I agree that pdf is a useful standard, but I don't want it rendering within my browser. I want to open it in the viewer (or editor) of choice, not in the browser. I especially hate the way navigating is a muddled mix of browser and viewer controls
You don't need such a large field, limit the length to something reasonable. Rather, you could provide a unique identifier, a main name field that can accept arbitrary strings, and additional "aka" field(s). Mainly, don't panic just because the name is unusual or off a little. When really in doubt, ask for it to be input again, but don't reject it outright.
*The existence of germs.
*The existence of atoms.
*The existence of tectonic plates.
Although there are theories built around germs, atoms, and tectonic plates, their "existence"s are more like observable facts, hypotheses, or postulates rather than theories. (OK, atoms are not directly observable, but I still think the existence of atoms is not a theory of atoms.)
*The square of the length of a right triangle's hypotenuse's being equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides' lengths.
The pythagorean theorem is not a theory. Given the axioms of Euclidean Geometry, it is a statement that is provably true.
From what I heard from a US citizen living in New Zealand, he should not only file income taxes, but would actually owe FICA (Social Security). Since he has permanent residency, he doesn't worry about it.
You know who else were rich peasants? Most of the Founding Fathers.
Landowners with farms (like Jefferson and Washington), businessmen (like Franklin), lawyers (like John Adams), and politicians and tax collectors (like Samuel Adams) would not be considered peasants.
The question I liked, was them asking the polygraph subject to sign a form that stated, among other things, that they were taking the polygraph test completely voluntarily. Being required to take a polygraph in order to get the job is stretching the definition of voluntary to the breaking point. So it seems they won't give you the lie detector test unless you lie about it being voluntary first.
The 'average' household uses something around 700-1400 kwh a month.. . .
So, you're looking at probably around a 22% increase in electricity usage if people go to EVs.
Not quite that much, as average households are not the only users of electricity.
On average, for every watt of electric power delivered to your house, 2 more watts goes up the smokestacks and cooling towers of your power plant. . . . If, OTOH, you used a modern gas furnace to get that same heating, you'd waste less than 10% of the energy in the fuel source.
I'll grant that using gas heat is typically much cheaper than electric heat, where gas is available. But you're emphasizing the excess energy needed to produce electricity and ignoring the energy costs of production and transport of the gas.
. . . inevitably the transfer switch is less reliable than either wall AC power,
Automatic transfer switches suck, but I've worked in places where the power was so unreliable the electric company offered a dirt cheap electric rate if the center were willing to but interruptible power from the electric company, i.e. if they were willing to switch to generators on notice from the electric copmany. One of those places did have a generator failure during a power outage once. Seems their monthly generator tests passed with flying colors, except they never tested under a significant load, and the breakers flipped under real conditions.
No need to explain it energetically. You can get an arbitrary amount of energy out of the wind by using an large enough device to capture the energy.
The problem is whether you can get a forward thrust if your vehicle is going the same velocity as the wind. At first it seems like, no, you can't get the wind to push the vehicle forward if the vehicle is keeping up with the wind. The key is that the propeller blades are rotating, (The movement of the vehicle relative to the ground rotates the wheels which is transferred to the propeller to rotate it.) The movement of the propeller blades creates a velocity relative to the wind, even if there is no velocity of the wind relative to the vehicle as a whole. Propeller blades are like wings creating a lift perpendicular to their motion through the air. If you adjust the speed and pitch of the blades appropriately, you can get a forward thrust from the lift of the blades even if the vehicle is outrunning the wind.
Sailboats have long been able to go faster than the wind when tacking at an angle to the wind.
What you are ignoring is that once the prop gets rotating, it has a velocity component perpendicular to the wind. Therefore, the prop blade is not going downwind, and can generate a forward force even when the vehicle is going the same velocity as the wind, or faster.
It's not that the a-biotic origins of oil and gas aren't proposed by reasonable people. It's that the theories are glommed on to by the drill-baby-drill and anti-evolution types and promoted as if they throw into doubt the age of the earth and the finiteness of the supply of oil.
So when BP performed the top kill, BP knew the spew pressure, therefore the volume.
