Well, to be fair "shop" also means a place where things are crafted or repaired (compare with "workshop"). Visual Studio is visual in its design methodology, but no so much a studio.
The first thing we need to talk about is the difference between workstation and consumer GPUs. The GPUs themselves are essentially identical -- NVIDIA's Quadro K6000 is based on GK104 (Kepler) the older Quadro 6000 is a GF100 (Fermi)-based chip, the W9000 uses the same GCN core that powers the HD 7970/R9 280X, and today's W9100 is essentially identical to the Hawaii XT core inside the R9 290X. What sets these workstation cards aside are the amount of RAM they carry (typically 2-3x as much as a consumer card), their validation cycles (workstation GPU cores are hammered on far more than the consumer equivalents) and the amount of backend vendor support and optimization that AMD and NVIDIA both perform.
This optimization process and long-term vendor partnership is what distinguishes the workstation market from the consumer space and the need to pay for some of those development costs is part of why workstation cards tend to cost so much more than their consumer equivalents.
The first thing we need to talk about is the difference between workstation and consumer GPUs. The GPUs themselves are essentially identical -- NVIDIA's Quadro K6000 is based on GK104 (Kepler) the older Quadro 6000 is a GF100 (Fermi)-based chip, the W9000 uses the same GCN core that powers the HD 7970/R9 280X, and today's W9100 is essentially identical to the Hawaii XT core inside the R9 290X. What sets these workstation cards aside are the amount of RAM they carry (typically 2-3x as much as a consumer card), their validation cycles (workstation GPU cores are hammered on far more than the consumer equivalents) and the amount of backend vendor support and optimization that AMD and NVIDIA both perform.
This optimization process and long-term vendor partnership is what distinguishes the workstation market from the consumer space and the need to pay for some of those development costs is part of why workstation cards tend to cost so much more than their consumer equivalents.
It looks like there's more to it than increased surface area - the Coand effect may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25").
Then again, this may be just a case of increased area for heat transfer. I'm not a rocket engineer.
Maybe there's more to it - the Coand effect may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25"). Then again, it may be just more surface for transfer.
It looks like there's more to it than increased surface area - the Coanda effect may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25").
Ok, how about: "it boils colder, making cooking slower"? Because that's what mountaineers and other people at high altitude complain; e.g., pasta takes forever to cook properly (whatever they mean by it), resulting in a goopy consistency.
Yes, another/.-er said that weakening of the gas-rich strata changes the stress field, causing reacommodation in places that were previously stable. Is there any serious before/after record of displacements / etc (besides seismic events) to build a solid case in court / regulators ?
I learned after posting that comment that some of the quakes happened in places without a significant seismic history. And thar the fracking may have caused a redistribution of stresses by weakening the gas bearing strata. (Which is not the same as crowing "You said you weren't causing quakes and now you can! Which is it, huh? Huh?")
The fun part will be taking Big Oil to court. How well have the areas where they operate been monitored?
I thought all quakes dissipated energy reducing the total stress, but this may still be true while increasing concentration elsewhere as you suggest. Another reply to my comment says that the fractured layer isn't as strong as before, resulting in new shifts and accomodation in faults that were stable. What do you think?
Yes, the "small force triggering a big release" part is alright. The flaw lies in assuming theres a single bowling ball; to follow your analogy, imagine that balls keep coming in at a more or less constant rate until the shelf flexes and all come down (avalanches work like this too). Wouldn't you rather shake the shelf to make one ball fall at a time? (IIRC, avalanches are sometimes triggered on purpose).
Plate movement doesn't stop either, and the fault can accommodate and dissipate its stress in big or small jolts. But again, read the other post I told you about.
So it's not really about faults accommodating plate displacement, but about new dynamics created by collapse in the fractured rock. And the statistics suggest that something is indeed changing. Are there any measurements of the strata backing up this?
Yes, there's a reply to my original post that the fillers do not stabilize the damage well enough, and that's causing new dynamics in faults that were until now quiescent.
That analogy doesn't resemble fault dynamics at all. Perhaps a better one would be pushing a heavy object along a hard floor; as it moves, some points of contact stick, flexing the structure a tiny bit until the stress exceeds the static friction, and every little jolt is like a seismic event. That's how regular fault accommodation causes quakes, and the longer the points of friction are stuck a bigger jolt becomes more likely.
But never mind - there are other replies to my top-level comment that propose other sources of stress / energy.
Both. Since you can't be bothered to read what I wrote attentively, I'll tryoto expand and break it down:
Fracking releases the energy in the faults, thus fracking triggers quakes. But the energy doesn't come from fracking - it comes from plate tectonics. And the quake would have happened anyway, possibly causing more damage like a pressure pot with a defective release valve. So fracking doesn't cause *additional* quaking - it replaces a few (possibly) big quakes with several smaller ones.
That makes the faults more prone to slippages and earthquakes.
If my meager understanding of earthquakes is correct, these small slippages release in small bits the tectonic stress that could otherwise build up until a bigger quake happens. So, frack away?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to be fair "shop" also means a place where things are crafted or repaired (compare with "workshop"). Visual Studio is visual in its design methodology, but no so much a studio.
Zune. Bing. Works. Visio. Vizact.
And lastly, Bob.
