Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:So - (Score -1) 88

No, this is a story telling the world that the chips used by the US banking system and regulatory agencies are Made in China. Hardware, with hard wired programming, that runs under any software layer. Yeah, they make that, and can do anything they want with it in their factories. Hide hardware easter eggs, see if you can find them.
How many times I gotta tell ya that the only chip you can trust is the one that you make. Oh you mean we no longer know how to make chips anymore? Then what's this posturing coming from the Hague. China can give them the finger and tell them we got you by the balls, or more like by the chips you type and store your legal documents on. Unless you wanna go back to a mechanical typewriter and a filing cabinet at the Hague, like in the days of Columbo, it used to work, people use to live like that just fine. Talk about security from "hackers" on the Internet, which are pretty much just scare tactics of big money powers involved in computing and internet to scare you into continuous buy buy buy or be attacked maffia style, and otherwise there are really no hackers, like there were really no "evil, criminal people" blowing up your restaurant if you did not buy business protection insurance from the mafia back in the 1920s, but it was the mafia itself doing the blowing up. Or you can just simply pony up the effort to make your own chips, and actually use them at the Hague. Like, that should go without saying, duh.
I'm not saying don't buy stuff from China. I love global harmony and cooperation, and the last thing I'd like to see is that they, or anyone else on the planet starve, because you don't buy from them, and it's like you're obligated to buy from them, even if they are your enemies, enemies in a hazy, vague sense, simply to keep them from starving, in a Christian love way. But as long as they don't starve, some things like everyone having their own military instead of having to blindly rely for protection on someone else that might turn on them, is like a right or a duty. And then making your own weapons or even chips is like a right and even a duty. How you gonna rely on guns and chips Made in China for your military, yet issue a declaration against them at the Hague? You're an idiot, right? It's like making the basics back at home, at least to some degree, is a right and a duty. Like making hammers and screwdrivers, every country should be able to make those within their borders if they want to, and be able sell those within their own markets, without being run into the dust from globalized competition who can sell at undercut prices that make it impossible to make anything in your country, and about to drive you into economic collapse. Tariffs are a way to de-globalize softly. Suppose something made in china is $5 free shipping, and the equivalent made in USA is $25 because of minimum wage which is because of free market housing cost plus mandatory insurance purchases like Obamacare plus mandatory osha and epa costs, etc, none of the costs that China has to deal with in their minimum wage, so they can dominate shelves competing against you on walmart shelves. So the answer is obviously, when trying to sell a tool kit box with hammers, screwdrivers, pliers, hacksaws, tape measures, etc, is to add a $21 tariff, so Made in USA is $25, and Made in China is $26. Simple, right? It would obviously piss off the Chinese, but it's like they don't have to buy from you, and you don't have to buy from them, except if you don't buy from them they collapse economically, and starve, so you have to buy from them. So I been thinkin about this. The idea is that even with tariffs, you might be able to make it so that the number of Made in China items sold x the price, or more like x the profit to the chinese is greater with tariffs than without them, if you share the tariffs with them. Suppose two toolkits are sitting side by side on the shelf at Walmart - made in USA for $25, and Made in China for $26, and everyone knows its because of tariffs, else the chinese goods would be sitting there for $5. Now as a shopper you are not happy, because you'd buy at $5 but not at $25, so that total sales are less, but without such measures you would not have a job in the USA. China also sells much less, but at $26 they make a lot more per item than at $5, if the tariff is split with them, say 50/50, $10.50 for every such chinese goods sold goes to them, and 10.50 stays with the US government as tax, totaling $21 total tariff. So their actual sales price, as they see it is actuall $15.50, not $5, competing in a market at $26 where the native going price is $25, to protect native production against globalized devastation. And then you can work such tariffs on how you split them, and there would still be a lot of anger over tariffs and not allowing domination from outside, but to a much lesser degree than total confiscation, this way at least they make extra money too in a market that supports higher prices simply because the tariffs are there, for each of their sweat drop of calorie of effort invested into creating a product for sale. And ultimately it's sort of in their best interest too to protect local markets from crashes, sort of not to over milk a cow to where it dies or the baby cow is starved, but allow it to flourish too, you withhold over milking today even if you are nearly starving, but not actually starving, just to allow your cow to flourish and have an economy tomorrow too, allowing your cow to prosper and be there tomorrow too to milk, which is only possible to achieve via soft deglobalization and sharing tariffs, whether 50/50, or 90/10, or 10/90, I don't really know what's the right answer here, but sharing moderates the anger, and possibly creates some situations where even the angry ones who are not tariffed come out with greater overall profit than without tariffs, or at least definitely more profit per item actually sold. Obviously businesses care about overall total profit most, especially when near starving and every penny counts, but it's like, you could work 16 hrs a day for 8/hr=$128 (without overtime, i'm just creating an example here), and kill yourself like that, or you could work for $45/hr for 2 hrs for a total of $90, and your overall profit is much less, but how much you had to kill yourself for it is much less too, right?, to where a lot of people would opt for the $90 instead and live their lives better, such as China might have to cut their 14hr x 6 days a week routine to 7hr x 6 days a week, and instead of $1.28/ 14 hr day make $0.90/ 7 hr day and then have extra 7 hours to live their lives, like diy raising your children instead of others doing it for you, of course as long as that 0.90/day is not a starving wage, because you are able to buy plenty of rice on it, and then it's simply a matter of rice prices. But that's what you're lookin at with tariffs, which may equalize the world not to the lowest common denominator of lowest paid unEPA'd unOSHA'd child labor slave dominating the shoe racks sold at Walmart, but you forcefully bring up those dealing with such wages or incomes due to the prices they sell at, to sell at prices closer to what your markets sell at, including the tariffs actually depending on whether OSHA and EPA was in the picture while that product was made, and all of a sudden you can have OSHA and EPA type things dominate the world markets due to willful intervention as opposed to the other way around that happens naturally if you leave things free rolling when the lowest economic slave misery and hurtful and polluting way of creating something out competes the rest on price at the final destination market shelves, and drives the rest extinct.

