Volumetric density still matters somewhat because that determines costs for housing, connections & cooling. Also, at the moment, lithium ion has one of the highest round-trip efficiencies.
Lithium ion also has one of the highest potentials per cell so getting enough voltage to convert efficiently takes fewer cells, which also helps lower costs. And a major issue in utility needs is rapidly responding to loads and lithium batteries can easily do this.
In long run for longer term storage past a few hours, e.g. days or weeks of energy, we will need big flow batteries which decouple power from energy capacity.
For utility applications, maybe Aluminium-ion may prove less costly. Power isn't as good as lithium ion but may end up cheaper.
The cost of lithium ion batteries is to a major degree the nickel and cobalt. There's no fundamental physical necessity that those elements are used in batteries.
> The way it's constructed is inherently flawed, incomplete, and can not be fixed. Kurt Gödel proved that in the 1930's.
No. The way mathematics is constructed has been re-examined carefully in the 20th century and the various kinds of assumptions made explicit and far better understood. As far as 'cannot be fixed' --- the various axiomatic schemes are various forms of doing that. Only if you mean 'there is no universal set of TRVTH axioms upon which everybody agrees to build mathematics" is equivalent to "cannot be fixed".
Godel pointed out limitations in certain kinds of proof procedures.
"once your source of radiation is gone (almost instantly) guess what happens to it? It cools and turns solid again."
Yes, that's it, lots of X-rays ablating the surface.
The atoms which were heated to very high temperatures leave the asteroid at high speed into vacuum and there is a reaction force and net directional impulse to the remaining asteroid. Ablate one half surface of an asteroid and it pushes in one direction. We want to keep the asteroid whole and on a trajectory to miss Earth.
Primary option is to land powered ion engines and let them work over time.
Otherwise, with the Big Bomb approach, you detonate an asteroid radius or a bit less away and use the generated x-rays to vaporize a layer of surface over a hemisphere. This ablates into vacuum and causes a push. There's substantial modeling effort and physics known about this process since Teller & Ulam's idea.
Finally somebody with some sense of physics! No, we never want to try to fracture an asteroid.
Straight ablation across one hemisphere seems like the best idea and change the orbit. Use something like the huge Spartan warhead encased in gold (for maximum x-ray creation). This was already created to heat and fracture the high Z atoms in enemy warheads and should work OK on a nickel-iron asteroid.
Best scenario would be to have years of warning, and land powered ion engines which could be controlled and changes accurately measured so no risky shots with unclear geological effect need to be taken.
The hedge fund looked for bonds where they thought there was a violation of the bond issuing covenant. The judge ruled that there was, that the activities by the parent company violated the bonds' agreement against a sale & leaseback arrangement.
The patent application in question addresses this issue. I don't know if it's right or not and I'm far from an expert in this field--but the idea is that he uses active piezoelectric forcing & pulsing to maintain a non-equilibrium state, thereby increasing interaction with ionic lattice. There is more order than what would be expected in the usual thermal equilibrium state.
That active application of forces (and thus energy being dissipated) can maintain more ordered states is a known phenomenon.
Because the payment processor lets you essentially issue credit to buyers but the credit risk of the buyer has been shifted onto the bank instead of the merchant.
The trade-off is a percentage of revenue in return for potentially higher volume that wouldn't occur otherwise.
What's the difference between a personal computing device and a payment card reader? Nothing very important.
The models are not about the properties of the ocean! The heat capacity of water was never under question, it was the *input* that was under question. This means that the input of heat for the past historical CO2 was higher than it might have appeared from naive measurements---and better matches with climate models that have a high (bad) climate sensitivity.
Which subject is settled? That human emissions of CO2, CH4, CFC etc are warming the climate significantly, and it will keep on getting worse?
Yes, that part *is* settled.
"least verifiable major model in the history of science"
BS.
Scientists had modesty and humility and worked very hard through observations and theory since the 1950's. They had a result. They earnestly told the world about it in the early 1990's. The world told them to fuck off.
Now it's worse, and they were right. The observations and the facts are alarming so scientists are rightfully "alarmist".
