Oh i should add that the amount of gold used means the price of gold has little bearing on the price of the gold layer. Its the cost of applying that layer that cost the $$.
Well when i was working on RF stuff, there was a lot of silver and gold of course. Skin effect and all and good connections were important to avoid reflections. Since a HDMI cable is working as a high frequency broad band cable. I can see cheap cables not working. Reflection on incorrectly or poorly terminated sockets could really stuff things up. Digital in a computer is far from 1 or 0 at these kind of bit rates. Signal eyes from these can be.. unpleasant. Error codes are used for a reason.
Of course i don't buy the expensive cables either. But we are not talking about "warm sound from correctly polarized oxygen free isotopically pure" monster cables.
Most people however do not perceive the biggest risk as the biggest risk at all. Even in a bad neighborhood, the biggest risk is still car accidents. But that's not want anyone thinks about or worries about. So most of the effort is put into the biggest perceived risk which is often hardly a real risk at all...
That is a little unfair. Gold connectors do in fact do provide benefits of low resistance connections without corrosion problems because of golds properties. It can also be applied in quite a thin layer so can also be fairly cheap too.
I have had some of these "genius" Korean kids in my class. Other than hopeless social skills, they were not good at math and science they way we think of it. They were good at memorizing specific problems (aka just substitute the different numbers and mash that calculator) and things from the textbooks. One even insisted that we need to tell him which textbook to memorize and that i wasn't allowed to give questions in the exam that are not in it.
Of course i used 3 different text books (all ones used before in the class so plenty of 2nd hand ones around) and all available editions. I did lots of "word problems" type questions that these "genius" hated. I like to get my students to think. Not regurgitate.
And you did what many fail to do. You took responsibility for your own education. At the end of the day, its you who is stuck with the consequences not the teachers so it *is* your responsibly. Its not like once you have a job your boss is going to be any better, or other real life examples...
The problem is that just as we were beginning to grasp one of them, we'd move onto the next subject, and the next year, we'd have to start over as we hadn't mastered the material the last time we saw it.
There is a saying from one of my uni professors. If something in math is hard its because you don't understand it yet. If you don't understand it yet, its probably because you don't understand the foundation properly. He was right. The catch is, once you do understand it, and do have the foundation concepts down properly. Its really really hard to understand how you found it hard in the first place. So teaching it well is even harder.
Now consider that even at the best universities you are not given anything for teaching. Your future depends on your publications. So guess what kind of people are left behind to teach...... And "highly respected mathematicians" that write books, guess how much they teach.
Why are schools still paying for textbooks. Surely by now we can get some professional copy left stuff done for cheaper than textbooks cost for just a single year.
Interestingly we don't know if the moons gravity is enough for a Human to live healthy. Also i think tourism will happen... in a century or so. Technology then will be indistinguishable from magic compared to now. So it will just be cheap enough.
Of course that assumes we can get to grips with the biggest challenge of our time. Economies need a way to be healthy without growth. At 1-2% growth, it takes only a few centuries before we consume more energy than the sun outputs.... and a few more before we consume more than the entire galaxy. We need more sustainable economic models and polices.
For what? Do do what? So now i have some H and some O... but what did i need it for in the first place? Why go to the moon? Why go to space? There is no compelling reason why getting fuel from the moon is an improvement over not going there at all.
Who said anything about mars, who said anything about this generation? 100 years ago how many people would believe what we have today in technology? Not just things like cell phones or cheap global airline travel, but materials sciences etc? Engineering that can do what they simply couldn't have dreamed of back then. 100 years is a really long time.
Pure 3He fusion produces 12.86 MeV per reaction. So lets assume a 1GW reactor. We will assume 100%, a seriously silly assumption since even with charged particles capture you still lose a lot of power in xrays. 1GJ needs 9.7x 10^20 atoms of 3He. 6x10^23 is 3 grams. So we need 0.0049 grams per second to power our reactor. For one year that is 153kg. So now at the 50ppb we need 3 million tons of regolith if we can process that with no energy requirements and with 100% efficiency. Clearly you need to use some for the mining operations and 50ppb is amazingly dilute, about 1000x more dilute that ores that we leach for uranium mining. Leaching won't work here, so 100% recovery seems rather unlikely.