Comment Re:Contract abuse: Where will it all end? (Score -1) 195

2050 sounds like an eternity away. I want to know what happens if you don't have your first born by 2050, and it's required by their contract? What is the penalty? Anything they feel like? See, there is this thing called forward looking statements: nobody knows the future for sure. Yes, there are lots of people involved in predicting it, forecast it, like the weather people, but even signed agreements, which is what almost all signed agreements deal with, have this issue of being full of forward looking statements that nobody can guarantee. The only thing guaranteed is intent at the present, at the time of signing, by a signature. If the terms were read, and agreed to, in heart. Sometimes though, just as a practical matter, you are sort of bludgeoned into, forced into signing an agreement. Not by an actual gun point, but by simple necessities of life. Such as how can you deny someone the use of computer technology in this age, when some monopoly gorilla is running rampant making everyone sign anything they feel like asking. What are people supposed to do? Not sign? And live their lives in complete absence of computing technology, like a monk in a mountain cave in isolation and spiritual purity, simply because there is a weasel that hijacked a whole field of science and is milking it? Most people sign Windows EULA's not because they agree with anything in there, but because they "need" to use computers, and there is no other way to use them, but click accept. It's kinda like blackmail. Or, a more extreme example, a gun pointed at your head, sign or we shoot. In such cases people willfully sign or click accept in hostile ways, fully aware of the hostility. Or just not even read it, and then there is less proof they willfully agreed to it, even if in hostile ways, in face of abuse. What chance do they have to fight off the abuse? Like, look at what happened to Bill Clinton - he got Monica Lewinskied, and when his DOJ declared Microsoft was a monopoly, the stockmarket had the biggest single day percentage drop ever, as a penalty, or kind of a conspiracy, punishment, when instead they should have rallied. The government should learn not to fuck with Da Man's money, because Da Man with his money has greater power than the government or we the people. At least that's the idea, and whether it's true, well, that hasn't truly been tested yet. But Da Man and his agents are really akin on taking the guns away from the people, because such time is approaching, and when that happens people instead buy faster. Like last month june was the biggest gun sales on record. Guess why? Because we the people are chickening out? The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. And ultimately that is what all such signing bullshit comes down to, at the ultimate ultimate ultimate push comes to shove. Unfortunately that's the way things work. Anybody can do anything they want, and twist the system and the rules in their favor, in obnoxious ways, even force people to sign agreements that would technically stand up in court, but ultimately even a court decision is BS, taking your first born son away, if you got a gun. Come get it. Like China says to to the Hague. Of course when you are fighting a corrupt government by yourself, like Waco, you are gonna lose because the government has so much more military power, and the rest of the population doesn't really care, because they live well, but when the rest of the population all cares about an issue, constantly on their mind, some even like that can ignite, and then the truth comes to light that the people, and their weapons that the government hasn't taken away yet, or just simply makeshift weapons like bows and sticks and spears and arrows can outnumber and overpower even the most highly developed military in the world, especially if it's full of brothers, sisters and cousins of those rebelling that they are supposed to fight. Hence the government wants robots. Robots that won't sympathize with We The People, because they are not cousins of We The People. Yeah, sign an agreement like that, and then tell them come take my first born child and i'll shoot you. They'll be like but you agreed, it's a surrogate agreement that's valid and we thought we got an insanely great deal. Yeah. Come take my first born child and i'll shoot you, or you'll have to kill me trying to shoot you. Yup, that's my signature. So what. That's pretty much the idea behind clicking Accept on Windows EULAs. Yup. I clicked it. Now come fuck with me, bitch. Cuz I clicked it. Where do YOU want to go today? To Hell? They got a nice cozy chamber waiting for you down there.

