Close to high volume production? gallium-arsenide? I think not. High volume production in the satellite market is infinitesimal in the power generation market. Even Si cells aren't really mass produced.
Except hydro is essentially saturated at 6%. That wouldn't make for a very good buffer. Nuclear schemes would work fine. Especially reactors making combined heat and power.
True that man. We can be glad that god has a plan for dealing with crazy heretics like you and I. We have some good company of intellectual past down there in the fiery tombs of circle 6. Maybe we'll share a casket, you know, have something to talk about as we chill out for eternity under satan's watch.
Join the 20th (or 21st) centrury and heat your homes with waste heat. ASk your neighbors how it's done. Natural gas is for sissies and it was the wrong infrastructure to develop. This was known 40 years ago.
I would say your first hand experience, as well as mine, is a terrible metric of anything. Unfortunately, most people would disagree with me and we have the birth of our conundrum. I'm not advocating a campaign to convince people that cities are wonderful. I don't have the patience to attempt a massive campaign of reeducation. People rarely except things contrary to their beliefs, especially if it requires change.
Theres nothing wrong with living away from the city, I plan to hermitize eventually. It is just much easier for your human footprint to grow out of control. Paradoxically, living in the "country" will usually cause a more negative impact on nature. This hypocracy is inviting to far too many people. Done right, of course, there is no problem and if you manage your footprint correctly it may even be desirable.
You mean until we can 'convince' Americans that cities are child friendly. American cities are safe and wonderful. This isn't the only thing fear-mongering suburbanities are wrong about. Now is the part where you show me murder and rape statistics and I retort with the hysterical laughter that only detached reason can offer.
Bravo, make par for the course and eliminate air conditioning and space heating. A swing of +-10F in your comfort zone will eliminate 50% of these 'needs,' you can replace them by a sweater and tanktop, respectively.
People enjoy picking on SUVs because it lets them justify/forget their own ostentatious waste of energy. e.g. elevators, air conditiong, heating, hot water, their own automobiles, lighting, computers, dryers, etc. Or if you want to look at it another way, over 50% of US energy consumption per capita.
What is human nature? Communism is well defined, human nature is not. There is more uncertainty about human nature than fact and this prevents us from speculating about what does and what does not "fit" it. In fact, I don't even think any two free thinkers could reach a common definition of human nature. Maybe you can constrain your statement to only include our (human) large-scale implementations of communism.
It seems to me that the probabistic interpretation of temeprature becomes invalid in the absense of the continuum assumption, but there still is some "temperature" to describe the kinetic energy of each particle. Isn't this fairly commonplace, sometimes electron energy (eV) is used interchangeably with temperature?
??
Thanks
You could try to use the language of heat to describe interactions of individual particles, but you would be wrong. Consult any thermodynamics textbook, or see the last paragraph of "First law" [wikipedia.org] in this wiki article.
I consulted said article and the following thermodynamic/heat transfer texts at my disposal: Moran & Shapiro, Cengel, Turns, Bejan, and Burmeister. Beyond what certainly are many nebulous descriptions, I do not find fault with GP's statement even at the quantum level. Could you please explain?
"If it's possible to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we have and *not* get a climate effect, that would be one of the most astonishing scientific results in history."
Rubbish. This is a totally unsubstantiated claim.
Re:today's maps will be historical
on
Google Earth In 4D
·
· Score: 2, Funny
This question encapsulates much of what I find unfortunate about today's society. Screw the job market and screw your estimation of the worth of a specific college degree. Education in itself should be praised. If everyone in society was required to at least take an introduction to the analytical skills presented in any technical program, we would be vastly better off. This is easily demonstrated by the reasoned pragmatism of engineering graduates (or anyone with an analytical background) Considering and measuring options that include externalises and long term planning are abilities that are seriously deficient among the majority of the populace simply for lack of education....