Humans and other animals breathing CO2 is not contributing to global warming, because that carbon came from plants and animals. That was all in the biosphere and oscillated from land and ocean to air through global ecology.
The problem is the burning of fossil fuels, which were fossilized and buried underground for far longer than dozens of ice age cycles.
More humans are problems because they use fossil fuels, not because of their breathing.
> They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans.
Uh, you don't understand. The limiting factor isn't the transfer rate of heat into the ocean---the Sun shines 12 hours a day onto it. What's under question here is the actual input.
Finding more heat means that the climate sensitivity of 'heat increase' with given amount of 'excess CO2, CH4, CFC, etc' is worse than previously believed---this means that the counteracting climate responses to the greenhouse driving are smaller and the amplifying ones larger than one would compute if one used the old data.
In a nutshell, the increase in CO2 means more heat than previously calculated.
Higher climate sensitivity means "future looking hotter". Not good.
You didn't see what else they did. They used high precision measurements of CO2 and O2 from the atmosphere. (Burning carbon moves the O2 around but the net amount of oxygen stays fixed). With this and knowledge of the properties of water and solubility vs temperature you can get information about the heat content deltas from a physically distinct measurement.
It's very impressive.
And yes, there are samples of the atmosphere going back many years stored in sealed tanks. I've seen them personally. This means you can measure all of them using the same calibrated instrument.
Fully capitalist private utilities turned them off because they didn't want to pay for the maintenance, and their parent companies make money from natural gas pipelines and generation.
Germany's a different story perhaps, and completely wrong.
Climate scientists aren't uniformly against nuclear power either, and mostly support it as an interim necessity to make through the next 100 years.
Yes, the point is using higher quality measurements with wider coverage and less systematic bias.
They also used atmospheric CO2 and O2 measurements at a high precision and by physical chemistry means could estimate the heat because of the known change of solubility with temperature. The estimates from the methods matched. This is entirely different and physically integrates over the planet.
It's hard to get temperature measurements of an ocean because it's very large and deep and there are no human installations there, unlike on the surface, or in the atmosphere which is quite substantially probed by balloons and satellites. So if this is a criticism of atmospheric and surface temperature records, it doesn't work.
Measuring temperature at a point isn't the problem, it's getting the instruments there to sample something as big as the Earth.
There are almost a thousand balloons released every 12 hours over the planet gathering data and this has been happening for decades.
What is stopping the California Public Utilities Commission from deciding that ISP's with terminus in California are telecommunication utilities, or the state legislature?
There is little or no Federal regulation of health insurance.
That's why the usual suspects of malevolence want to allow people to "buy health insurance across state lines". Because what that really means is disallowing your home state from regulating insurance plans sold to you---and what will certainly happen is that all health insurers move their offering jurisdiction to the state with the least regulation, e.g. "North Louisiana" and stop operating in every other state. And will the insurance commissioner of North Louisiana be really very motivated to fight injustices against non-constituents on policies not sold in his state? Looking over his office at all the new downtown buildings and stadium with insurance company logos on them? And his governor's biggest supporter?
It happened exactly this way with credit cards.
And the Pai FCC wants to do the same thing, abandon Federal regulation and pre-empt local and state regulation.
It's because the "publicly available" includes personalized health care information, and so it is meant to exclude most of the very class of studies that directly looks at human health.
In addition it is meant to dissuade people from enrolling in those studies knowing that industry lobbyists, and potentially their employers who are causing the problems, would see their medical records.
Slashdot Mirror
In credit cards the banks don't know what you bought, only the merchant you bought it from.
Volumetric density still matters somewhat because that determines costs for housing, connections & cooling. Also, at the moment, lithium ion has one of the highest round-trip efficiencies.
Lithium ion also has one of the highest potentials per cell so getting enough voltage to convert efficiently takes fewer cells, which also helps lower costs. And a major issue in utility needs is rapidly responding to loads and lithium batteries can easily do this.
In long run for longer term storage past a few hours, e.g. days or weeks of energy, we will need big flow batteries which decouple power from energy capacity.
For utility applications, maybe Aluminium-ion may prove less costly. Power isn't as good as lithium ion but may end up cheaper.