Comment Re:Far enough in the future... (Score -1) 113

Just one more thing. In case anyone does not know, in the SI system of units 1 watt is 1 joule/second, 1 W=1 J/s, so a 1W solar panel produces 1 joules per second, and 60 joules per minute and 3600 joules per hour, 86,400 joules in 24 hrs (if there were no darkness at night.) A megajoule is one million joules, so a 100W solar panel running 24 hrs in the sun gives 8,640,000 joules or 8.64 megajoules, MJ. A kg is 2.205.. lbs. A lead acid battery at 0.17 MJ/kg capacity can fit only 170,000 Joules in 2.2 lbs of weight, and a $111 costing 100W solar panel collects 360,000 joules = 0.36 MJ an hour, so less than 30 minutes of sunlight of full 100W power, (or a whole hour if only lucking out harvesting 50W due to morning and afternoon times of steep angles not fully facing the sun head on.) that would fit inside that battery. Say this electric energy then gets used by a hairdryer running at 1875 watts or 1875 joules per second gets used up in 170,000/1875=90,66 seconds, a minute and a half of running time stored in a 2.2+ lb lead acid battery (or roughly 1.2+ lb NiMH or NiCd.) So imagine the kind of battery storage rig you need in a basement to run a household powered by it, other than some camping lights and cellphones, laptops and LED TV's all of which run under 50 W, and none near the 1800W UL limit per wall power socket, or near the 1000W range of a usual window air conditioner. Alas collecting sunlight for almost free (other than the one time $111 capital cost of the solar panel, and whatever the 2.2 lb lead acid battery costs to run plus recycle once in a while into a new one) and getting one and a half minute of hairdryer time out of it for each hour of collection is better than nothing, right? Or 3 minutes of cooking hotplate or small microwave time, or 7 minutes of 400W refrigerator running time, or 28 minutes of 100W refrigerator actual compressor noise and running time for each hour of collection. A kWh (kilowatthour) is 1000 watts for 1 hour, or 1000 joules/second x 3600 seconds=3,600,000 joules or 3.6 MJ (megajoules) and it costs 13.5 cents on the electric utility bill. Basically 1 kilowatthour is 3.6 megajoules, and a kilogram of gasoline or propane has 46 megajoules of heat energy (that can be converted to electric or via a generator only 25% efficiently, or even car motion in an engine is 25% efficient, but heat can be extracted 100% from them, and also electric can get car motion 95% efficiently converted, and everything can give you "waste heat" 100%, so if you run electric into a hotplate or hairdryer or microwave, even the microwave fan generated wind ultimately turns into friction heat in the air and stops moving from friction, and gives you 100% heat, maybe not where you want it though. Gasoline specific gravity is 0.71 - 0.74 (relative to water which is specific gravity of 1, and the SI units of systems is also designed such, that water, at its maximum density at temperature of 4 C (39.2F) happens to weigh almost exactly 1 grams per cubic centimeter which also happens to be a milliliter (thousandths of a liter), or 1000g/liter or 1 kilogram/liter. Gallons and cubic inches and lbs give you non exact multiples of 10, for instance water weighs 8.33 lbs/gallon, and gasoline therefore 5.9-6.2 lbs/gal, let's say 6 lbs. So 1 kilogram or 2.2 lbs of gasoline (roughly a third of a 3.78 liter gallon or 1 1/3 liters) (propane about the same, but goes by 2.2 lbs not gallons) contains 46 megajoules of heat, equal to 12.8 kWh of 3.6 MJ electric heat from the socket, which at 13.5 cents per 3.6 MJ is $1.73 for a third gallon of gasoline, or 3x$1.73=$5.19/gal of gasoline heat equivalent, if you had to decide whether to heat with gasoline or electric. But who's gonna run a hair dryer with gasoline, or a microwave oven that heats quick throughout the bulk of the mass? If you dealt with motion, considering that motors convert heat content to motion horsepower only 25% efficiently from gasoline or diesel or propane, but even 85-95% efficiently from electric motor, then all of a sudden you are back at that $1.73 number, multiply by 3 divide by 4 for the 25%, per gallon of gas for the usable horsepower you can get. So for heating in general direct combustion of fuels - gasoline, propane, natural gas - is cheapest, if you get a good price, but for motion, for horsepower(1 hp = 745.7 watts), whether to use 95% electric power or 25% fuel power megajoules it's up in the air based on the prices you can get per gallon of gas, per kilowatthour electric, and how expensive the motors are, whether electric motor or gas motors are concerned. Obviously the electric company also has electric pole and wire capital and maintenance after a storm and personnel distribution cost, plus they have to make a profit too. Often, for safety considerations electric heat is much safer than open flame cooking or heating.
But these are the numbers and computations you do when you discuss switching a city to fully renewable energy. Prices and availability matter. In a real world.

