well you may need some sort of rebar. You are probably going to have some cantilevered roofs or something. But it need not be rebar. Fiber reinforced. Lots of silica on the moon.
And yet this still does not give us a real why? What is the point of sending radiation intolerant, oxygen consuming meat bags on the moon? Its not science. For the same budget we can get much more done with even robotic probes. Its not 3He, for one there almost nothing there (1-50ppb) and we can't even burn DT let alone 3He which is ~60x harder to do. So we can learn how to go to mars? For what? To do what? Again science is best done by machines that handle the environment.
And no this is *nothing* like going to the new world. This is not even comparable to colonising the outback of Australia or Antarctica.
What is not clear is that the coal export increase has anything to do with reduction in coal use internally. At least in the EU good coke/coal for steel is something that is always worth the $$ and local sources tend to be a bit on the brown side. Demand is driven by steel demand/price. So that increase was probably going to happen anyway.
Having said that, per capita energy use in the US (and still CO2 footprint) is about 2x that of Europe.
Chernobyl again. Really. TMI is a better example. If i was to design a plant that would be as close as possible to being a massive dirty bomb that generated electricity,it would still be safer than Chernobyl. It didn't/doesn't even have a containment building. Something that everything else (even other Russian designs) have.
Chernobyl is an example of just how much the former USSR didn't care for anyone or anything in the name of the cold war. That design was about getting the plutonium out fast and nothing else.
A better example of a worse case for most other designs is Fukushima. Bad. Yes. Very bad in fact. But much more localized than Chernobyl. However it did demonstrate that you just can't trust profit motive at any level, or the collective lack of responsibly felt by individuals in a corporation.
You must be fun to be around at Easter. Seriously, the Lazarus project just sound cool. Because well the name Lazarus sounds cool. I can easily see such a project spawning the Zombie Apocalypse. And what other hope do I have left now that Ron Paul didn't get to be president.
I see a lot of brochure science and very little research. For the billions that its cost I would expect at least a few peer reviewed papers. Well really for that kind of money i would expect something either equivalent to the Higgs or a lot more than a few papers.
After all the Higgs discovery was delayed for 2 decades for that orbital white elephant. And it cost a lot more and is still a money suck.
Even on the time frames of ice sheets melting (1000 to 10000 years), a lot of sea level rise is isostatic rebound. Even Europe is still rebounding after the last glacial maxim. We know CO2 makes some plants in some conditions grow faster from green houses where the CO2 level are deliberately enriched. Note however that this depends on other factors not being limiting. ie enough sunlight.
MPEG-LA said they had a portfolio of patents that covered WebM, and said that they would indemnify... for a price.
No they didn't. What they said was we will licences Their patents for a price. There is explicitly no indemnity offered in MPEG-LA licences. Its even in the licence.
This is not true. In the 4 countries I have lived in, the loser pays only in special circumstances. Typically only when they have really pissed off the Judge.
You know there is nothing in bit coin that means it can't be used in a fractional reserve banking system. All you need is a some "bank" where people put their coins to earn interest. The bank can then lend it out. Of course the money lent out is just in another account at the same bank. The bank can lend it out again. As with real money, the bank does not need to be registered or legal or regulated (aka sharks), and you can essentially "create" currency.
Fractional reserve banking is not something governments invented. It was something the public wanted governments to regulate.
Or even worse. The slums that are Lichtenstein (yea quite a bit of steel there) or Switzerland. I am here now slaving away to the *bone*. I only get to go skiing 3 times a week. Of course America can't compete with their very high living standards and expectations.
Well i don't think there is much that doesn't fuse/disintegrate if we heat it up to 80GeV per nucleon!
This whole LENR really don't have any credibility. They are popular in news papers and little else. Why? No data, and just plain laughable theory... They claim they produce neutrons but no neutron radiation? So these are what? Special unicorn neutrons with a new 6th force sucking them into Ni nuclei?
This is incorrect. The protons, in particular the deuterons (you don't observe this in pure 1H) in a D2 muon molecule are close enough together to under go fusion via tunneling through the quantum barrier. There is no "looks like a neutron" anywhere.. except the real neutrons of course.
Ops.. was thinking it was copper. But also they claim to produce a neutron from Hydrogen and then that neutron gets sucked into Ni, ie otherwise there would be all this neutron radiation. Also the standard model does require some radiation for these reactions for the different quantum numbers to be preserved. The weak force often produces neutrinos. Neutron capture can produce gammas.