From TFA:
Understanding the Workstation Market:
The first thing we need to talk about is the difference between workstation and consumer GPUs. The GPUs themselves are essentially identical -- NVIDIA's Quadro K6000 is based on GK104 (Kepler) the older Quadro 6000 is a GF100 (Fermi)-based chip, the W9000 uses the same GCN core that powers the HD 7970/R9 280X, and today's W9100 is essentially identical to the Hawaii XT core inside the R9 290X. What sets these workstation cards aside are the amount of RAM they carry (typically 2-3x as much as a consumer card), their validation cycles (workstation GPU cores are hammered on far more than the consumer equivalents) and the amount of backend vendor support and optimization that AMD and NVIDIA both perform.
This optimization process and long-term vendor partnership is what distinguishes the workstation market from the consumer space and the need to pay for some of those development costs is part of why workstation cards tend to cost so much more than their consumer equivalents.
Understanding the Workstation Market:
The first thing we need to talk about is the difference between workstation and consumer GPUs. The GPUs themselves are essentially identical -- NVIDIA's Quadro K6000 is based on GK104 (Kepler) the older Quadro 6000 is a GF100 (Fermi)-based chip, the W9000 uses the same GCN core that powers the HD 7970/R9 280X, and today's W9100 is essentially identical to the Hawaii XT core inside the R9 290X. What sets these workstation cards aside are the amount of RAM they carry (typically 2-3x as much as a consumer card), their validation cycles (workstation GPU cores are hammered on far more than the consumer equivalents) and the amount of backend vendor support and optimization that AMD and NVIDIA both perform.
This optimization process and long-term vendor partnership is what distinguishes the workstation market from the consumer space and the need to pay for some of those development costs is part of why workstation cards tend to cost so much more than their consumer equivalents.
From TFA.
That's so dark, I can't make out its shape.
Two were direct replies and the top-level post got me a nice reply from the developer's brother. Screw karma, I've got enough for whatever it's worth.
Not a good idea to haul one on a hike, I presume.
Nice! Can you lead us to a more technical article? Even the bit from Oxford is light on details.
I swear this is why I read /.
It looks like there's more to it than increased surface area - the Coand effect may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25").
Then again, this may be just a case of increased area for heat transfer. I'm not a rocket engineer.
Maybe there's more to it - the Coand effect may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25"). Then again, it may be just more surface for transfer.
It looks like there's more to it than increased surface area - the Coanda effect may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25").
Ok, how about: "it boils colder, making cooking slower"? Because that's what mountaineers and other people at high altitude complain; e.g., pasta takes forever to cook properly (whatever they mean by it), resulting in a goopy consistency.
Nah, that won't fly.
I still have it (unchecked). You must have been naughty.
Yes, another /.-er said that weakening of the gas-rich strata changes the stress field, causing reacommodation in places that were previously stable. Is there any serious before/after record of displacements / etc (besides seismic events) to build a solid case in court / regulators ?
I learned after posting that comment that some of the quakes happened in places without a significant seismic history. And thar the fracking may have caused a redistribution of stresses by weakening the gas bearing strata. (Which is not the same as crowing "You said you weren't causing quakes and now you can! Which is it, huh? Huh?")
The fun part will be taking Big Oil to court. How well have the areas where they operate been monitored?
I thought all quakes dissipated energy reducing the total stress, but this may still be true while increasing concentration elsewhere as you suggest. Another reply to my comment says that the fractured layer isn't as strong as before, resulting in new shifts and accomodation in faults that were stable. What do you think?
Yes, the "small force triggering a big release" part is alright. The flaw lies in assuming theres a single bowling ball; to follow your analogy, imagine that balls keep coming in at a more or less constant rate until the shelf flexes and all come down (avalanches work like this too). Wouldn't you rather shake the shelf to make one ball fall at a time? (IIRC, avalanches are sometimes triggered on purpose).
Plate movement doesn't stop either, and the fault can accommodate and dissipate its stress in big or small jolts. But again, read the other post I told you about.
So it's not really about faults accommodating plate displacement, but about new dynamics created by collapse in the fractured rock. And the statistics suggest that something is indeed changing. Are there any measurements of the strata backing up this?
Yes, there's a reply to my original post that the fillers do not stabilize the damage well enough, and that's causing new dynamics in faults that were until now quiescent.
That analogy doesn't resemble fault dynamics at all. Perhaps a better one would be pushing a heavy object along a hard floor; as it moves, some points of contact stick, flexing the structure a tiny bit until the stress exceeds the static friction, and every little jolt is like a seismic event. That's how regular fault accommodation causes quakes, and the longer the points of friction are stuck a bigger jolt becomes more likely.
But never mind - there are other replies to my top-level comment that propose other sources of stress / energy.
Now we're talking. There's one thing that doesn't add up to me: does the energy delivered by the process approximate the energy released seismically?
Huh? Don't all quakes release energy?
Both. Since you can't be bothered to read what I wrote attentively, I'll tryoto expand and break it down:
Fracking releases the energy in the faults, thus fracking triggers quakes. But the energy doesn't come from fracking - it comes from plate tectonics. And the quake would have happened anyway, possibly causing more damage like a pressure pot with a defective release valve. So fracking doesn't cause *additional* quaking - it replaces a few (possibly) big quakes with several smaller ones.
That makes the faults more prone to slippages and earthquakes.
If my meager understanding of earthquakes is correct, these small slippages release in small bits the tectonic stress that could otherwise build up until a bigger quake happens. So, frack away?