Comment Re:Far enough in the future... (Score -1) 113

After thinking more about it, I think that critical mass rules may set a limitation on just how nano your nano-tsar-bombas can get, and there may be another Lawson-2 criterion that may set the minimum size to say 50 micron pellets or even 100 micron, and then you need like a Yucca mountain underground mine chamber that can fit the tallest buildings on the planet to keep blasting off your micro bombs in, or even millibombs, to heat your helium to 800-1000C required for the combined cycle gas turbine + steam turbine generator. If push comes to shove, blasting off a full sized mini-nuke daily or hourly or every 5 minutes underground, with the smallest kiloton TNT yield weapon you got, to heat your helium via a heat exchanger to provide the daily full energy needs of the US from one or a couple such sites, including all electricity and liquid ammonia hydrogen economy gasoline needs, may be an option. If desperate to harvest that 238 U and thorium energy, on a power plant costing less than $45 billion, if there is a will, there is a way. Of course ultimately what matters is the final cleanup cost when you have to strip the contaminated underground mine chamber walls with diamond clawed UAV type remote control robots, then relining it with new wall material to get the nuke-heat-harvesting gigareactor back in working order vs dismantling the $45 billion power plant that works with control rods at slower speeds, and also the bang per buck, the gigawatts of energy per dollar invested you get to harvest. Railroad Tycoon has a scenario about "geocore" in Spain, then a distaster scenario about it in France. It also has an America after the flood scenario, but i think such a scenario would take at least to 2100AD, or more like 2800AD, or so, maintaining present day carbon emission rates, even if the loss of arctic ice and mountain peak ice reflectivity alone self accelerates the planet self heating, the increased cloud cover then should compensate, and you really have to go that long and keep emitting carbon at the present rate before you see floods depicted in that video game scenario, otherwise even things like the northwest passage clearing up from that 1 centigrade increase in temperature, may get compensated by increased cloud cover. Do we understand the atmosphere and how increased cloud cover forms if temperatures increase, and there is more moisture evaporated? Wait, moisture gets evaporated, but if the temperature up there is high, then it does not precipitate into clouds of water droplets or ice crystals, and once it does, it has only so much moisture bearing or cloud bearing capacity before it starts crying it back out as rain. Ultimately the only brute force way to check global warming might be putting up a ginormous massive thin film solar panel flippable window blind shades at the Lagrangian between the Earth and the Sun.

Comment Re:Far enough in the future... (Score -1) 113

But for now that 13.5c utility electric is pretty much the way to go. Coming out of a global warming coal power plant, or global warming combined cycle natural gas power plant. Oil is usually used for better things, like a car.

With all the issues of nuclear, it's the only thing that gives you bulk massive doses of power without emitting CO2. It does have proliferation issues, and it does emit nuclear waste, but it's like a handful of nuclear fuel can power a whole city, tens of thousands of people live off of what can fit in the palm of your hands, instead of needing something like 20,000 50-ton railcars full of coal.

So I go to the wikipedia energy density page to get the actual numbers: uranium used in a breeder (i.e. nonenriched nonmoderated reactor) 80,620,000 MJ/kg. Diesel 48 MJ/kg. Gasoline 46 MJ/kg. Propane Coal 30 MJ/kg (10-35 depending on quality and dirt in it). Animal fat: 37 MJ/kg. Carbohydrates and proteins: 17 MJ/kg. These food items are usually listed with 9 calories (kilocalories) per gram for fat, and 4 calories for proteins and carbs. Btw 1 food calorie (kilocalories in physics) is enough to raise 1 kg of water by 1 celsius. I.e. 1 gram of sugar you eat is enough to increase the temperature of 4 kg (8.8 lbs) of water 1 celsius or 1.8 fahrenheit higher in your body.

Lithium metal only (for burning in air): 43 MJ/kg. Lithium-air battery: 9 MJ/kg. Lithium battery(nonrechargable) 1.8 MJ/kg. Lithium-ion (rechargeable): 0.3-0.9 MJ/kg. Zinc Air battery(nonrechargeable): 1.5 MJ/kg. Alkaline battery(nonrechargeable): 0.5 MJ/kg. NiMH(rechargeable, similar to NiCd) 0.3 MJ/kg. Lead acid:(rechargeable) 0.17 MJ/kg. Water at 100m (330 ft) dam height: 0.001 MJ/kg. Yeah, 1MJ/kg can raise a thousand 2 L coke bottle to 165 ft height, so imagine what the 46 MJ of the 2.2lb gasoline or propane can do, if there were a 100% way of converting the theoretically stored energy. Or the 80,000,000 MJ/kg of Uranium or Thorium if they built a proper reactor that breeds and uses all the 238 uranium, not just the less than 1% 235 uranium they go for when enriching.

