- Constantly asks you what you think about his new girlfriend. Do you think she's hot? No really, what do you think?
A real narcissist would never, ever, do that. Narcissm is all about "ME, MYSELF, AND I". Other people are not important.
Also, don't confuse narcisstic personality disorder with histrionic personality disorder. Both can be equally unpleasant to deal with in the long run (even though people having them usually make fairly interesting conversation partners), but their motivations are entirely different.
Guy says "no, that's wrong, you have to start from the back", and (amazed) I have to start stepping him through the more efficient, standard solution.
If you're doing ARM assembly on a chip with early termination of multiplication instructions, doing it the other way round _may_ be more efficient (since you can keep one multiplicand in the 8-bit range, _and_ since counting down in loops makes checking for the exit condition (i == 0, or i < 0) faster). The latter is true for many other architectures, too.
But this is architecture-dependent and fairly close to the bare metal, err, silicon.
It's more like 0.214. No wonder you guys have problems with pi.
If you have to write your date with slashes instead of periods, make 10/3 your pi-day, then you're getting at least one figure right. Too bad you put the month first, or else you could make July, 22nd (22/7) your pi-day, and get three figures right.
So lets say a EV has a power plug that draws 500 watts, that 500 watts in 10 seconds instead of spanned across 10 hours is 5000 watts, but lets say its a SUV, and it requires a 1000 watt outlet, that means its going to require 10,000 watts over that 10 second period.
I think your math is way off. 10 hours are 36000 seconds. 500 Watts times 10 hours is 5 kWh. If you want to draw that amount of energy in 10 seconds, you're looking at 1800 kW (yep, 1.8 MW) of power, not 5 kW.
OK so the battery car battery could be charged in 10 seconds but who has "kilo-amp" sized outlets. What are you going to plug your charger into?
Err... better make that mega-amps, just to be on the safe side. If you want to charge a 50 kWh battery in 10 seconds, you're looking at 180 Mega-fscking-Watts of power. That's about 1/10 of the output of a decent-sized nuclear reactor block.
Someone booked for DUI will always be slurring their speech, staggering, have bloodshot eyes, etc.
Great. How about a defendant who can prove that he can still talk properly and walk on a straight line even with 0.2% BAC because he's an actual alcoholic?
Nuclear weapons not considered as an indicator of power?
Even Russia has realized that they have much more power by controlling the gas valve than by having a finger on the red button.
As to 'necessary', perhaps not, but certainly effective. I don't think that any country that has acquired nuclear weapons has ever been successfully invaded afterward.
I have this rock that keeps tigers away...
Most countries that have had nuclear weapons for a while are also militarily strong and don't need to use them to defend themselves. Britain defeated Argentinia without having to nuke them. Russia hat pretty much proven in this century that trying to invade them is a good way to lose the war, nuclear weapons or not. The USA doesn't have any neighbors that are in any position to invade them. China, well, they can probably recruit more soldiers if they're invaded than most of their neighbors have in total population (with the exception of India), so invading China is really only a good way to add another province to China. Israel has also shown that they can repel invasions conventionally.
If it's not, there will be zero incentive to produce.
Some people will produce just for the heck of it. Or because it alleviates their boredom. Or for one of the dozens of reasons that don't start with "p" and end with "rofit".
Not sure this is true - there is plenty of deuterium, but no naturally available tritium. Tritium has to be produced by neutron activation of lithium-6 or in deuterium moderated fission reactors.
You probably don't want mainly D-T fusion in a power-producing fusion reactor anyway. It has a high neutronicity, and that means lots of problems (shielding, activation, etc). However, since you'll have plenty of neutrons from other reactions, you'll automatically breed some tritium from the deuterium, and you can breed more if you bombard lithium with neutrons from the fusion reactor.
And then there's other types of fusion reaction (He3, for example, but we'll have to import the stuff from the moon).
There are authors (such as Peter Hamilton) who have envisioned that the widespread adoption of fusion and "free energy" sends global warming skyrocketing, not due to greenhouse gases but simply due to enormous amounts of waste heat.
Err.. I don't think that waste heat will be a global problem. Compared to the heat input earth receives from the sun, a couple of hundred fusion reactors will be lost in the measurement noise.
However, waste heat will very much be a local problem. You can only heat up rivers and spots on the shoreline that much before problems occur, and you _will_ need a water-based heat sink for those reactors.
Ha, it might not be very convenient but it happens to be the only way ignition has ever been achieved. Thus the excitement over the NIF.
Can you please stop getting things mixed up? My head hurts.
The NIF doesn't use fission to start a fusion reaction, they use lasers. H-bombs use fission to start a fusion reaction, but they're a very inconvenient object to study fusion reactions, since you can't really look at what's going on inside the thing once you hit the big red button.
From the summary: "more energy is generated from the reaction than went into creating it"...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the definition of perpetual motion?
No, it's not. You need to take the fuel and the waste products into account, and in every scenario the fuel that goes in contains more energy that the waste products that come out.
