't matter to these people.
Bread doesn't usually contain eggs. It does have milk, though.
I used the GMP. It includes an isprime() function. I've been meaning to install it on my computer, and the assertion by sexconker gave me the motivation to actually do it. It just took a simple decrement by two and test for primality loop.
Not so, 8561290356012956901265912656135612056135460123560912356102650931951 and 653 are prime. They sum to your number.
Liquid thorium reactors do not require active cooling once shut down. Once they drain their fuel into holding tanks they are passively cooled.
A Fukushima-style meltdown is hard to imagine, especially since they are already molten.
I think it is far more likely that we'll extend human lifespans than that we will achieve such speeds. Who cares if it takes 1,000 years to get to another star if you're going to live for millions?
Yes, but when has it warmed this fast? The last time I can find is the end of the last snowball Earth episode (which was much faster). I would at least like to see us slow it down, and I think promoting nuclear power and electric cars is our best bet.
The earth's tilt doesn't matter, it is just at 23 degrees fairly small and I was ignoring it. It is the rather the sun's that matters, as it is just our closest example of a star. The sun doesn't rotate in the plane of the galaxy, and there is no reason to think that other stars preferentially do, either. Since a pulsar is created in a supernova there is even another randomizing event involved. A pulsars axis is not going to be governed by the galaxy's plane.
The Earth is tilted on its axis by 23 degrees, as you later point out it is tilted at 60 degrees compared to the galactic ecliptic. These do not match. As far as I can tell the orientation of a star's rotational axis is random, and probably uniformly distributed.
Assuming a pulsar's magnetic field is roughly aligned with its rotational axis, we would not even see distant pulsars in this galaxy if their axis was perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy.
I don't think so. The Milky Way doesn't follow the equator, for example. Also, if they rotated in the galactic plane their emissions would be perpendicular to the plane.
"...the Sun's core is cooler than it's surface."
Wow, no. From Wikipedia, the Sun's center is 15,700,000 K, the surface is 5,778 K, and the corona is 5,000,000 K.
Indeed, some of the best peanuts I've ever had were on airlines.
Unfortunately, all of mine did break. Just bad luck, I guess. I am now using a 23" 2048x1152 monitor I've had for a couple of years, and it cost much less than my late lamented 19" CRT. I guess most people just don't care.
Nah, the total number of positions is only 10 to the 43 to 47 power, which is fewer than the atoms in the Earth. I wouldn't hold my breath on when we'll get them all calculated, though.
This has nothing to do with carbon offsets. You plant a forest, you get an offset. If the forest is chopped down the offset should go away, but it probably won't.
In practice, though, the new plants will be cut down well before the carbon dioxide can be naturally absorbed. I don't expect offsets to work.
The area of the Earth is 510 trillion square meters. Human emitted carbon dioxide currently adds about 1.7 watts per square meter. The total energy used by man is only 15 trillion watts.