Yeah, that's how bad it is. Unfortunately that's the way things are, and the whole planet is at risk from heated emotions and nuclear war, so it's like a bad economy where people are so desolate they barely have electric for cellphone and laptop use, and live in absence of electricity otherwise.
But while they are talking about the plans for the most expensive building on Earth, a nuclear plant in the UK, to power the world, and possibly create something like carbon neutral liquid NH3 (ammonia) that could replace gasoline in a fuel cell based hydrogen economy of the future (yes, liquid ammonia should meet all the US DOE requirements for a hydrogen economy) I been thinking about that pricetag of I forget what it was, 45 billion? (the international space station is 110 billion, but it's not built on earth as the most expensive building ever, it's built in space)

The basic problem with a breeder reactor is the gigantic size required, and the special structural materials (zirconium) required to withstand the neutron bombardment inside them. An enriched uranium based power plant (or submarine for that matter, that has enough fuel on board for its full life of 40 years, never reeds a refueling/recharging stop) can be built much smaller size, because of the reactivity of the 235 U is so much greater for thermal neutrons than the reactivity of U 238 for fast neutrons in a breeder. You're probably talking a football field size thing made of gold, besides the huge huge cooling towers and added real estate needed for the rest of the plant, to convert the steam into electric, or so, that's the idea behind a $45 billion price tag for a power plant.

I was making a comment about laser confinement micro explosions for powering space ships in deep space, instead of laser accelerating nano-sized spacecraft to Alpha Centauri. You definitely can't lug around a football field sized reactor in space on a small craft. The fusion research community focused on laser confinement to this day has a hard time achieving the Lawson criterion for a sustained fusion, partly because the energy input into the lasers required to keep the millions of kelvins of mass confined is greater than the reaction rate of the stuff they are confining. So that gave me the idea of why not confine micro-pellets of uranium or thorium? And possibly add the cheap high energy but low reactivity deuterium into the mix. After all that's how the Tsar bomba functions, ignited by a uranium bomb confines the lithium-deuterium matter, in like 2 stages, and blows so big over Novaya Zemlya that the greatest concern is being able to drop it slow enough with a parachute so the aircraft high up has time to get far enough away from the explosion that would take it out too. What if you 1 micron pellet hydrogen bombs, ignited with uranium to get you a lot of neutrons to kick off the reaction. Or 2 micron? I think 20 micron may take out the equipment and 50 micron the whole building, but if you do it right, you can build a very small nuclear reactor, and break the economy limitations of powering the lasers. As long as your energy budget of combined cycle helium gas going through a turbine then the exhaust heating steam used for another generator can create enough electric to keep powering the lasers, ultimately you should have a heat profit and electric profit.

You would probably need a fairly large zirconium chamber, where you drop tiny, microscopic spheres of the nano-bomb. Measure the speed as it descends with atomic clock based light interruptors, at least 3 or so to get acceleration that's different due to air drag in a non vacuum non galileo chamber based on how the conditions ended up after the last explosion. Then when it arrives to the reaction zone, shoot it with high energy pulse laser beam to initiate a critical mass scenario keep it under confinement long enough to keep the reaction going long enough for a good energy budget for your lasers. Then let the mini-mushroom cloud puff rise up and out of the way before you can see the next pellet dropped again, and are rechargin the lasers.

Another way would be to pull a constant wind of helium downward. The mushroom cloud rises because of the buoyant force on a hot air balloon. A chemists mole of 22.4 liters of air weigh 29 grams roughly. Note that the molecular weight of N2 is 28, O2 is 32, H2 is 2 and He(noble gas, there is no He2) is 4. The lowest you can go is vacuum of 0 grams. So basically no matter how hot a mushroom cloud gets, in the tens of millions of fahrenheit, in air it's only pulled with an upward force of 29 grams per 22.4 liters, or in helium of 4 grams per 22.4 liters. So blow a wind of helium downwards to keep sucking away the mushroom cloud toward the heat exchangers, and run the whole thing and pellet sizes to where you get helium plus excrement temperature of 800 centigrade needed on the other side of the gas/gas heat exchanger for the combined cycle from the micro explosions.

