Lye (sodium hydroxide) is made commercially through the electrolysis of brine, as a byproduct of chlorine production (the "chloralkali process"). The process consumes massive amounts of electricity (primarily produced by burning coal), and the chlorine compounds themselves include many nasty environmental pollutants.
Methanol is produced from methane, AKA natural gas.
So the 2 chemicals needed to produce biodiesel (and reduce fossil fuel use) both depend on fossil fuels for their production.
The biodiesel production process generates as a byproduct a substantial amount of glycerin contaminated with lye and unreacted sodium methoxide. What is to be done with this stuff, and how much energy is needed to dispose of it or purify it for commercial use?
They claim that it is a public health concern, so you don't think about all the money they would be losing by NOT having to run water supply lines to all those rows of urinals....
The reason here is that unlike alcohol or most other drugs, THC and its metabolites are fat soluble, and linger in the body for a LONG time after the high wears off. A heavy pot smoker might still test positive for a month or more after his last joint.
Just about everyone who smokes pot with any regularity will show traces of THC in their system if tested. Unlike alcohol, there is no "legal limit" for THC metabolites, so anyone who tests positive after an accident will be treated as being "stoned at the wheel", even if they haven't smoked in a week or more.
And if the stuff were legal (and therefore cheaper), you wouldn't NEED to inhale like that to milk every last bit of THC from each hit.
Hell, you wouldn't need to SMOKE the stuff in the first place. Eating it gets you high, too. But you need to use a lot more of it than you would smoke. So economics tend to dictate the most harmful route of ingetsion...
"How is it that Kennedy says we'll do the (at the time) completely impossible within 10 years and they do it 9 years later, and today we can't even decide if we'll do the completely possible (and redundant) within 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years - or ever?"
Maybe because for the moon race with the Soviets, NASA was given a practically unlimited budget, and enjoyed overwhelming public support (partially because of all those NASA contracts going to just about every town big enough to have a machine shop)?
Nowadays, the budget is much smaller, the contracts will go to a select handful of aerospace giants, and the populace is so dumbed-down and complacent that scientific exploration takes a back seat to the latest reality show.
Hardly the proper context for huge advances in a few year's time....
Rutan's technology represents roughly where NASA was in the late '50s and early '60s. Better materials and avionics, sure. But still suborbital stuff on a par with the X-planes or the very early Mercury flights.
NASA's Been there, Done that, and wore the T-shirt on the moon....
No tubes in the COMPUTER, but other systems
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
still used them. The RF power amplifiers for communications, the klystrons/magnetrons for landing/docking radar, TWTs in the telemetry transponders, and the vidicon and image dissector tubes used in the TV cameras. I believe there was also a CRT used for one of the cockpit displays (radar?).
Even kids who go into trades like carpentry would benefit from a knowledge of the fundamentals of trig. Laying out angles for roof rafters, staircase stringers, etc....
Was standard feature in every TV shop I ever worked in. It allowed you to watch the screen while making adjustments or tapping around to find a loose connection. For repairs on a console set in a customer's home, we used a small mirror on a tripod placed in front of the set.
When working around 25,000 or so volts, you DON'T want to be reaching over the set to grope for a pot while watching the screen...
Is the DEA really going to allow this product into the hands of consumers? Sounds like a powerful, yet easy to handle reducing agent. Just what you need to convert Sudafed into meth or sassafras oil into ecstacy...
Apparently, the FCC is adopting an arbitrary signal level standard for interfering BPL signals, rather than the clear, objective standard of "no harmful interference". If the BPL signal can be shown to be below the published Part 15 guidelines, it is deemed acceptable, EVEN IF IT COMPLETELY WIPES OUT RECEPTION on the affected ham bands. This is a MAJOR, if unofficial, policy shift AWAY from the traditional protection of licensed services from unlicensed Part 15 devices.
Long coaxial lines would have too much loss at higher frequencies. What the utilities should do is just string fiber alongside their existing powerlines. This would allow for not only BPL service to consumers, but diagnostic/control signals (SCADA) between substations, load dispatching centers, powerplants, etc.
Of course, such an infrastructure improvement would cost MONEY, and the whole idea of BPL seems to be allowing the power companies into the broadband market without forcing them to make the same types of infrastructure investment that the Telcos and CATV providers had to. In other words, a giveaway to the energy industry from their friends in Washington....
It is my understanding that the Part 15 rules are being MODIFIED with regards to interference to/from BPL systems.
The BPL system operator is only going to be required to make a "good faith effort" to resolve interference to other services, and licensed services that wipe out the BPL system could be required to modify/restrict THEIR operations to reduce the interference.
This is essentially a reversal of the long-time interpretation of Part 15, where operators of unlicensed radiators were required to shut down if interfering with a licensed service, and to accept any interference they RECIEVE from such a service.