Hydrogen isn't dangerous, except when it ruptures from a pipeline, catches fire, and burns an invisible flame. I wouldn't want to walk into an invisible flame and melt my arm off. Anyway, there are ways to avoid this.
I think it is well documented that the fire hazard in the hindenburg was the Al particles in the paint. They really wanted to oxidize and the hydrogen went along for the ride..
I don't have much respect for Popular Mechanics anymore. Too much emphasis on sensationalism. Sadly typical.
I would rather see a floating russian nuke plant off the coast. Something tells me the russians could give us those kwh at nearly.08 $ per.
Comercial photovoltaics are garbage and they will be for several decades until the non-Si semiconductor industry can ramp up.
Significantly different technology is required to undue this. Power conversion/storage is a big area of research, why can't multiple solutions be pursued simultaneously? Given the undeveloped state of microturbines, I find it unlikely you are in a position to comment about their operation under 'ideal' circumstances. It is possible right now to build a reciprocating (e.g. piston) engine to power your laptop with no perceptible vibration or sound beyond that of the DC fan in your laptop.
It combusts the fuel with air to form the products that expand through the turbine. Yes it is certainly subject to Carnot limits and it is not 95% thermally efficient. There are no materials that can do 6000 deg C. (For reference this is the temp at the surface of the sun...) This is absurd. The 95% number is clueless.
Roland submits fine articles and his summaries are no worse than anything else I read here. I visit his site frequently. I have a hard time believing he generates much cash from slashdot. If he does, kudos to him. I've clicked on about 5 adds total in the last 12 years.
Ironically, he won't think twice about spending 4x on an SUV he'll spend.16x the time with. In conclusion, Joe "The Median" Sixpack doesn't have to do anything other then rearrange his already hopeless priorities to acquire this TV.
"Moderate" covers too many different groups of people to have any coherent meaning. In fact, this term is a sad and commentary of our ridiculous political system; they represent the blatant inadequacy of party politics. I have little respect for the political opinions of most moderates. In the current system, they are just sheep to be herded into competing camps by the clever shepherds.
Slashdot Mirror
Close to high volume production? gallium-arsenide? I think not. High volume production in the satellite market is infinitesimal in the power generation market. Even Si cells aren't really mass produced.
Except hydro is essentially saturated at 6%. That wouldn't make for a very good buffer. Nuclear schemes would work fine. Especially reactors making combined heat and power.
True that man. We can be glad that god has a plan for dealing with crazy heretics like you and I. We have some good company of intellectual past down there in the fiery tombs of circle 6. Maybe we'll share a casket, you know, have something to talk about as we chill out for eternity under satan's watch.
Join the 20th (or 21st) centrury and heat your homes with waste heat. ASk your neighbors how it's done. Natural gas is for sissies and it was the wrong infrastructure to develop. This was known 40 years ago.
I would say your first hand experience, as well as mine, is a terrible metric of anything. Unfortunately, most people would disagree with me and we have the birth of our conundrum. I'm not advocating a campaign to convince people that cities are wonderful. I don't have the patience to attempt a massive campaign of reeducation. People rarely except things contrary to their beliefs, especially if it requires change.
Theres nothing wrong with living away from the city, I plan to hermitize eventually. It is just much easier for your human footprint to grow out of control. Paradoxically, living in the "country" will usually cause a more negative impact on nature. This hypocracy is inviting to far too many people. Done right, of course, there is no problem and if you manage your footprint correctly it may even be desirable.
You mean until we can 'convince' Americans that cities are child friendly. American cities are safe and wonderful. This isn't the only thing fear-mongering suburbanities are wrong about. Now is the part where you show me murder and rape statistics and I retort with the hysterical laughter that only detached reason can offer.
Bravo, make par for the course and eliminate air conditioning and space heating. A swing of +-10F in your comfort zone will eliminate 50% of these 'needs,' you can replace them by a sweater and tanktop, respectively.