"Discovery" isn't the same as "done in a lab". You can "discover" nuclear fusion by looking up on a sunny day and drawing some conclusions from the spectrum of the sun ("contains mostly hydrogen and helium, gives off a huge frickin' amount of energy") and some principles of physics that were known at that time (E=mc^2, mass defect of helium).
Yes. Some reactions produce neutrons, but that's more of a 'how do we shield the reactors properly' issue.
Sorry, in case of neutrons, it's not just an issue of keeping them from leaving the reactor - you also have to deal with all the stuff that has become activated by the neutrons. And you will have to do that once every couple of years, since the activation also degrades the properties of the materials used in building the reactor.
Are you telling me we have the technology to turn Helium into Iron?
Yes. What do you think particle colliders are for? (Of course, turning helium into iron is a fairly boring affair, and particle colliders are expensive, so they're mostly used for interesting stuff, like producing transuranic elements, exotic isotopes or subatomic particles).
However, if you were asking if we have the technology to turn Helium into Iron _and_ harvest some of the energy released the the process... then no, we can't do that right now.
Fuel for nuclear fusion is more abundant than fuel for nuclear fission, by a couple of orders of magnitude.
If this works does that mean we'll have clean energy without radioactive byproducts?
Not quite. The "waste" of fusion isn't radioactive, but most fusion reactions generate neutrons that will activate whatever the reactor is made out of. So there will be some waste that needs to be dealt with.
If not, why is this better than nuclear power plants today?
It doesn't depend on heavy elements as fuel, and doesn't produce waste that's a mix of all kinds of crap (unfissioned material, fission products, unfissionable (but still toxic) heavy elements, activated materials), but just one kind of crap (activated materials).
Next, assuming we get this working, what material does it require to make it work successfully?
We have the materials, we need to get the processes right.
And really, what then becomes the bottle neck to producing infinite cheap energy?
Possibly, waste heat. You'll still need to get rid of that, provided that the fusion reactor drives a standard turbine setup.
Yes. That's why you use the big anti-ship missiles (~750 kg of warhead plus a few tons of missile, coming in at mach 2+), and of course a whole bunch of them (they're cheap compared to the cost of the BB, and you want to saturate any anti-missile systems).
Yes, yes, BBs are designed to withstand hits from their own guns, but those shells are "only" about 1200 kg, and most of that is metal to keep the thing together when it's fired. And they don't come in all that much faster than mach 2 (muzzle velocity is about 820 m/s).
Slashdot Mirror
A real narcissist would never, ever, do that. Narcissm is all about "ME, MYSELF, AND I". Other people are not important.
Also, don't confuse narcisstic personality disorder with histrionic personality disorder. Both can be equally unpleasant to deal with in the long run (even though people having them usually make fairly interesting conversation partners), but their motivations are entirely different.
Oops. 10 is pretty clearly in the 8-bit range. Guess I shouldn't post before having my first cup of coffee in the morning.
Guy says "no, that's wrong, you have to start from the back", and (amazed) I have to start stepping him through the more efficient, standard solution.
If you're doing ARM assembly on a chip with early termination of multiplication instructions, doing it the other way round _may_ be more efficient (since you can keep one multiplicand in the 8-bit range, _and_ since counting down in loops makes checking for the exit condition (i == 0, or i < 0) faster). The latter is true for many other architectures, too.
But this is architecture-dependent and fairly close to the bare metal, err, silicon.
If you have to write your date with slashes instead of periods, make 10/3 your pi-day, then you're getting at least one figure right. Too bad you put the month first, or else you could make July, 22nd (22/7) your pi-day, and get three figures right.
Fine, Make it a civilian entity (someone who reports to the Mayor/etc. of a city/town).
The police are a civilian entity.
And the mayor belongs to the same branch of government as the police (executive).
So lets say a EV has a power plug that draws 500 watts, that 500 watts in 10 seconds instead of spanned across 10 hours is 5000 watts, but lets say its a SUV, and it requires a 1000 watt outlet, that means its going to require 10,000 watts over that 10 second period.
I think your math is way off. 10 hours are 36000 seconds. 500 Watts times 10 hours is 5 kWh. If you want to draw that amount of energy in 10 seconds, you're looking at 1800 kW (yep, 1.8 MW) of power, not 5 kW.
Define resist. Sure it is if I hit the cop and run, but am I resisting if I'm drunk and trip(I'm handcuffed after all).
Yes you are, if the cop says so. And handcuffs aren't really an obstacle to resisting arrest.
Err ... better make that mega-amps, just to be on the safe side. If you want to charge a 50 kWh battery in 10 seconds, you're looking at 180 Mega-fscking-Watts of power. That's about 1/10 of the output of a decent-sized nuclear reactor block.
Someone booked for DUI will always be slurring their speech, staggering, have bloodshot eyes, etc.
Great. How about a defendant who can prove that he can still talk properly and walk on a straight line even with 0.2% BAC because he's an actual alcoholic?
People are reflexively opposed to "nuclear".
Oh, you mean all the nations who, for some reason, think that they're next on the invasion list of another country?
Even Russia has realized that they have much more power by controlling the gas valve than by having a finger on the red button.
As to 'necessary', perhaps not, but certainly effective. I don't think that any country that has acquired nuclear weapons has ever been successfully invaded afterward.