Do you REALLY think that our corporate-friendly FCC is going to allow your DX-chasing to cut into the profits of a billion-dollar utility company?
For someone who is supposedly advocating "egalitarianism-oriented" free speech, you seem awfully quick to hand a PUBLIC RESOURCE called the RF spectrum over to a tiny group of PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.
In case you haven't thought about it yet, there is nothing "free" or "egalitarian" about BPL. It will be under corporate control, accessible only to those who can/will pay for it. Contrast this with amateur radio, which is more or less the last vestige of non-corporate, decentralized, communications technology left in existence. Anyone who can pass a simple test can get on the air and communicate worldwide without any dependence on power companies, telecom giants, or huge media conglomerates.
Destroying public access to the radio spectrum via BPL is just one more move that will keep people dependent on corporations for EVERYTHING. Don't you think that individuals should have SOMEway to communicate and disseminate information that doesn't depend on big business?
[quote]Rutan's design for SpaceshipOne eliminated both of these problems: he droplaunched his ship from an aircraft for a safer launch than the shuttle does,[/quote]
Which wouldn't be POSSIBLE for a craft designed to reach orbit. All the extra fuel required would make the spacecraft too heavy for a droplaunch.
[quote]and he designed the ingenious "feather" system to slow down re-entry, eliminating the heat problem.[/quote]
Since SS1 never achieves orbital velocity, there is only a tiny fraction of the heat buildup on reentry as compared to the shuttle. This allows Rutan to get away with such a simple system that would NEVER be able to scale to an orbital spacecraft.
[quote]Why doesn't NASA hire him as a consultant, or at least incorporate some of his ideas?[/quote]
Maybe he doesn't want to work for them? And maybe because Rutan's SS1 more or less represents where NASA was with the X-15 back in the early 1960's?
Slashdot Mirror
Lye (sodium hydroxide) is made commercially through the electrolysis of brine, as a byproduct of chlorine production (the "chloralkali process"). The process consumes massive amounts of electricity (primarily produced by burning coal), and the chlorine compounds themselves include many nasty environmental pollutants.
Methanol is produced from methane, AKA natural gas.
So the 2 chemicals needed to produce biodiesel (and reduce fossil fuel use) both depend on fossil fuels for their production.
The biodiesel production process generates as a byproduct a substantial amount of glycerin contaminated with lye and unreacted sodium methoxide. What is to be done with this stuff, and how much energy is needed to dispose of it or purify it for commercial use?
They claim that it is a public health concern, so you don't think about all the money they would be losing by NOT having to run water supply lines to all those rows of urinals....
Drinking urine might be classified as "destruction of evidence" under some obscure provision of the Patriot Act. :)
Of course, I have always said that the only sample an employer would ever get out of me would be for a taste test...
Keeps prompting me for HTTP/SOCKS proxies, when none are in use.
http://www.ominous-valve.com/blog/2005/10/iwank-an other-major-breakthrough.html
The reason here is that unlike alcohol or most other drugs, THC and its metabolites are fat soluble, and linger in the body for a LONG time after the high wears off. A heavy pot smoker might still test positive for a month or more after his last joint.
Just about everyone who smokes pot with any regularity will show traces of THC in their system if tested. Unlike alcohol, there is no "legal limit" for THC metabolites, so anyone who tests positive after an accident will be treated as being "stoned at the wheel", even if they haven't smoked in a week or more.
Lysergic acid is an intermediate in the synthesis of LSD.
LSD is lysergic acid diethylamide.
And if the stuff were legal (and therefore cheaper), you wouldn't NEED to inhale like that to milk every last bit of THC from each hit.
Hell, you wouldn't need to SMOKE the stuff in the first place. Eating it gets you high, too. But you need to use a lot more of it than you would smoke. So economics tend to dictate the most harmful route of ingetsion...
"How is it that Kennedy says we'll do the (at the time) completely impossible within 10 years and they do it 9 years later, and today we can't even decide if we'll do the completely possible (and redundant) within 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years - or ever?"
Maybe because for the moon race with the Soviets, NASA was given a practically unlimited budget, and enjoyed overwhelming public support (partially because of all those NASA contracts going to just about every town big enough to have a machine shop)?
Nowadays, the budget is much smaller, the contracts will go to a select handful of aerospace giants, and the populace is so dumbed-down and complacent that scientific exploration takes a back seat to the latest reality show.
Hardly the proper context for huge advances in a few year's time....
Rutan's technology represents roughly where NASA was in the late '50s and early '60s. Better materials and avionics, sure. But still suborbital stuff on a par with the X-planes or the very early Mercury flights.
NASA's Been there, Done that, and wore the T-shirt on the moon....