Of course, it should be a no-brainer to measure the flow directly. If instruments exist unbroken within the piping or are brought down and inserted into the flow by the robots, they should be used. This would be the most straightforward and reliable way to estimate flow rates.
Otherwise, while it's true that BP, and others, can make reasonably good estimates of the flow rate, the calculations would not be as straightforward as you say.
Only for very low flows of highly viscous fluids in small pipes without fittings and no free discharge would the flow rate be proportional to the pressure. For high flow rates, large dimensions, low viscosity, and high densities (relatively speaking) the rate of flow is roughly proportional to the square root of the pressure difference. But the constant of proportionality depends on a lot of things, like pipe size, roughness, flow rate, presence of fittings, etc., and is not necessarily constant over a given range of parameters
Also, the pressure at stagnation, when there was no flow because of the pumping of the fluid, is not the same as the pressure drop when there is flow. For one thing, the pressure at the base of the well can vary with flow rate because of resistance to flow within the oil reservoir. For another, you need to know the size, length, condition, fittings, geometry of discharge, and other parameters of the piping in order to model its' curve of flow vs pressure. With actual systems of unknown configurations, you would generally measure at least two points to reasonably reconstruct the curve of flow vs pressure. Typically, pressure at no flow and both pressure and flow at another condition would be used in order to establish how the piping is modulating the flow. Pressure at stagnation would not be enough unless the other parameters are well known, (which might have been the case before the collapse of the rig, but would not necessarily be after). Even then, it's not exact, because of all the unknowns that might affect the flow.
Beware, also, that even the best estimations or measurements are made uncertain because of the mix of methane in the petroleum that bubbles out and creates an unstable two-phase flow of uncertain proportions.
Except in the rare instance where there might be reasonable options other than travelling in a petroleum fueled vehicle, and you choose to buy your fuel from a BP station instead, driving a car or riding in an airplane is not the same as asking BP to drill for oil.
BP's individual company liability for civil damages is limited to $75 million because the oil companies contribute to a fund that is to pay the rest. Who knows what happens if the liability fund is depleted before all the liabilities are met?
Also, liability for breaking laws, rules, and regulations are not limited. They are breaking a lot of laws, and could be fined a lot, including up to $4,300 per barrel spilled (that could be a couple of $billion) the killing of wildlife (that could cost at least a $billion), and more.
Problem is, the fluid(traffic) is going faster than its' "speed of sound", so the fluid compresses and slows down, instead of following Bernoulli's principle for incompressible fluids.
Caffeine constricts the blood vessels in the head and scalp (and does other things probably related to the flight or fight instincts), but the body adjusts. When caffeine is withdrawn, the blood vessels relax and dilate, stretching nerves that send pain signals.
When I know I'm going to be without coffee for most of the day (like when I'm out in the field rather than in the office, or traveling to Utah, the only state without two Starbucks on every corner) I bring along Excedrin. It not only has aspirin and acetaminophen to combat pain, two of them have the caffeine of a small cup of coffee.
In fact, the notion of peak production has to do with sustainability: that is, the relative rates of production and consumption.
Perhaps pedantically, for oil, what you consider "consumption" can be called production, and discovery of new reserves is, in your terms, the "production". Peak oil is when the increase in proven reserves no longer makes up for the rate of depletion of the reserves.
Please stop using "Peak" when referring to non-oil resources. Wood is renewable.
At the point at which trees are being harvested faster than they're growing back, you've reached "peak wood", regardless of whether it's a renewable resource or not.
The problem is not that we're going to immediately run out of oil when we reach peak oil. Peak oil is defined as the point at which we start pumping oil out of the ground faster than we're finding new reserves. We may have passed that point recently, but it is a poorly defined point, since rising prices increases the reserves that are "proven" (to be economically viable) while at the same time stimulating both production and exploration. At peak oil we'd still have plenty of time to start switching to more renewable sources of energy, but the price of oil is going to be wildly unstable and generally rising.
Don't confuse allowing developing countries to increase energy use and pollution above their current levels with allowing them to increase their energy use and pollution above the levels that the developed world would be required to reduce to.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that pdf is a useful standard, but I don't want it rendering within my browser. I want to open it in the viewer (or editor) of choice, not in the browser. I especially hate the way navigating is a muddled mix of browser and viewer controls
Well, for one, I can't find a place to plug in the desktop on the train.
