"A 250 hp standard efficiency motor has a pretty good efficiency--on the order of 94.2%" There is also the efficiency of the battery in storing and generating electricity to consider, but this too is quite high. Also, IC engines are more like 20% efficient, according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Engine_Efficiency
Curious if there was any religious bias in pages, I looked up evolution. There I saw the following odd sentence:
Fossils are xxxx. Citizendium uses the same history tracking as Wikipedia, so I was able to go back many version to find that this was originally:
Fossils are critical evidence for estimating when various lineages originated. There may be more instances of vandalism to Wikipedia, but I've never seen such a blatant example last through so many edits.
It's a little late to get maximum benefit from something like this. If the craft could have been put up Sunday, or even Monday, it would have been much more useful. I hope the delay is due to this being its first use, and that in future events it can be launched quickly.
...most people simply don't have time to make fully informed decisions on most issues. Here in the USA, it seems most legislators don't either. Sometimes it's not their fault, such as when votes are called before the text of the bill is distributed. Most of the time they just follow their party, since its safe and saves time for soliciting campaign contributions. Even when an individual considered decision is made it is usually primarily based on staff analysis.
Senators probably are better informed than the average voter, but would that still be true of the sub-set who would vote to control their senator? I'm not certain.
Maximum at ground level is usually give as 1000 W/m^2. The chart average includes night time and a reduction for the angle of the sun for periods other than solar noon.
13% efficiency is great. I mean, it's about on par with photosynthesis,... I've never seen that high a number given for photosynthesis. I've mostly seen numbers for plants in the 3-5% range, and maybe up to 8% for algae.
So this year there was a big dollar-per-watt announcement from Oerlikon. If you don't know who they are, they're a Swiss provider of turn-key thin film or amorphous silicon solar panel factories. But at what efficiency? Amorphous cells are usually around half the efficiency quoted for these cells, which is a significant disadvantage for amorphous if the costs and durability are similar. I'm sure that's why the blurb touted the CdTe cells as "high" efficiency, even though they are really at the low end of medium. Compared to the low power from amorphous Si, CdTe seems high.
One thousand hours at one watt is one kilowatt hour, or ten cents; so you really need 10,000 hours to get back your one dollar per watt for the panels. In a good location this would take about five years, still a good return on the investment.
You can't take oil from the plant, use the rest of the plant to grow more plants, take oil from them, rinse, repeat. As long as you are just taking hydrocarbons out you can, since those can be produced from carbon dioxide and water. You're bound to get trace amounts of things like phosphorus, sulfur and potassium in the oil, but if the amounts are small then replacing them is easy. Wind blown dust will do some of that with no effort by the grower.
I use microemacs, which does fit the criteria. Since I have the source, I've been able to tweak it for my preferences, and move it to whatever OS I've needed to use.
I think the point is that one would expect a fancy-shmancy fedora to cost more than a generic red hat. The fact that the opposite is the case here is the joke.
Sun was made aware of this problem 10 days ago, and nothing seems to suggest that they don't take the issue seriously.
Now they do, but it was Sun who made this public first. Once Sun saw public reports of how bad the implications were they hid the bug report, but it was really too late then.
I agree that GPLv3 applying to Microsoft's past actions is a perverse legal theory, and from what I've seen I think the majority/. posters do as well. Where this has a lot of support is Groklaw, where PJ herself is the chief cheerleader. People there with arguments similar to the ones in the article are labeled as MS shills.
The power of wishful thinking is stronger than I ever imagined.
I think mostly the interaction of many smaller objects is suspected, although a close pass by another object in the stellar nursery might sometimes get things started.
Jupiter cleared its orbit when the solar system was young, mostly by flinging other objects out of the solar system. In doing so, its orbit shrank. Given a denser environment, the shrinkage appears to be able to continue until a gas giant gets quite close to the parent star.
Wind power, as a small percentage of supply, is only slightly more expensive than traditional sources. However, its variability makes it difficult to use for a majority of the supply.
I think the formation theory you mentioned is still pretty much accepted. I think the close orbiting gas giants are thought to migrate inward through gravitational interactions with other objects around the star. Perhaps this is the normal result if a young star has a much thicker protoplanetary disk than Sol did.
First, Mars does not have a magnetosphere. This helps fend off the worst of the cosmic radiation here on Earth. What does he propose to replace it?