Fact is that no reproducible experiment has ever shown net energy out, and for anything that they claim to be true the standard model must be very wrong. There is a lot of data pointing to the standard model being spot on so far. None of this passes even the most basic acid test.
There are no stable Cu+n isotopes. You get a unstable Cu that decays via +Beta decay. aka a positron is emitted. This in turn combines with another electron to produce two ~500keV gammas. When you run all the numbers a 1MW plant is producing kW of gammas with natural Cu.
There is *so* much wrong with the high level physics its a joke. Protons and electrons do not spontaneously combine under the standard model like this. In fact this gives a results about white dwarf stars, and how big they are before they turn into neutron stars. The only other way is electron capture. This again is something that occurs close to the nucleus from the inner shell electrons and is a rare form of decay. The energies they claim are involved with not even get close to affecting the inner shells... let alone get a proton to tunnel in and somehow magically combine with a electron.......
We have a lot of data and results on this sort of thing. There is nothing all that special about the conditions that they claim make this work. In fact there are lot of industrial process that reproduce the claimed condition's and we observe no such thing.
Where does the neutron come from again? Why is there no decay from the resultant nuclei? This is not fringe, its plain bad science. Show me the data. Oh thats right the data they claim to have is not even consistent with the theory that right out of a star trek episode.
What evidence? There is none. No good scientist are putting anything behind this, because there is no theory, no data that matched even the pie in the sky theory, and a crap load of experimental data that says its does not work.
When firing in vacuum, the lack of air resistance will let the bullet leave the barrel more easily, and will make it harder for the gas chasing it to do it's job in the gas tube.
The 1 bar (100kPa) of air pressure compared to the huge pressures (>10MPa) in the chamber, this will make no significant difference.
My 2c worth. Cooling. With no air to cool the barrel, it will get real hot real fast.
Slashdot Mirror
well you may need some sort of rebar. You are probably going to have some cantilevered roofs or something. But it need not be rebar. Fiber reinforced. Lots of silica on the moon.
And yet this still does not give us a real why? What is the point of sending radiation intolerant, oxygen consuming meat bags on the moon? Its not science. For the same budget we can get much more done with even robotic probes. Its not 3He, for one there almost nothing there (1-50ppb) and we can't even burn DT let alone 3He which is ~60x harder to do. So we can learn how to go to mars? For what? To do what? Again science is best done by machines that handle the environment.
And no this is *nothing* like going to the new world. This is not even comparable to colonising the outback of Australia or Antarctica.
What is not clear is that the coal export increase has anything to do with reduction in coal use internally. At least in the EU good coke/coal for steel is something that is always worth the $$ and local sources tend to be a bit on the brown side. Demand is driven by steel demand/price. So that increase was probably going to happen anyway.
Having said that, per capita energy use in the US (and still CO2 footprint) is about 2x that of Europe.
Listen people, if you forecast nothing but doom and gloom, EVEN WHEN THERE IS GOOD NEWS, then people are going to become jaded to your forecasts.
Not true. People *switch* by choice to news stories that are doom and gloom. As a collective that is the news we want which is why we get it.
Chernobyl again. Really. TMI is a better example. If i was to design a plant that would be as close as possible to being a massive dirty bomb that generated electricity,it would still be safer than Chernobyl. It didn't/doesn't even have a containment building. Something that everything else (even other Russian designs) have.
Chernobyl is an example of just how much the former USSR didn't care for anyone or anything in the name of the cold war. That design was about getting the plutonium out fast and nothing else.
A better example of a worse case for most other designs is Fukushima. Bad. Yes. Very bad in fact. But much more localized than Chernobyl. However it did demonstrate that you just can't trust profit motive at any level, or the collective lack of responsibly felt by individuals in a corporation.
You must be fun to be around at Easter. Seriously, the Lazarus project just sound cool. Because well the name Lazarus sounds cool. I can easily see such a project spawning the Zombie Apocalypse. And what other hope do I have left now that Ron Paul didn't get to be president.
I see a lot of brochure science and very little research. For the billions that its cost I would expect at least a few peer reviewed papers. Well really for that kind of money i would expect something either equivalent to the Higgs or a lot more than a few papers.
After all the Higgs discovery was delayed for 2 decades for that orbital white elephant. And it cost a lot more and is still a money suck.
What research?