So how much is 3 million tons of regolith? Its about 1.5g/cm3, so that is about 2 million cubic meters. He is only in the top layers. We don't have great data on this, but 5m seems to be a standard figure thrown around. That requires a mine just 700x700m and 5m deep. Of course this is on the *moon*, and we assumed 50pbb, while most newer estimates put it closer to 1pbb. At 1pbb it needs to be a mine 4.5km x 4.5km! or as big as some of the larger ore mines on earth, but much shallower. AND this is for just ONE 1GW 100% efficient power station for just ONE year assuming 100% extraction with no energy use for extraction whatsoever.
Lets scale it up to 20% of the US electricity supply (not energy use!) and see what we need with 50pbb and 100% extraction etc. 20% of electricty for a year is about 800TWh. A 1GW plant produces 8.76TWh so we need 91GW total for just 20%. This needs a mine 6km x 6km (5m deep) for 1 year of operation. Or a large scale terrestrial mining operation. At 1pbb.... well its sort of massive. Like 40km x 40km.....
Even if you could burn it. It will never be worth mining it. Using D from oceans and doing the DD thing always makes more sense. Oh and you can make your own T with the neutrons that DT fusion puts out as well.
The 3He as a fusion fuel from the moon is directed at the 3He+3He reaction. Its a bit harder than DD or HeD fusion and of course a lot harder than DT and they have much lower power densities.
All in all if you can burn pure He, you can burn DD with more power density and hence its cheaper. Neutrons are not that impossible to deal with. DT of course has something like 60x more power density again! But a much harder neutron spectrum.
What if find strange is that the obvious reason is never stated. Tourism. Right now how much disposable income is spent on traveling for no other reason than just to be there? Its a lot.
Of course if that is the market then NASA has no business doing it. And commercially it won't be done till the technology catches up a bit. That is cheaper.. and it will get easier/cheaper as we progress. Intended or not.
No no no. You got it all wrong. AGW is all bad. There is no good. A warming climate is bad. If you had nice land to grow crops, its going to turn into a dessert. If you have a dessert, you going to drown in floods, or its going to be a worse dessert. Well something will happen to make it worse that it is now. Then there will be a war with your neighbours so they can have some of your nice dessert, or flood lands, or whatever it is you have that is already your own doom... because well having someone else's doom is better than your own doom. Or something.. The Medieval Warm Period was only good, because well, errr because its wasn't AGW! The Little ice age was bad see, so climate change is bad. What more heat means more clouds that could reflect more sunlight? Nonsense I tell you. There are only positive feedback loops, the clouds will only form at night and trap more heat! We are going to be like Venus we are the curse of all life... To argue with me means your a denier... DENIER...
On a more serious note. The 2 worst things that have happened and continue to happen are over fishing and habitat removal. If we didn't/stop do/doing that, ecosystems tend to be more plastic.
We can burn DT which is 100x easier, so its not useful as a fuel. Its also very rare, at between 1ppb to 50ppb, so even if you could burn it you need a mining operation bigger than anything on earth just for a power station. Oh and if you can burn 3He then you can burn DD, which produces 3He.
3He is not a reason to go to the moon. Its proof that even proponents can't come up with a good reason to go there at all.
As far as i can tell you can't do much about this. A conference in Kyoto the same year was almost not attended by many scientists *with radiation training* (biologist mostly). When asked why, they had no scientific reason, just "well better to be safe.." crap. When i told them how stupid it was to think it was dangerous in Kyoto because you could get many different independent measurements from there by then, they reluctantly admitted their fear had no basis in logic or science. And still didn't go.
These people work with xrays machines and radioactive compounds on a daily basis.
Slashdot Mirror
So what if its encrypted, if you have the keys are are legally required to hand them over when asked to?
Better in what way. Nothing in engineering is as simple as "this is best".
Oh i should add that the amount of gold used means the price of gold has little bearing on the price of the gold layer. Its the cost of applying that layer that cost the $$.