Looks like he just finished a grueling bong session to me...
j pg
http://blog.monkeymethods.org/images/billgates01.
still used them. The RF power amplifiers for communications, the klystrons/magnetrons for landing/docking radar, TWTs in the telemetry transponders, and the vidicon and image dissector tubes used in the TV cameras. I believe there was also a CRT used for one of the cockpit displays (radar?).
Even kids who go into trades like carpentry would benefit from a knowledge of the fundamentals of trig. Laying out angles for roof rafters, staircase stringers, etc....
Was standard feature in every TV shop I ever worked in. It allowed you to watch the screen while making adjustments or tapping around to find a loose connection. For repairs on a console set in a customer's home, we used a small mirror on a tripod placed in front of the set.
When working around 25,000 or so volts, you DON'T want to be reaching over the set to grope for a pot while watching the screen...
Regardless of what they might spew in DARE classes...
. shtmlm e.html
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_writings4
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_229.html
http://www.levity.com/aciddreams/samples/chromoso
http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/chromosomes.htm
Is the DEA really going to allow this product into the hands of consumers? Sounds like a powerful, yet easy to handle reducing agent. Just what you need to convert Sudafed into meth or sassafras oil into ecstacy...
NT
http://www.eham.net/articles/8929
Apparently, the FCC is adopting an arbitrary signal level standard for interfering BPL signals, rather than the clear, objective standard of "no harmful interference". If the BPL signal can be shown to be below the published Part 15 guidelines, it is deemed acceptable, EVEN IF IT COMPLETELY WIPES OUT RECEPTION on the affected ham bands. This is a MAJOR, if unofficial, policy shift AWAY from the traditional protection of licensed services from unlicensed Part 15 devices.
Long coaxial lines would have too much loss at higher frequencies. What the utilities should do is just string fiber alongside their existing powerlines. This would allow for not only BPL service to consumers, but diagnostic/control signals (SCADA) between substations, load dispatching centers, powerplants, etc.
Of course, such an infrastructure improvement would cost MONEY, and the whole idea of BPL seems to be allowing the power companies into the broadband market without forcing them to make the same types of infrastructure investment that the Telcos and CATV providers had to. In other words, a giveaway to the energy industry from their friends in Washington....
I know that, but the BPL systems are covered under part 15.
It is my understanding that the Part 15 rules are being MODIFIED with regards to interference to/from BPL systems.
The BPL system operator is only going to be required to make a "good faith effort" to resolve interference to other services, and licensed services that wipe out the BPL system could be required to modify/restrict THEIR operations to reduce the interference.
This is essentially a reversal of the long-time interpretation of Part 15, where operators of unlicensed radiators were required to shut down if interfering with a licensed service, and to accept any interference they RECIEVE from such a service.
Do you REALLY think that our corporate-friendly FCC is going to allow your DX-chasing to cut into the profits of a billion-dollar utility company?
For someone who is supposedly advocating "egalitarianism-oriented" free speech, you seem awfully quick to hand a PUBLIC RESOURCE called the RF spectrum over to a tiny group of PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.
In case you haven't thought about it yet, there is nothing "free" or "egalitarian" about BPL. It will be under corporate control, accessible only to those who can/will pay for it. Contrast this with amateur radio, which is more or less the last vestige of non-corporate, decentralized, communications technology left in existence. Anyone who can pass a simple test can get on the air and communicate worldwide without any dependence on power companies, telecom giants, or huge media conglomerates.
Destroying public access to the radio spectrum via BPL is just one more move that will keep people dependent on corporations for EVERYTHING. Don't you think that individuals should have SOMEway to communicate and disseminate information that doesn't depend on big business?
And then sue the USPTO for infringement?
Problem Solved....
[quote]Rutan's design for SpaceshipOne eliminated both of these problems: he droplaunched his ship from an aircraft for a safer launch than the shuttle does,[/quote]
Which wouldn't be POSSIBLE for a craft designed to reach orbit. All the extra fuel required would make the spacecraft too heavy for a droplaunch.
[quote]and he designed the ingenious "feather" system to slow down re-entry, eliminating the heat problem.[/quote]
Since SS1 never achieves orbital velocity, there is only a tiny fraction of the heat buildup on reentry as compared to the shuttle. This allows Rutan to get away with such a simple system that would NEVER be able to scale to an orbital spacecraft.
[quote]Why doesn't NASA hire him as a consultant, or at least incorporate some of his ideas?[/quote]
Maybe he doesn't want to work for them? And maybe because Rutan's SS1 more or less represents where NASA was with the X-15 back in the early 1960's?
While they don't sell kits anymore, the company is still in business, and retains copyrights on all the old manuals, etc.
http://www.heathkit.com/