You don't need such a large field, limit the length to something reasonable. Rather, you could provide a unique identifier, a main name field that can accept arbitrary strings, and additional "aka" field(s). Mainly, don't panic just because the name is unusual or off a little. When really in doubt, ask for it to be input again, but don't reject it outright.
*The existence of germs.
*The existence of atoms.
*The existence of tectonic plates.
Although there are theories built around germs, atoms, and tectonic plates, their "existence"s are more like observable facts, hypotheses, or postulates rather than theories. (OK, atoms are not directly observable, but I still think the existence of atoms is not a theory of atoms.)
*The square of the length of a right triangle's hypotenuse's being equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides' lengths.
The pythagorean theorem is not a theory. Given the axioms of Euclidean Geometry, it is a statement that is provably true.
From what I heard from a US citizen living in New Zealand, he should not only file income taxes, but would actually owe FICA (Social Security). Since he has permanent residency, he doesn't worry about it.
You know who else were rich peasants? Most of the Founding Fathers.
Landowners with farms (like Jefferson and Washington), businessmen (like Franklin), lawyers (like John Adams), and politicians and tax collectors (like Samuel Adams) would not be considered peasants.
The question I liked, was them asking the polygraph subject to sign a form that stated, among other things, that they were taking the polygraph test completely voluntarily. Being required to take a polygraph in order to get the job is stretching the definition of voluntary to the breaking point. So it seems they won't give you the lie detector test unless you lie about it being voluntary first.
The 'average' household uses something around 700-1400 kwh a month.. . . So, you're looking at probably around a 22% increase in electricity usage if people go to EVs.
Not quite that much, as average households are not the only users of electricity.
On average, for every watt of electric power delivered to your house, 2 more watts goes up the smokestacks and cooling towers of your power plant. . . . If, OTOH, you used a modern gas furnace to get that same heating, you'd waste less than 10% of the energy in the fuel source.
I'll grant that using gas heat is typically much cheaper than electric heat, where gas is available. But you're emphasizing the excess energy needed to produce electricity and ignoring the energy costs of production and transport of the gas.
. . . inevitably the transfer switch is less reliable than either wall AC power,
Automatic transfer switches suck, but I've worked in places where the power was so unreliable the electric company offered a dirt cheap electric rate if the center were willing to but interruptible power from the electric company, i.e. if they were willing to switch to generators on notice from the electric copmany.
One of those places did have a generator failure during a power outage once. Seems their monthly generator tests passed with flying colors, except they never tested under a significant load, and the breakers flipped under real conditions.
No need to explain it energetically. You can get an arbitrary amount of energy out of the wind by using an large enough device to capture the energy.
The problem is whether you can get a forward thrust if your vehicle is going the same velocity as the wind. At first it seems like, no, you can't get the wind to push the vehicle forward if the vehicle is keeping up with the wind. The key is that the propeller blades are rotating, (The movement of the vehicle relative to the ground rotates the wheels which is transferred to the propeller to rotate it.) The movement of the propeller blades creates a velocity relative to the wind, even if there is no velocity of the wind relative to the vehicle as a whole. Propeller blades are like wings creating a lift perpendicular to their motion through the air. If you adjust the speed and pitch of the blades appropriately, you can get a forward thrust from the lift of the blades even if the vehicle is outrunning the wind.
Sailboats have long been able to go faster than the wind when tacking at an angle to the wind.
What you are ignoring is that once the prop gets rotating, it has a velocity component perpendicular to the wind. Therefore, the prop blade is not going downwind, and can generate a forward force even when the vehicle is going the same velocity as the wind, or faster.
It's not that the a-biotic origins of oil and gas aren't proposed by reasonable people. It's that the theories are glommed on to by the drill-baby-drill and anti-evolution types and promoted as if they throw into doubt the age of the earth and the finiteness of the supply of oil.
So when BP performed the top kill, BP knew the spew pressure, therefore the volume.
Of course, it should be a no-brainer to measure the flow directly. If instruments exist unbroken within the piping or are brought down and inserted into the flow by the robots, they should be used. This would be the most straightforward and reliable way to estimate flow rates.