Well when i was working on RF stuff, there was a lot of silver and gold of course. Skin effect and all and good connections were important to avoid reflections. Since a HDMI cable is working as a high frequency broad band cable. I can see cheap cables not working. Reflection on incorrectly or poorly terminated sockets could really stuff things up. Digital in a computer is far from 1 or 0 at these kind of bit rates. Signal eyes from these can be .. unpleasant. Error codes are used for a reason.
Of course i don't buy the expensive cables either. But we are not talking about "warm sound from correctly polarized oxygen free isotopically pure" monster cables.
Most people however do not perceive the biggest risk as the biggest risk at all. Even in a bad neighborhood, the biggest risk is still car accidents. But that's not want anyone thinks about or worries about. So most of the effort is put into the biggest perceived risk which is often hardly a real risk at all...
That is a little unfair. Gold connectors do in fact do provide benefits of low resistance connections without corrosion problems because of golds properties. It can also be applied in quite a thin layer so can also be fairly cheap too.
I have had some of these "genius" Korean kids in my class. Other than hopeless social skills, they were not good at math and science they way we think of it. They were good at memorizing specific problems (aka just substitute the different numbers and mash that calculator) and things from the textbooks. One even insisted that we need to tell him which textbook to memorize and that i wasn't allowed to give questions in the exam that are not in it.
Of course i used 3 different text books (all ones used before in the class so plenty of 2nd hand ones around) and all available editions. I did lots of "word problems" type questions that these "genius" hated. I like to get my students to think. Not regurgitate.
And you did what many fail to do. You took responsibility for your own education. At the end of the day, its you who is stuck with the consequences not the teachers so it *is* your responsibly. Its not like once you have a job your boss is going to be any better, or other real life examples...
The problem is that just as we were beginning to grasp one of them, we'd move onto the next subject, and the next year, we'd have to start over as we hadn't mastered the material the last time we saw it.
There is a saying from one of my uni professors. If something in math is hard its because you don't understand it yet. If you don't understand it yet, its probably because you don't understand the foundation properly. He was right. The catch is, once you do understand it, and do have the foundation concepts down properly. Its really really hard to understand how you found it hard in the first place. So teaching it well is even harder.
Now consider that even at the best universities you are not given anything for teaching. Your future depends on your publications. So guess what kind of people are left behind to teach...... And "highly respected mathematicians" that write books, guess how much they teach.
Why are schools still paying for textbooks. Surely by now we can get some professional copy left stuff done for cheaper than textbooks cost for just a single year.
Speak for yourself. I intend to live forever, or die trying.
Interestingly we don't know if the moons gravity is enough for a Human to live healthy. Also i think tourism will happen... in a century or so. Technology then will be indistinguishable from magic compared to now. So it will just be cheap enough.
Of course that assumes we can get to grips with the biggest challenge of our time. Economies need a way to be healthy without growth. At 1-2% growth, it takes only a few centuries before we consume more energy than the sun outputs.... and a few more before we consume more than the entire galaxy. We need more sustainable economic models and polices.
For what? Do do what? So now i have some H and some O... but what did i need it for in the first place? Why go to the moon? Why go to space? There is no compelling reason why getting fuel from the moon is an improvement over not going there at all.
Who said anything about mars, who said anything about this generation? 100 years ago how many people would believe what we have today in technology? Not just things like cell phones or cheap global airline travel, but materials sciences etc? Engineering that can do what they simply couldn't have dreamed of back then. 100 years is a really long time.
Pure 3He fusion produces 12.86 MeV per reaction. So lets assume a 1GW reactor. We will assume 100%, a seriously silly assumption since even with charged particles capture you still lose a lot of power in xrays. 1GJ needs 9.7x 10^20 atoms of 3He. 6x10^23 is 3 grams. So we need 0.0049 grams per second to power our reactor. For one year that is 153kg. So now at the 50ppb we need 3 million tons of regolith if we can process that with no energy requirements and with 100% efficiency. Clearly you need to use some for the mining operations and 50ppb is amazingly dilute, about 1000x more dilute that ores that we leach for uranium mining. Leaching won't work here, so 100% recovery seems rather unlikely.