People enjoy picking on SUVs because it lets them justify/forget their own ostentatious waste of energy. e.g. elevators, air conditiong, heating, hot water, their own automobiles, lighting, computers, dryers, etc. Or if you want to look at it another way, over 50% of US energy consumption per capita.
What is human nature? Communism is well defined, human nature is not. There is more uncertainty about human nature than fact and this prevents us from speculating about what does and what does not "fit" it. In fact, I don't even think any two free thinkers could reach a common definition of human nature. Maybe you can constrain your statement to only include our (human) large-scale implementations of communism.
It seems to me that the probabistic interpretation of temeprature becomes invalid in the absense of the continuum assumption, but there still is some "temperature" to describe the kinetic energy of each particle. Isn't this fairly commonplace, sometimes electron energy (eV) is used interchangeably with temperature? ?? Thanks
Communism is not flawed. People are flawed.
even easier: ban air conditioning and turn off the lights
"If it's possible to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we have and *not* get a climate effect, that would be one of the most astonishing scientific results in history."
Rubbish. This is a totally unsubstantiated claim.
No thanks, I will choose free will!
This question encapsulates much of what I find unfortunate about today's society. Screw the job market and screw your estimation of the worth of a specific college degree. Education in itself should be praised. If everyone in society was required to at least take an introduction to the analytical skills presented in any technical program, we would be vastly better off. This is easily demonstrated by the reasoned pragmatism of engineering graduates (or anyone with an analytical background) Considering and measuring options that include externalises and long term planning are abilities that are seriously deficient among the majority of the populace simply for lack of education. ...
Hydrogen isn't dangerous, except when it ruptures from a pipeline, catches fire, and burns an invisible flame. I wouldn't want to walk into an invisible flame and melt my arm off. Anyway, there are ways to avoid this. I think it is well documented that the fire hazard in the hindenburg was the Al particles in the paint. They really wanted to oxidize and the hydrogen went along for the ride.. I don't have much respect for Popular Mechanics anymore. Too much emphasis on sensationalism. Sadly typical.
I would rather see a floating russian nuke plant off the coast. Something tells me the russians could give us those kwh at nearly .08 $ per.
Comercial photovoltaics are garbage and they will be for several decades until the non-Si semiconductor industry can ramp up.
This just in... batteries suck.
Significantly different technology is required to undue this. Power conversion/storage is a big area of research, why can't multiple solutions be pursued simultaneously? Given the undeveloped state of microturbines, I find it unlikely you are in a position to comment about their operation under 'ideal' circumstances. It is possible right now to build a reciprocating (e.g. piston) engine to power your laptop with no perceptible vibration or sound beyond that of the DC fan in your laptop.
It combusts the fuel with air to form the products that expand through the turbine. Yes it is certainly subject to Carnot limits and it is not 95% thermally efficient. There are no materials that can do 6000 deg C. (For reference this is the temp at the surface of the sun...) This is absurd. The 95% number is clueless.
Roland submits fine articles and his summaries are no worse than anything else I read here. I visit his site frequently. I have a hard time believing he generates much cash from slashdot. If he does, kudos to him. I've clicked on about 5 adds total in the last 12 years.
Ironically, he won't think twice about spending 4x on an SUV he'll spend .16x the time with. In conclusion, Joe "The Median" Sixpack doesn't have to do anything other then rearrange his already hopeless priorities to acquire this TV.
"Moderate" covers too many different groups of people to have any coherent meaning. In fact, this term is a sad and commentary of our ridiculous political system; they represent the blatant inadequacy of party politics. I have little respect for the political opinions of most moderates. In the current system, they are just sheep to be herded into competing camps by the clever shepherds.
This claim is not true. According to the EIA, 2005 US gas prices break down as such:
y sis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/pe tbro.html
Crude - 53%
Refining/Processing - 19%
State/Federal Taxes - 19%
Distribution - 9%
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/anal