The cost of lithium ion batteries is to a major degree the nickel and cobalt. There's no fundamental physical necessity that those elements are used in batteries.
> The way it's constructed is inherently flawed, incomplete, and can not be fixed. Kurt Gödel proved that in the 1930's.
No. The way mathematics is constructed has been re-examined carefully in the 20th century and the various kinds of assumptions made explicit and far better understood. As far as 'cannot be fixed' --- the various axiomatic schemes are various forms of doing that. Only if you mean 'there is no universal set of TRVTH axioms upon which everybody agrees to build mathematics" is equivalent to "cannot be fixed".
Godel pointed out limitations in certain kinds of proof procedures.
"once your source of radiation is gone (almost instantly) guess what happens to it? It cools and turns solid again."
Yes, that's it, lots of X-rays ablating the surface.
The atoms which were heated to very high temperatures leave the asteroid at high speed into vacuum and there is a reaction force and net directional impulse to the remaining asteroid. Ablate one half surface of an asteroid and it pushes in one direction. We want to keep the asteroid whole and on a trajectory to miss Earth.
We're not going to destroy a rock or metal hunk.
Primary option is to land powered ion engines and let them work over time.
Otherwise, with the Big Bomb approach, you detonate an asteroid radius or a bit less away and use the generated x-rays to vaporize a layer of surface over a hemisphere. This ablates into vacuum and causes a push. There's substantial modeling effort and physics known about this process since Teller & Ulam's idea.
Finally somebody with some sense of physics! No, we never want to try to fracture an asteroid.
Straight ablation across one hemisphere seems like the best idea and change the orbit. Use something like the huge Spartan warhead encased in gold (for maximum x-ray creation). This was already created to heat and fracture the high Z atoms in enemy warheads and should work OK on a nickel-iron asteroid.
Best scenario would be to have years of warning, and land powered ion engines which could be controlled and changes accurately measured so no risky shots with unclear geological effect need to be taken.
The hedge fund looked for bonds where they thought there was a violation of the bond issuing covenant. The judge ruled that there was, that the activities by the parent company violated the bonds' agreement against a sale & leaseback arrangement.
The patent application in question addresses this issue. I don't know if it's right or not and I'm far from an expert in this field--but the idea is that he uses active piezoelectric forcing & pulsing to maintain a non-equilibrium state, thereby increasing interaction with ionic lattice. There is more order than what would be expected in the usual thermal equilibrium state.
That active application of forces (and thus energy being dissipated) can maintain more ordered states is a known phenomenon.
Why are Federal Courts thinking about "revenue" ? If any institution ought to be free of commercial entanglements, this is it.
Because the payment processor lets you essentially issue credit to buyers but the credit risk of the buyer has been shifted onto the bank instead of the merchant.
The trade-off is a percentage of revenue in return for potentially higher volume that wouldn't occur otherwise.
What's the difference between a personal computing device and a payment card reader? Nothing very important.
It might be even more profitable to use your asteroids to blow up every else's gold mines, and they can be plain old rock asteroids.
There was once a film about something like this......
The models are not about the properties of the ocean! The heat capacity of water was never under question, it was the *input* that was under question. This means that the input of heat for the past historical CO2 was higher than it might have appeared from naive measurements---and better matches with climate models that have a high (bad) climate sensitivity.
Which subject is settled? That human emissions of CO2, CH4, CFC etc are warming the climate significantly, and it will keep on getting worse?
Yes, that part *is* settled.
"least verifiable major model in the history of science"
BS.
Scientists had modesty and humility and worked very hard through observations and theory since the 1950's. They had a result. They earnestly told the world about it in the early 1990's. The world told them to fuck off.
Now it's worse, and they were right. The observations and the facts are alarming so scientists are rightfully "alarmist".
This is an elementary mistake.
Humans and other animals breathing CO2 is not contributing to global warming, because that carbon came from plants and animals. That was all in the biosphere and oscillated from land and ocean to air through global ecology.
The problem is the burning of fossil fuels, which were fossilized and buried underground for far longer than dozens of ice age cycles.
