I've done quite a bit of research comparing Solar Stirlings to Photovoltaics. It may be surprising, but under most circumstances, the Stirlings are more efficient. The downside is the huge outlay for the giant dish and engine. Not to mention maintenance costs... you know... moving parts...
However, from those of you who remember your physics classes, consider the thermodynamic efficiency of an engine set between 3000K on one end and around 450K on the other. If you do the math, you get well more than 30% input efficiency. Naturally, no engine is perfect, however these Solar Stirlings are very nice. The only friction on the "plunger" is with the working gas.
Compare this to photovoltaics. Under laboratory conditions, the best photovoltaic designs at best only equal thermodynamic efficiency. On the plus side, the outlay is much less, with the caveat that they all wear out in 20-25 years.
The important point here is that theoretical PV efficiency is 100%. In fact, if you look at nature, you'll find deep-ocean organisms that convert light at efficiencies well above that of current PV technology.
So for now, thermodynamics. However, assuming PV keeps getting better (quantum dots?), the future will belong to PV.
Who are they kidding? Gladiator combats are new? Consensual PVP areas aren't new even in EQ. And they're old, old hat anywhere else. Seems like their marketing folks got a little overexcited. Too much/pizza maybe?
I read TFA, but no details there. Any links to a description of this 'new' PvP?
So it's not exactly unemployment payments. It's more like an extended period after unemployment is over where they pay you to improve your skills or get involved in a work type environment so that you are more likely to get a job again.
I'm trying to think about how as US citizens we'd go about convincing.gov to set up something like this. And shaking my head... it'd never fly. More likely, they'd want to replace unemployment entirely.
Although, at least here they don't ask questions about your sex life. Hehe, imagine the lawsuits.
I am a Ph.D. Molecular Biologist. I am also a Christian. I've studied both sides, and the ID argument (as stated) is generally deranged and foolish. However, the opposed side is equally stupid, mainly because we have non-scientists mucking about with things they don't understand.
What many people seem to miss in all of this is the definition of theory. Scientific method calls for hypotheses to be proposed, which are intended to be disproven. If you can't disprove the hypothesis, it eventually becomes a theory. This does not mean the theory is fact. It just means it hasn't been disproven yet!
If our schools taught students the definition of theory, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with. The theory of evolution is a theory. At this point, we have no reason to say it is false. That doesn't make it fact. Just not-disproven-so-far.
As a biology teacher, an annoying quote often in the news (by school boards and biology teachers) is "I refuse to teach students anything but FACTS." Hahaha! What a joke! And this is what we have teaching our students science? No wonder America is so far behind the curve. Our science teachers don't understand the BASIS of science!
On the other hand, the theory of intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory. If your hypothesis is un-disprovable, it is not a hypothesis. As said above, faith can't disprove a theory of science. It's like refuting trigonometry by quoting Shakespeare. These ID folks give us more educated Christians a bad name.
Slashdot Mirror
I've done quite a bit of research comparing Solar Stirlings to Photovoltaics. It may be surprising, but under most circumstances, the Stirlings are more efficient. The downside is the huge outlay for the giant dish and engine. Not to mention maintenance costs... you know... moving parts...
However, from those of you who remember your physics classes, consider the thermodynamic efficiency of an engine set between 3000K on one end and around 450K on the other. If you do the math, you get well more than 30% input efficiency. Naturally, no engine is perfect, however these Solar Stirlings are very nice. The only friction on the "plunger" is with the working gas.
Compare this to photovoltaics. Under laboratory conditions, the best photovoltaic designs at best only equal thermodynamic efficiency. On the plus side, the outlay is much less, with the caveat that they all wear out in 20-25 years.
The important point here is that theoretical PV efficiency is 100%. In fact, if you look at nature, you'll find deep-ocean organisms that convert light at efficiencies well above that of current PV technology.
So for now, thermodynamics. However, assuming PV keeps getting better (quantum dots?), the future will belong to PV.
Who are they kidding? Gladiator combats are new? Consensual PVP areas aren't new even in EQ. And they're old, old hat anywhere else. Seems like their marketing folks got a little overexcited. Too much /pizza maybe?
I read TFA, but no details there. Any links to a description of this 'new' PvP?
So it's not exactly unemployment payments. It's more like an extended period after unemployment is over where they pay you to improve your skills or get involved in a work type environment so that you are more likely to get a job again. I'm trying to think about how as US citizens we'd go about convincing .gov to set up something like this. And shaking my head... it'd never fly. More likely, they'd want to replace unemployment entirely.
Although, at least here they don't ask questions about your sex life. Hehe, imagine the lawsuits.
I am a Ph.D. Molecular Biologist. I am also a Christian. I've studied both sides, and the ID argument (as stated) is generally deranged and foolish. However, the opposed side is equally stupid, mainly because we have non-scientists mucking about with things they don't understand. What many people seem to miss in all of this is the definition of theory. Scientific method calls for hypotheses to be proposed, which are intended to be disproven. If you can't disprove the hypothesis, it eventually becomes a theory. This does not mean the theory is fact. It just means it hasn't been disproven yet! If our schools taught students the definition of theory, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with. The theory of evolution is a theory. At this point, we have no reason to say it is false. That doesn't make it fact. Just not-disproven-so-far. As a biology teacher, an annoying quote often in the news (by school boards and biology teachers) is "I refuse to teach students anything but FACTS." Hahaha! What a joke! And this is what we have teaching our students science? No wonder America is so far behind the curve. Our science teachers don't understand the BASIS of science! On the other hand, the theory of intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory. If your hypothesis is un-disprovable, it is not a hypothesis. As said above, faith can't disprove a theory of science. It's like refuting trigonometry by quoting Shakespeare. These ID folks give us more educated Christians a bad name.