I have this rock that keeps tigers away ...
Most countries that have had nuclear weapons for a while are also militarily strong and don't need to use them to defend themselves. Britain defeated Argentinia without having to nuke them. Russia hat pretty much proven in this century that trying to invade them is a good way to lose the war, nuclear weapons or not. The USA doesn't have any neighbors that are in any position to invade them. China, well, they can probably recruit more soldiers if they're invaded than most of their neighbors have in total population (with the exception of India), so invading China is really only a good way to add another province to China. Israel has also shown that they can repel invasions conventionally.
Some people will produce just for the heck of it. Or because it alleviates their boredom. Or for one of the dozens of reasons that don't start with "p" and end with "rofit".
Not sure this is true - there is plenty of deuterium, but no naturally available tritium. Tritium has to be produced by neutron activation of lithium-6 or in deuterium moderated fission reactors.
You probably don't want mainly D-T fusion in a power-producing fusion reactor anyway. It has a high neutronicity, and that means lots of problems (shielding, activation, etc). However, since you'll have plenty of neutrons from other reactions, you'll automatically breed some tritium from the deuterium, and you can breed more if you bombard lithium with neutrons from the fusion reactor.
And then there's other types of fusion reaction (He3, for example, but we'll have to import the stuff from the moon).
There are authors (such as Peter Hamilton) who have envisioned that the widespread adoption of fusion and "free energy" sends global warming skyrocketing, not due to greenhouse gases but simply due to enormous amounts of waste heat.
Err .. I don't think that waste heat will be a global problem. Compared to the heat input earth receives from the sun, a couple of hundred fusion reactors will be lost in the measurement noise.
However, waste heat will very much be a local problem. You can only heat up rivers and spots on the shoreline that much before problems occur, and you _will_ need a water-based heat sink for those reactors.
Ha, it might not be very convenient but it happens to be the only way ignition has ever been achieved. Thus the excitement over the NIF.
Can you please stop getting things mixed up? My head hurts.
The NIF doesn't use fission to start a fusion reaction, they use lasers. H-bombs use fission to start a fusion reaction, but they're a very inconvenient object to study fusion reactions, since you can't really look at what's going on inside the thing once you hit the big red button.
From the summary: "more energy is generated from the reaction than went into creating it" ...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the definition of perpetual motion?
No, it's not. You need to take the fuel and the waste products into account, and in every scenario the fuel that goes in contains more energy that the waste products that come out.
"Discovery" isn't the same as "done in a lab". You can "discover" nuclear fusion by looking up on a sunny day and drawing some conclusions from the spectrum of the sun ("contains mostly hydrogen and helium, gives off a huge frickin' amount of energy") and some principles of physics that were known at that time (E=mc^2, mass defect of helium).
"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"
Perhaps you would care to remind me, how many countries had Nuclear weapons back on the 6th and 9th of August 1945?
One. Which resulted in a non-zero probability of nuclear weapons being used. So?
(Yeah, probability theory is a royal pain.)
Sorry, in case of neutrons, it's not just an issue of keeping them from leaving the reactor - you also have to deal with all the stuff that has become activated by the neutrons. And you will have to do that once every couple of years, since the activation also degrades the properties of the materials used in building the reactor.
Yes. What do you think particle colliders are for? (Of course, turning helium into iron is a fairly boring affair, and particle colliders are expensive, so they're mostly used for interesting stuff, like producing transuranic elements, exotic isotopes or subatomic particles).
However, if you were asking if we have the technology to turn Helium into Iron _and_ harvest some of the energy released the the process ... then no, we can't do that right now.
What's so great about nuclear fusion?
Fuel for nuclear fusion is more abundant than fuel for nuclear fission, by a couple of orders of magnitude.
If this works does that mean we'll have clean energy without radioactive byproducts?
Not quite. The "waste" of fusion isn't radioactive, but most fusion reactions generate neutrons that will activate whatever the reactor is made out of. So there will be some waste that needs to be dealt with.
If not, why is this better than nuclear power plants today?
It doesn't depend on heavy elements as fuel, and doesn't produce waste that's a mix of all kinds of crap (unfissioned material, fission products, unfissionable (but still toxic) heavy elements, activated materials), but just one kind of crap (activated materials).
Next, assuming we get this working, what material does it require to make it work successfully?
We have the materials, we need to get the processes right.
And really, what then becomes the bottle neck to producing infinite cheap energy?
Possibly, waste heat. You'll still need to get rid of that, provided that the fusion reactor drives a standard turbine setup.
Yes. That's why you use the big anti-ship missiles (~750 kg of warhead plus a few tons of missile, coming in at mach 2+), and of course a whole bunch of them (they're cheap compared to the cost of the BB, and you want to saturate any anti-missile systems).
Yes, yes, BBs are designed to withstand hits from their own guns, but those shells are "only" about 1200 kg, and most of that is metal to keep the thing together when it's fired. And they don't come in all that much faster than mach 2 (muzzle velocity is about 820 m/s).
It's not a paradox. Si vis pacem, para bellum - that's been known for millenia.