We do not care about UPS (or battery) maximum ratings, unless the load under consideration cannot be supported, or cannot be supported efficiently.
UPS's, like most battery/stored energy sources "watt rating" are specified to give similar runtimes by usage
So a 1kW UPS will run a 1kW device for 5 minutes. and a 2KW UPS will run a 2kW device for 5 minutes
the reason to "care", is a 2kW UPS will also run a 1kW device for 10 minutes.
My guess is the reason Rossi is quoting energy cost in kW (rather than kWh) is these devices run similar to this. I.e. you get a 35kW device for $5,250 and this will run a home drawing an average 0.05kW for 2 years before it needs replacing.
You could yank 35kW out of it. but then it will need replacing in a very short period of time.
As others have noted, none of Rossi's demos have lasted longer than 24hours, but he has demonstrated variable output. So if you have a device that can deliver say 4kW for 24hours, then that same device could run the average home (guessing 0.05kW) for 80 days.
Quite bluntly, the 3kW here says nothing about how long the UPS can hold up for, with a 3,000 watt load or a 1 watt load.
Actually, that isn't true is it.
= 19.08 minutes
i.e. "a short space of time"
if you draw 500W instead of 1kW, that will be 38 minutes.
Which comes back to my original point, $150/kW is never going to compete with the cents/kW provided by conventional energy sources. - and why I didn't miss the "h" in kW. under the assumption that: cost/kW means how long you can run the rated device for a short space of time (i.e. less than 1 hour)
i.e. the max energy the device can deliver at maximum reaction rate.
Any device @ maximum reaction rate isn't going to last very long, and I'm guessing if he quoted it using kWh there wouldn't be all the myth surrounding it that there is.
Either that or the guy is a total fraud (which I'd like to think isn't the case)
it is not a generator nor a renewable energy source. Its [supposedly] a LENR battery more likely its just a cool chemical reaction that delivers a very high energy density.
Don't disagree, but, afaik, its used slightly differently for energy sources.
a "3kW" source, can deliver 3kW over a short period of time, it doesn't have "3kJ" of energy (it will store quite a bit more), but you can get 3kW of work of of it for a short, but indeterminate period of time.
using the example I posted in the cross thread $150/kW would be equivalent an energy source as 2x 500W car batteries in series.
Is the same as saying "A power source with 3,600 Joules per second of potential energy..." - the units don't match the kind of thing you're measuring.
Not quite. Its "can deliver maximum 3,600 Joules per second of potential energy..." The difference is, we are talking about where the system where the energy comes from rather than actually doing the work.
Say for example, you have a car battery rated as 500W This means the battery can sustain 500W of power over a very short period of time. I would say his $/kW is using this definition - (since its low energy) - $150 for one kilowatt is equal "in umpf" to two 500W car batteries in series.
one watt is defined as one joule for/per one second (W=J/s) one kilo watt (kW) is 1,000 joules for/per one second (kJ/s) one kiloWatt hour (kWh) is 1,000 Joules per second for 3600 seconds
Seems a large portion of/. needs to retake primary school physics.
None sense. a kWh is just kilowatts scaled to hours rather than seconds -> i.e. 1 kWh = requires a 3,600 kW power source i.e. A power source with 3,600kW of potential energy can provide 3,600 Joules for 1 second, or 1 Joule for an hour.
It is unclear if he is quoting 1kW "potential energy" for $150 (which could be provided by a small gas cylinder for a few cents) or is not quoting any capacities - in which case all the numbers are completely meaningless.
if its "1kW sustained for 2 years" (quoted earlier in the thread, but can't say i've seen it myself), then there is going to be a hulluva lot of really shitty toxic radioactive waste from all the loose neutrinos making any material they touch radioactive.
I think you are confusing Amp hours and Watt hours.
That "h" after your bill is just the multiplier for the quantity of energy you have used. a 10kW battery can produce 10,000 Joules for one second, or 1 Joule for 10,000 seconds a Kilowatt hour just means you were using 1,000 Joules every second for an hour- i.e. you used 3600kW.
But even if that is the case (and its by no means clear it is), it is still only kW of heat, by the time you convert that to electricity, you will be talking many thousands of $'s just for the domestic units, and you still have all that horrible radioactive waste to dispose of.
Just format and reinstall every 3 or 4 months. Why wait until you are sure your system has been compromised before you do it?
Most AV only detect virus's that get installed by some worm or rootkit they can't detect, bad men "sell" your machine on the black market.
Also good because it breeds good backup practices and keeps the machine running smoothly from all those apps you were "just testing" that you never got round to uninstalling. Once you've done it once or twice its a fairly quick process to get a clean install set up "just the way you like it".
I mean, encrypted data stands out from normal traffic like a sore thumb.
Actually, I think this is something of a myth. "normal traffic" these days is mostly compressed. Since the goal of both encryption and compression is to achieve a byte stream that is otherwise indistinguishable from random noise, I don't think one set of random noise stands out much more than another set of random noise.
Only thing that really separates traffic these days is imperfections in these algs and the negotiation protocols. ____ My suggestion for their problems would be to negotiate an otherwise compressed stream that is widely used (e.g. gzip) then tunnel the encrypted data through this stream, ideally encrypting post compression.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanx, I was starting to wonder.
UPS's, like most battery/stored energy sources "watt rating" are specified to give similar runtimes by usage
So a 1kW UPS will run a 1kW device for 5 minutes.
and a 2KW UPS will run a 2kW device for 5 minutes
the reason to "care", is a 2kW UPS will also run a 1kW device for 10 minutes.
My guess is the reason Rossi is quoting energy cost in kW (rather than kWh) is these devices run similar to this.