Someone else mentioned that the atmosphere might be enough protection in itself. Until then, you can protect a large amount of the warmest real estate by putting a superconducting cable around the equator and running a large current through it. This may not block the really high energy particles, but it should at least do a decent job on the otherwise dangerous solar flares.
Well, if we can get rid of the excess carbon dioxide on Mars, can we do the same on earth? That should put a dent on global warming...
We can, actually. Plants fix much more carbon each year than we emit, but it decays back at the same rate. All we have to do is put a few percent of all the plant matter grown each year some place where it won't decay.
This would be expensive, however. It would be much cheaper to today to just stop mining coal and other fossil carbon, so this only makes sense after we've stopped adding significant amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and only if we find the future with a high carbon dioxide atmosphere sufficiently unpleasant.
Slashdot Mirror
do you enjoy spreading FUD?
http://www.energyexperts.org/energy_solutions/res_details.cfm?resourceID=3823&keyword=cheap§or=All
"A 250 hp standard efficiency motor has a pretty good efficiency--on the order of 94.2%" There is also the efficiency of the battery in storing and generating electricity to consider, but this too is quite high.
Also, IC engines are more like 20% efficient, according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Engine_Efficiency
It's a little late to get maximum benefit from something like this. If the craft could have been put up Sunday, or even Monday, it would have been much more useful. I hope the delay is due to this being its first use, and that in future events it can be launched quickly.
...most people simply don't have time to make fully informed decisions on most issues. Here in the USA, it seems most legislators don't either. Sometimes it's not their fault, such as when votes are called before the text of the bill is distributed. Most of the time they just follow their party, since its safe and saves time for soliciting campaign contributions. Even when an individual considered decision is made it is usually primarily based on staff analysis.Senators probably are better informed than the average voter, but would that still be true of the sub-set who would vote to control their senator? I'm not certain.
Maximum at ground level is usually give as 1000 W/m^2. The chart average includes night time and a reduction for the angle of the sun for periods other than solar noon.
One thousand hours at one watt is one kilowatt hour, or ten cents; so you really need 10,000 hours to get back your one dollar per watt for the panels. In a good location this would take about five years, still a good return on the investment.
I use microemacs, which does fit the criteria. Since I have the source, I've been able to tweak it for my preferences, and move it to whatever OS I've needed to use.
Quarks are heavy, and there are only so many of them. Better to use neutrinos.
Note that the comparison was with wind power, which also has all those advantages except the supply doesn't usually peak with demand.
I think the point is that one would expect a fancy-shmancy fedora to cost more than a generic red hat. The fact that the opposite is the case here is the joke.
HOOH is also hydrogen oxide, so some prefix seems desirable (unless you do add the valence number).
I think dihydrogen monoxide is used because the abbreviation, DHMO, is similar to DMSO, which will bring up some negative associations for some.
Now they do, but it was Sun who made this public first. Once Sun saw public reports of how bad the implications were they hid the bug report, but it was really too late then.
I agree that GPLv3 applying to Microsoft's past actions is a perverse legal theory, and from what I've seen I think the majority /. posters do as well. Where this has a lot of support is Groklaw, where PJ herself is the chief cheerleader. People there with arguments similar to the ones in the article are labeled as MS shills.
The power of wishful thinking is stronger than I ever imagined.
Has everyone forgotten the poundal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundal
I think mostly the interaction of many smaller objects is suspected, although a close pass by another object in the stellar nursery might sometimes get things started.
Jupiter cleared its orbit when the solar system was young, mostly by flinging other objects out of the solar system. In doing so, its orbit shrank. Given a denser environment, the shrinkage appears to be able to continue until a gas giant gets quite close to the parent star.
I think the formation theory you mentioned is still pretty much accepted. I think the close orbiting gas giants are thought to migrate inward through gravitational interactions with other objects around the star. Perhaps this is the normal result if a young star has a much thicker protoplanetary disk than Sol did.
Someone else mentioned that the atmosphere might be enough protection in itself. Until then, you can protect a large amount of the warmest real estate by putting a superconducting cable around the equator and running a large current through it. This may not block the really high energy particles, but it should at least do a decent job on the otherwise dangerous solar flares.
We can, actually. Plants fix much more carbon each year than we emit, but it decays back at the same rate. All we have to do is put a few percent of all the plant matter grown each year some place where it won't decay.
This would be expensive, however. It would be much cheaper to today to just stop mining coal and other fossil carbon, so this only makes sense after we've stopped adding significant amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and only if we find the future with a high carbon dioxide atmosphere sufficiently unpleasant.