More humans are problems because they use fossil fuels, not because of their breathing.
Yes, that 'economic anxiety' is a plausible hypothesis.
This hypothesis is not strongly supported by data.
In study after study the results are consistent: by far the dominant predictor of particularly Trump voting (vs Romney or others) say is racism.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/polq.12737
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/explaining-the-trump-vote-the-effect-of-racist-resentment-and-antiimmigrant-sentiments/537A8ABA46783791BFF4E2E36B90C0BE
and more.....
The correct policy is to use the best estimates from the best calculations using the laws of physics and take them seriously.
And in any case, the latest research is showing two distinct data analyses giving commensurate, and worrisome, results.
> They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans.
Uh, you don't understand. The limiting factor isn't the transfer rate of heat into the ocean---the Sun shines 12 hours a day onto it. What's under question here is the actual input.
Finding more heat means that the climate sensitivity of 'heat increase' with given amount of 'excess CO2, CH4, CFC, etc' is worse than previously believed---this means that the counteracting climate responses to the greenhouse driving are smaller and the amplifying ones larger than one would compute if one used the old data.
In a nutshell, the increase in CO2 means more heat than previously calculated.
Higher climate sensitivity means "future looking hotter". Not good.
You didn't see what else they did. They used high precision measurements of CO2 and O2 from the atmosphere. (Burning carbon moves the O2 around but the net amount of oxygen stays fixed). With this and knowledge of the properties of water and solubility vs temperature you can get information about the heat content deltas from a physically distinct measurement.
It's very impressive.
And yes, there are samples of the atmosphere going back many years stored in sealed tanks. I've seen them personally. This means you can measure all of them using the same calibrated instrument.
No it isn't.
Fully capitalist private utilities turned them off because they didn't want to pay for the maintenance, and their parent companies make money from natural gas pipelines and generation.
Germany's a different story perhaps, and completely wrong.
Climate scientists aren't uniformly against nuclear power either, and mostly support it as an interim necessity to make through the next 100 years.
Yes, the point is using higher quality measurements with wider coverage and less systematic bias.
They also used atmospheric CO2 and O2 measurements at a high precision and by physical chemistry means could estimate the heat because of the known change of solubility with temperature. The estimates from the methods matched. This is entirely different and physically integrates over the planet.
It's hard to get temperature measurements of an ocean because it's very large and deep and there are no human installations there, unlike on the surface, or in the atmosphere which is quite substantially probed by balloons and satellites. So if this is a criticism of atmospheric and surface temperature records, it doesn't work.
Measuring temperature at a point isn't the problem, it's getting the instruments there to sample something as big as the Earth.
There are almost a thousand balloons released every 12 hours over the planet gathering data and this has been happening for decades.
Strange how the most prominent areas of warming in the recent instrumental record are in the Arctic and Siberia.
The UK has freer competition precisely it because it imposed strong "neutrality" regulations on the owners of the last mile infrastructure.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/uk-regulators-officially-mock-us-over-isp-competition/
What is stopping the California Public Utilities Commission from deciding that ISP's with terminus in California are telecommunication utilities, or the state legislature?
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/
There is little or no Federal regulation of health insurance.
That's why the usual suspects of malevolence want to allow people to "buy health insurance across state lines". Because what that really means is disallowing your home state from regulating insurance plans sold to you---and what will certainly happen is that all health insurers move their offering jurisdiction to the state with the least regulation, e.g. "North Louisiana" and stop operating in every other state. And will the insurance commissioner of North Louisiana be really very motivated to fight injustices against non-constituents on policies not sold in his state? Looking over his office at all the new downtown buildings and stadium with insurance company logos on them? And his governor's biggest supporter?
It happened exactly this way with credit cards.
And the Pai FCC wants to do the same thing, abandon Federal regulation and pre-empt local and state regulation.
It's because the "publicly available" includes personalized health care information, and so it is meant to exclude most of the very class of studies that directly looks at human health.
In addition it is meant to dissuade people from enrolling in those studies knowing that industry lobbyists, and potentially their employers who are causing the problems, would see their medical records.