I.e. you get a 35kW device for $5,250 and this will run a home drawing an average 0.05kW for 2 years before it needs replacing.
You could yank 35kW out of it. but then it will need replacing in a very short period of time.
As others have noted, none of Rossi's demos have lasted longer than 24hours, but he has demonstrated variable output. So if you have a device that can deliver say 4kW for 24hours, then that same device could run the average home (guessing 0.05kW) for 80 days.
Sure
just simpler than writing
one watt is defined as one joule per one second for one second.
Sigh.
sorry
1 watt = 1 coulomb per second for 1 second.
1 watt hour = 1 coulomb per second for 3600 seconds.
hence
1 watt hour = 3600 watts.
yes,
1 watt = 1 coulomb for 1 second.
1 watt hour = 1 coulomb for 3600 seconds.
hence
1 watt hour = 3600 watts.
Actually, that isn't true is it.
i.e. "a short space of time"
if you draw 500W instead of 1kW, that will be 38 minutes.
Which comes back to my original point, $150/kW is never going to compete with the cents/kW provided by conventional energy sources. - and why I didn't miss the "h" in kW.
under the assumption that:
cost/kW means how long you can run the rated device for a short space of time (i.e. less than 1 hour)
Perhaps you could rephrase that using a set of UPS specs as an example.....
He isn't quoting kWh though,
He's quoting kW
i.e. the max energy the device can deliver at maximum reaction rate.
Any device @ maximum reaction rate isn't going to last very long, and I'm guessing if he quoted it using kWh there wouldn't be all the myth surrounding it that there is.
Either that or the guy is a total fraud (which I'd like to think isn't the case)
it is not a generator nor a renewable energy source.
Its [supposedly] a LENR battery
more likely its just a cool chemical reaction that delivers a very high energy density.
Don't disagree, but, afaik, its used slightly differently for energy sources.
a "3kW" source, can deliver 3kW over a short period of time, it doesn't have "3kJ" of energy (it will store quite a bit more), but you can get 3kW of work of of it for a short, but indeterminate period of time.
using the example I posted in the cross thread
$150/kW would be equivalent an energy source as 2x 500W car batteries in series.
ROFL.
FAIL.
Not quite.
Its "can deliver maximum 3,600 Joules per second of potential energy..."
The difference is, we are talking about where the system where the energy comes from rather than actually doing the work.
Say for example, you have a car battery rated as 500W
This means the battery can sustain 500W of power over a very short period of time.
I would say his $/kW is using this definition - (since its low energy) - $150 for one kilowatt is equal "in umpf" to two 500W car batteries in series.
one watt is defined as one joule for/per one second (W=J/s)
one kilo watt (kW) is 1,000 joules for/per one second (kJ/s)
one kiloWatt hour (kWh) is 1,000 Joules per second for 3600 seconds
Seems a large portion of /. needs to retake primary school physics.
and neutrons not neutrinos
Doh.
^^ should be kilo Joules
None sense.
a kWh is just kilowatts scaled to hours rather than seconds -> i.e. 1 kWh = requires a 3,600 kW power source
i.e.
A power source with 3,600kW of potential energy can provide 3,600 Joules for 1 second, or 1 Joule for an hour.
http://paul-a-heckert.suite101.com/energy-and-power-in-physics-a49740
It is unclear if he is quoting 1kW "potential energy" for $150 (which could be provided by a small gas cylinder for a few cents) or is not quoting any capacities - in which case all the numbers are completely meaningless.
if its "1kW sustained for 2 years" (quoted earlier in the thread, but can't say i've seen it myself), then there is going to be a hulluva lot of really shitty toxic radioactive waste from all the loose neutrinos making any material they touch radioactive.
I wish electricity and heat were 3,600 times less expensive than they are, unfortunately they are not.
(as above, 1kWh = 3.6MW)
i.e.
1kWh = 3,600kW
I think you are confusing Amp hours and Watt hours.
That "h" after your bill is just the multiplier for the quantity of energy you have used.
a 10kW battery can produce 10,000 Joules for one second, or 1 Joule for 10,000 seconds
a Kilowatt hour just means you were using 1,000 Joules every second for an hour- i.e. you used 3600kW.
But even if that is the case (and its by no means clear it is), it is still only kW of heat, by the time you convert that to electricity, you will be talking many thousands of $'s just for the domestic units, and you still have all that horrible radioactive waste to dispose of.
Working tech or not, $150/kW is never going to compete with the cents/kW currently paid for coal/gas/petrol/renewables.
Rubbish.
If it was about preventing malware on ARM it would allow installation of any operating system [i]except[/i] windows.
Just format and reinstall every 3 or 4 months. Why wait until you are sure your system has been compromised before you do it?
Most AV only detect virus's that get installed by some worm or rootkit they can't detect, bad men "sell" your machine on the black market.
Also good because it breeds good backup practices and keeps the machine running smoothly from all those apps you were "just testing" that you never got round to uninstalling. Once you've done it once or twice its a fairly quick process to get a clean install set up "just the way you like it".
10 years you say.
Hmmm.
No wonder all those botnets are so persistent.
windows secure you say.....
Metasploit community begs to differ.
Actually, I think this is something of a myth.
"normal traffic" these days is mostly compressed.
Since the goal of both encryption and compression is to achieve a byte stream that is otherwise indistinguishable from random noise, I don't think one set of random noise stands out much more than another set of random noise.
Only thing that really separates traffic these days is imperfections in these algs and the negotiation protocols.
____
My suggestion for their problems would be to negotiate an otherwise compressed stream that is widely used (e.g. gzip) then tunnel the encrypted data through this stream, ideally encrypting post compression.