The net effect is a rise of mean sea level. A lot. Esp wrt Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets.
Even on the time frames of ice sheets melting (1000 to 10000 years), a lot of sea level rise is isostatic rebound. Even Europe is still rebounding after the last glacial maxim. We know CO2 makes some plants in some conditions grow faster from green houses where the CO2 level are deliberately enriched. Note however that this depends on other factors not being limiting. ie enough sunlight.
MPEG-LA said they had a portfolio of patents that covered WebM, and said that they would indemnify... for a price.
No they didn't. What they said was we will licences Their patents for a price. There is explicitly no indemnity offered in MPEG-LA licences. Its even in the licence.
MPEG-LA offer no indemnity either you know.
Basement inventors can't defend themselves. They never could. The years of legal battle means its game over even if your not already bankrupt.
This is not true. In the 4 countries I have lived in, the loser pays only in special circumstances. Typically only when they have really pissed off the Judge.
You know there is nothing in bit coin that means it can't be used in a fractional reserve banking system. All you need is a some "bank" where people put their coins to earn interest. The bank can then lend it out. Of course the money lent out is just in another account at the same bank. The bank can lend it out again. As with real money, the bank does not need to be registered or legal or regulated (aka sharks), and you can essentially "create" currency.
Fractional reserve banking is not something governments invented. It was something the public wanted governments to regulate.
You know my poker stars account is in US dollars.
They do consider it and do it all the time. Its just not you who gets that money.
Or even worse. The slums that are Lichtenstein (yea quite a bit of steel there) or Switzerland. I am here now slaving away to the *bone*. I only get to go skiing 3 times a week. Of course America can't compete with their very high living standards and expectations.
Well i don't think there is much that doesn't fuse/disintegrate if we heat it up to 80GeV per nucleon!
This whole LENR really don't have any credibility. They are popular in news papers and little else. Why? No data, and just plain laughable theory... They claim they produce neutrons but no neutron radiation? So these are what? Special unicorn neutrons with a new 6th force sucking them into Ni nuclei?
This is incorrect. The protons, in particular the deuterons (you don't observe this in pure 1H) in a D2 muon molecule are close enough together to under go fusion via tunneling through the quantum barrier. There is no "looks like a neutron" anywhere.. except the real neutrons of course.
Ops.. was thinking it was copper. But also they claim to produce a neutron from Hydrogen and then that neutron gets sucked into Ni, ie otherwise there would be all this neutron radiation. Also the standard model does require some radiation for these reactions for the different quantum numbers to be preserved. The weak force often produces neutrinos. Neutron capture can produce gammas.
Fact is that no reproducible experiment has ever shown net energy out, and for anything that they claim to be true the standard model must be very wrong. There is a lot of data pointing to the standard model being spot on so far. None of this passes even the most basic acid test.
There are no stable Cu+n isotopes. You get a unstable Cu that decays via +Beta decay. aka a positron is emitted. This in turn combines with another electron to produce two ~500keV gammas. When you run all the numbers a 1MW plant is producing kW of gammas with natural Cu.
There is *so* much wrong with the high level physics its a joke. Protons and electrons do not spontaneously combine under the standard model like this. In fact this gives a results about white dwarf stars, and how big they are before they turn into neutron stars. The only other way is electron capture. This again is something that occurs close to the nucleus from the inner shell electrons and is a rare form of decay. The energies they claim are involved with not even get close to affecting the inner shells... let alone get a proton to tunnel in and somehow magically combine with a electron.......
We have a lot of data and results on this sort of thing. There is nothing all that special about the conditions that they claim make this work. In fact there are lot of industrial process that reproduce the claimed condition's and we observe no such thing.
Where does the neutron come from again? Why is there no decay from the resultant nuclei? This is not fringe, its plain bad science. Show me the data. Oh thats right the data they claim to have is not even consistent with the theory that right out of a star trek episode.
What evidence? There is none. No good scientist are putting anything behind this, because there is no theory, no data that matched even the pie in the sky theory, and a crap load of experimental data that says its does not work.
When firing in vacuum, the lack of air resistance will let the bullet leave the barrel more easily, and will make it harder for the gas chasing it to do it's job in the gas tube.
The 1 bar (100kPa) of air pressure compared to the huge pressures (>10MPa) in the chamber, this will make no significant difference.
My 2c worth. Cooling. With no air to cool the barrel, it will get real hot real fast.