Another way is to shoot from a gun upwards into a reaction zone, but it may give you less reproducible speeds to catch it mid flight with your lasers.
Yet another way is to shoot the bullet sideways, in argon gas of higher density, and even apply an strong magnetic and electric field akin to the particle physics gas chambers, and run the explosion in a mass spectrometer magnetohydrodynamic generator way. In a mass spectrometer the m/z ratio determines the path of particles, and if buoyant temperatures are involved also, different things would land upward from a micro mushroom cloud in a chromatogram way, if the bullet was flying sideways, and the light and heavily ionized atoms, such as hydrogen, rose faster, while the bukier technetium, lead, gold, radioiodine, etc, each landed at a different spot on the ceiling, the slower they rose the better they might separate. If you added collection tubes to the ceiling, with a Birkland-Eyde style water cooled copper grid of the vacuum tube style that only absorbs less than 1% the helium wind and entrained nuclear waste "smoke", after your smoke stopped glowing in a white heat red heat way and gave off its heat to the heat exchanger tube walls, you could filter it separated on the other end, solving one of the biggest problems of nuclear power, which is nuclear waste. (Yeah the biggest problem is other humans misusing it, so all heil to my renewable energy solar panel of 1.2W, screw the electric utility bill, right? What about gas and hydrogen fuel for my cars, or the trucks that bring to food to the city stores, or airplanes flying about? It's not a perfect world, you can't have your cake and eat it too.)

Of course recycling preexisting nuclear fuel by vaporizing it for mass spectrometer type separation is prohibitively expensive, but if you get a small size (less than $45 billion) costing reactor running in a way where your stuff is vaporized already anyway as it is running, you might have a good way of shooting 2 birds with one stone at the same time, harvesting the energy while getting the waste chemical separation done too on the run. Otherwise nuclear reprocessing in low temperature chemical ways is a really shitty job of misery and pain and slow speed and cost, and it's better to just send railcars full of it back and forth in the US rail networks everybody disclaiming ownership of it and fighting tooth and nail not to get buried in my backyard, or in my legislative district, including the Yucca mountain in Nevada does not want it.

And while you are at it you might find that 35% cheap high power but slow deuterium in the mix works, then go from there to 85% and finally to almost full fusion only power. Laser confinement micro explosions on 1.100 to 1.105 micron sized pellets heating bulk helium gas. Or something like that, whatever that number is. Note that a 1 micron cube of water is 0.001 mm, or 0.0001 cm on its side. 1 cm3 cubic centimeter of water is 1 gram, and a 0.0001 cubic centimer of water is 0.0001^3=0.000,000,000,001 grams. Yeah 9 zeros is 1 billionth, 12 zeros is 1 trillionth of a gram, barely visible, pushing the limits of optical microscopy based on 0.4 micron wavelength blue light and 0.7 micron wavelegth red light, but it's visible just fine like a mountain boulder close range on an electron microscope. Also, as the weight goes up by the cube of the dimension, a 50 micron cube would be 50*50*50=125,000 times larger, at 0.0050^3= 0.000,000,125 grams, or 1/8th of a millionth of a gram. That's how you bring that 80,000,000 MJ/kg energy density down into tamable territory where it doesn't blast away and burn up everything in sight. Small quantities.

So that's my 2 cents. On a smarter and lower cost way to provide electric power and global warming neutral liquid ammonia hydrgen fuel for cars.

Comment Re:Far enough in the future... (Score -1) 113

Yeah. I bought a solar powered fountain pump at harbor freight back in the good days when I thought I had a lot of money, wasn't sick and had no credit card debt. Still have it. The thing comes with a centrifugal pump that will pump water only about a foot high - I guess it's enough to aerate a pond, for free. The actual website description says peak output power is 1.2W. Yeah, 1.2W on a full sunny bright day, like they have in San Diego. You can probably get 0.5W power out of it. But let's keep that 1.2W number in mind.

Here is ebay $111 12V 100W solar panel selling like hotcakes on ebay from missouri wind and solar:
Here is ebay $45 12V 35W etc, that I have contemplated buying for LED TV, laptops and LED house lights off of. Of course on home made batteries, or at least car jumping powerpack, including an cigarette light socket inverter that makes 110VAC from 12VDC.

Compare those above prices for the more accessible and tangible to a customer harbor freight stuff:
Here is $200 12V 45W solar panel . Yeah it includes some gadgets like an inverter and some LED lights bling bling, that you can probably buy on ebay for like $25 directly from China. Still, $200 for 45W max? (on a bright sunny day at noon, 9AM or 5PM it's probably 10-20W, and on a cloudy day probably 1W.)

Wind power deals with similar price/watt issues, plus moving parts that fail faster than solar panels, so solar is kind of growing faster, especially in the bright sunny desert areas, compared to wind. But wind works on a cloudy day, and especially at night too. But as a home user expect to deal with 100W or so capacities under optimum (rare) conditions, once in a blue moon, not reliable, especially cannot be relied on now now when you need it now, especially without awesome storage.