So how much is 3 million tons of regolith? Its about 1.5g/cm3, so that is about 2 million cubic meters. He is only in the top layers. We don't have great data on this, but 5m seems to be a standard figure thrown around. That requires a mine just 700x700m and 5m deep. Of course this is on the *moon*, and we assumed 50pbb, while most newer estimates put it closer to 1pbb. At 1pbb it needs to be a mine 4.5km x 4.5km! or as big as some of the larger ore mines on earth, but much shallower. AND this is for just ONE 1GW 100% efficient power station for just ONE year assuming 100% extraction with no energy use for extraction whatsoever.
Lets scale it up to 20% of the US electricity supply (not energy use!) and see what we need with 50pbb and 100% extraction etc. 20% of electricty for a year is about 800TWh. A 1GW plant produces 8.76TWh so we need 91GW total for just 20%. This needs a mine 6km x 6km (5m deep) for 1 year of operation. Or a large scale terrestrial mining operation. At 1pbb.... well its sort of massive. Like 40km x 40km.....
Even if you could burn it. It will never be worth mining it. Using D from oceans and doing the DD thing always makes more sense. Oh and you can make your own T with the neutrons that DT fusion puts out as well.
pedantic toss pot. You wouldn't know radiation if turned your brain to paste.
The 3He as a fusion fuel from the moon is directed at the 3He+3He reaction. Its a bit harder than DD or HeD fusion and of course a lot harder than DT and they have much lower power densities.
All in all if you can burn pure He, you can burn DD with more power density and hence its cheaper. Neutrons are not that impossible to deal with. DT of course has something like 60x more power density again! But a much harder neutron spectrum.
Was of course suppose to say *can't* burn DT.
What about the DEA, FBI or CIA? How do they compare. I know the NSA budget is never disclosed.
NASA is the defense industry II. You described it to a tee. It that how you say it, "tee" or T or say tea.s
3He has one less subatomic bits than regular He.
What if find strange is that the obvious reason is never stated. Tourism. Right now how much disposable income is spent on traveling for no other reason than just to be there? Its a lot.
.. and it will get easier/cheaper as we progress. Intended or not.
Of course if that is the market then NASA has no business doing it. And commercially it won't be done till the technology catches up a bit. That is cheaper
No no no. You got it all wrong. AGW is all bad. There is no good. A warming climate is bad. If you had nice land to grow crops, its going to turn into a dessert. If you have a dessert, you going to drown in floods, or its going to be a worse dessert. Well something will happen to make it worse that it is now. Then there will be a war with your neighbours so they can have some of your nice dessert, or flood lands, or whatever it is you have that is already your own doom... because well having someone else's doom is better than your own doom. Or something.. The Medieval Warm Period was only good, because well, errr because its wasn't AGW! The Little ice age was bad see, so climate change is bad. What more heat means more clouds that could reflect more sunlight? Nonsense I tell you. There are only positive feedback loops, the clouds will only form at night and trap more heat! We are going to be like Venus we are the curse of all life... To argue with me means your a denier... DENIER...
On a more serious note. The 2 worst things that have happened and continue to happen are over fishing and habitat removal. If we didn't/stop do/doing that, ecosystems tend to be more plastic.
We can burn DT which is 100x easier, so its not useful as a fuel. Its also very rare, at between 1ppb to 50ppb, so even if you could burn it you need a mining operation bigger than anything on earth just for a power station. Oh and if you can burn 3He then you can burn DD, which produces 3He.
3He is not a reason to go to the moon. Its proof that even proponents can't come up with a good reason to go there at all.
As far as i can tell you can't do much about this. A conference in Kyoto the same year was almost not attended by many scientists *with radiation training* (biologist mostly). When asked why, they had no scientific reason, just "well better to be safe.." crap. When i told them how stupid it was to think it was dangerous in Kyoto because you could get many different independent measurements from there by then, they reluctantly admitted their fear had no basis in logic or science. And still didn't go.
These people work with xrays machines and radioactive compounds on a daily basis.