Otherwise, while it's true that BP, and others, can make reasonably good estimates of the flow rate, the calculations would not be as straightforward as you say.
Only for very low flows of highly viscous fluids in small pipes without fittings and no free discharge would the flow rate be proportional to the pressure. For high flow rates, large dimensions, low viscosity, and high densities (relatively speaking) the rate of flow is roughly proportional to the square root of the pressure difference. But the constant of proportionality depends on a lot of things, like pipe size, roughness, flow rate, presence of fittings, etc., and is not necessarily constant over a given range of parameters
Also, the pressure at stagnation, when there was no flow because of the pumping of the fluid, is not the same as the pressure drop when there is flow. For one thing, the pressure at the base of the well can vary with flow rate because of resistance to flow within the oil reservoir. For another, you need to know the size, length, condition, fittings, geometry of discharge, and other parameters of the piping in order to model its' curve of flow vs pressure. With actual systems of unknown configurations, you would generally measure at least two points to reasonably reconstruct the curve of flow vs pressure. Typically, pressure at no flow and both pressure and flow at another condition would be used in order to establish how the piping is modulating the flow. Pressure at stagnation would not be enough unless the other parameters are well known, (which might have been the case before the collapse of the rig, but would not necessarily be after). Even then, it's not exact, because of all the unknowns that might affect the flow.
Beware, also, that even the best estimations or measurements are made uncertain because of the mix of methane in the petroleum that bubbles out and creates an unstable two-phase flow of uncertain proportions.
Except in the rare instance where there might be reasonable options other than travelling in a petroleum fueled vehicle, and you choose to buy your fuel from a BP station instead, driving a car or riding in an airplane is not the same as asking BP to drill for oil.
BP's individual company liability for civil damages is limited to $75 million because the oil companies contribute to a fund that is to pay the rest. Who knows what happens if the liability fund is depleted before all the liabilities are met?
Also, liability for breaking laws, rules, and regulations are not limited. They are breaking a lot of laws, and could be fined a lot, including up to $4,300 per barrel spilled (that could be a couple of $billion) the killing of wildlife (that could cost at least a $billion), and more.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.
According to that definition, a regular intersection of two streets would be a 4-way intersection.
Problem is, the fluid(traffic) is going faster than its' "speed of sound", so the fluid compresses and slows down, instead of following Bernoulli's principle for incompressible fluids.
Caffeine constricts the blood vessels in the head and scalp (and does other things probably related to the flight or fight instincts), but the body adjusts. When caffeine is withdrawn, the blood vessels relax and dilate, stretching nerves that send pain signals.
When I know I'm going to be without coffee for most of the day (like when I'm out in the field rather than in the office, or traveling to Utah, the only state without two Starbucks on every corner) I bring along Excedrin. It not only has aspirin and acetaminophen to combat pain, two of them have the caffeine of a small cup of coffee.
In fact, the notion of peak production has to do with sustainability: that is, the relative rates of production and consumption.
Perhaps pedantically, for oil, what you consider "consumption" can be called production, and discovery of new reserves is, in your terms, the "production". Peak oil is when the increase in proven reserves no longer makes up for the rate of depletion of the reserves.
Please stop using "Peak" when referring to non-oil resources. Wood is renewable.
At the point at which trees are being harvested faster than they're growing back, you've reached "peak wood", regardless of whether it's a renewable resource or not.
The problem is not that we're going to immediately run out of oil when we reach peak oil. Peak oil is defined as the point at which we start pumping oil out of the ground faster than we're finding new reserves. We may have passed that point recently, but it is a poorly defined point, since rising prices increases the reserves that are "proven" (to be economically viable) while at the same time stimulating both production and exploration. At peak oil we'd still have plenty of time to start switching to more renewable sources of energy, but the price of oil is going to be wildly unstable and generally rising.
Don't confuse allowing developing countries to increase energy use and pollution above their current levels with allowing them to increase their energy use and pollution above the levels that the developed world would be required to reduce to.
According to general relativity massless particles move at light speed and as a consequence do not experience the passage of time.
Uh, wouldn't that depend on your point of view?
. . . incurably retarded person gets injured through own sheer stupidity . . .
If she's really incurably retarded, then she's definitely not liable for her own injuries.