You can run a lot of small motors backwards, and may get 10-20W power via a handcrank or a windmill out of the larger ones from older heavy duty dot matrix printers or hand vacuum cleaners, if they are properly constructed DC motors, and car alternators are possibly the cheapest form of bulk power generators, but only if they are form a junkyard, not off the shelf where the price is not better than a windmill. Also car alternators they may be higher powered than what's possible to harvest via a small windmill, and only if you live near a steep slope river may they be economical, or you run a steam engine boiler on woodchip or corn pellet burner, or have means to put up one of them huger windmills on your property instead of a dinky 25W-100W one. Solar power is so much easier to just keep adding to your roof - buy 100W today, another 100W tomorrow, til you end up with 2000W-20,000W easy. You probably need a 20,000W peak power supply that runs at 5000W average if you want to cover air conditioner use and cooking (but don't forget about a possibly even greater cost of basement battery storage.)

Note that I presently get electric from the utility at $0.135/kWh (meaning 1000W for 1 hr costs me 13.5 cents , besides the tolerable $5 minimum charge.)

So let's compare that to household items:

Hair dryer: 1800 W (maximum per wall socket allowed by UL, 120V x 15A, circuit breaker trips in basement at 20A.)
Typical microwave: 1000W-1500W.
Typical electric hotplate: 1000W (mine advertised at 1000W uses 900W as running, but cooks faster from better thermal contact than the old one at 1100W)
Typical window air conditioner unit: 1000W
Typical refrigerator-freezer: 150W-400W.

My water distillation rig: 1802W - 1810W that needs 30-90 min per day to provide my drinking water (still cheaper than distilled water from store, or close to it.)
It definitely won't run on the 1.2W harbor freight solar pump solar cell, the fluctuations of 8W at 1800W as the coiled nichrome gets coated with hard water as it's running, and the internal temperature gets red-hot or white hot) are greater than what the solar panel covers.

The old CRT 28in Panasonic TV I found in the garbage pulls 100W average, while running. This number is only 16W for the 19 in LED TV I also found in the garbage with the bad tuner but it gets analog RCA jack input just fine. Most of my laptops are 20-40W also, and their consumption fluctuates depending on what I run or whether they are also charing the battery. I also found a gigantic plasma TV in the garbage that needs fixing (they usually have an Achilles heel, and a youtube video shows what power supply part is that tends to go bad 95% of the time on that model), but I'm not keen on fixing it because it uses 500W while running. Hence plasma is obsolete tech. So may be desktop computers with 480-700W power supplies, unless you have no other way, because you need a fast one for a server, (or gaming?) As the economy is headed toward a crunch, and utility companies start abusing customers with increases in minimum charges, a sort of I bet i can blackmail you for this minimum charge money because you won't disconnect, and if it's a sewer, you can't disconnect, legally, inside a city.

But anyway, the TV, laptops, cellphones and lights can be powered just fine with renewables, and next up on the list is the 150-400W refrigerator. While electric cooking, air conditioning, hot water or hair dryers and such are out of reach unless you have a very serious rig and battery storage in your basement, and they may be more properly powered by propane or woodchip pellet or corn pellet burners. Note that a natural gas minimum charge of $25/mo may be too much and the use not versatile enough (needing a loud generator) compared to electric, which can provide targeted heating a lot safer too, such as small spaces to winter in, or even electric blankets (which though are extremely uncomfortable, and the way they build them is annoying to where some microamps of current constantly leaks through your body or is induced in your body in a transformer action way, and you feel like crap, with all your muscles sore. You need like an iron bathtub to suck the magnetic field lines away, and heat itself via induction cooking style eddy currents, there it may be tolerable. Coming off of a renewable storage battery system keeping you warm in the winter. DC at much lower volts than 120 and higher amp nichrome makes the whole electric blanket need an expensive power supply and expensive much thicker nichrome wire, but if you DIY one for 12V you probably don't need an iron tub, but off the shelf ones are all cheap but unusably annoying 120V AC units.)

For battery storage I mean you have enough 5 gallon bucket or 55 gallon plastic drum homemade NiCd batteries in your basement to store the collected energy. Nicad is the one and only that will sit forever discharged, and decades later it comes right back up (but periodically it needs DIY teardown and rebuild from scratch, because, like all rechargeable batteries, it's limited on the number of cycles it can take, mostly from electrode dendrite formation giving shorting and self discharge-heating, and permanent unreactive or low reactive rusty dead coating on large portions of the area.
So NiCd is the only hillbilly friendly to abuse, besides the much lower performance (voltage/amps) Edison NiFe battery, that has gassing issues (energy waste), and slow output needing a lot of bulk battery, but at least lacks the environmentally and humanly toxic and expensive and rare Cd, cadmium, which has issues while recycling.

The other rechargeable batteries all fail if allowed to sit fully discharged, i.e. deep cycled. Lead acid, the cheapest rechargeable battery sulfates and gets permanently damaged, along with the toxic lead recycling issues, but still most commonly used due to cost. Btw lead is used in such things as fishing plumbs, hunting lead shot for wild turkey, so it's toxic, but you know. Also NiMH and Li Ion all die if allowed to sit and discharged from permanent damage and modification of the electrodes if allowed to fully discharge. Good luck trying to DIY recyle those! Lead, NiCd and NiFe are so much easier to recycle and DIY make a new one than NiMH or Li-ion. Who's got the argon gas filled glove box needed to deal with lithium metal, along with special graphite, and special aprotic organic electrolyte solvent creating ablity, such as propylene carbonate.

The above are off the shelf rechargeable battery technologies, and something like the not quite rechargeable Zn-air might be the cost, environmental friendliness long term solution, but requires tending - i.e. produce zn plates or spiral rolls via gassing electrolysis, then use them in a Zn-air battery, then recycle the Zn, or alkaline Zn-Mn, where not only the Zn, but the MnO2 needs regenerated - heat to Mn2O3 or Mn3O4, melt a portion with NaHCO3 to Na2MnO4 sodium manganate, then rinse back to MnO2. Alternative is react with HCl to MnCl2, then react with the manganate to get MnO2 (in a nonacidic condition which does not evolve chlorine gas from the reaction of HCl+MnO2 (the non-alkaline zinc battery leclanche cell uses ammonia, NH4Cl, to raise the pH from acidic and not generate chlorine gas) But nonrechargeable Zn-air is less pissing around than Zn-manganese. Zn is also cheaper than Ni required for NiCd, NiFe or NiMH. Btw the ancient low power Daniell battery is Zn in ZnSO4 and Cu in CuSO4, with a salt bridge. Btw US pennies cost 1.5c to make and are copper plated Zn, while nickels are copper-nickel alloys, and most of them don't make it back into circulation but lay around the house, due to no cashier wants to count 100 pennies or 500 pennies for a small purchase, or even 100 nickels, and vending machines don't accept pennies, just nickels and up, and a lot of things only take quarters or dollars.

But who has time to make enough nonrechargeable batteries for household air conditioner use? Must use rechargeable, one that lasts many cycles, and is low cost, environmentally friendly. That 13.5c/kWh utility electricity must be nice, unless you don't have a job, don't have money, and your electric service is disconnected, along with arbitrary penalties and fees that must be paid before reconnecting. Or you live in a place with no electric service. Under such circumstances even that price may be too high, and it may be worth ponying up the dough for a renewable that pulls you through the hard times of a bad economy of no job and zero money, and every last penny must go for food.

Comment Re:California 'High Speed' Rail may beat it (Score -1) 351

Actually Railroad Tycoon 2nd century has a California scenario map, and it is Modesto and Bakersfield that end up being connected, in an economic sense, all because of one simple thing: terrain. In all of California the terrain sucks, except in that fertile valley. By far the greatest cost with rail is either modifying terrain to get a fast low slope straight line, or to wind along serpentines and high grades and inclines, requiring a lot of capital in the strong large horsepower engines and a lot of wasted time and fuel. Railroad Tycoon is an awesome economic simulator about things they don't teach you in school - the balance between fuel efficiency, capital investment, straight line and speed to ignore a resource, curved meandering track to access all resources paying on speed and acceleration/deceleration and time. On a strictly horizontal straight line track 1 live horse of 3-4 horsepower can pull like 10 rail cars, given the low friction. Give it a 0.1% grade, and a train of 100-200 rail cars needs a super strong super expensive super fuel consuming engine to pull uphill.

Comment Re:More "pleasant" weather (Score -1) 345

maybe the problem is not the extra emitted CO2
maybe even if no CO2 were emitted, people would still cause global warming
by cutting trees and putting lawns in their places, then constantly mowing them
in any system in-out=net gain, i.e. you can stay at zero if you put CO2 in the atmosphere, and take it all out with biomass, you're at 0 increase
even if you don't put any CO2 into the atmosphere by combustion, just mere killing carbon store like trees or grass and letting them rot, the fungi will exhale them as CO2 - some percentage does end up as topsoil humus though, which, over geologic times can end up as coal, oil and natural gas, but the bulk is exhaled
basically, as population keeps growing, and people keep putting lawns everywhere, as a matter of fashion or style, then here comes global warming even in a hydrogen economy - the carbon has to go somewhere from the atmosphere, or it builds up - ocean overfishing doesn't help either
if instead of eliminating carbon stores as population grows, if instead of that you'd compensate, and where there was little vegetation, and people expanded there and brought green life and sustained it, you could even outdo the effects of fossil fuels and fix global warming and melting glaciers.. desert and semidesert greenhouses come to mind that need an active caretaker, though you'd lose some solar reflectivity in deserts, but gain it back at glaciers and lakes like lake chad used to be, because the ratio of reflectivity lost to tons of co2 captured as green is minuscule, probably 1% of all desert land could more than store all the extra CO2 that we don't want (i.e. 0.030% target from the present 0.045% CO2 in the air, which otherwise when dry is 78%N2, 21%O2, 0.93%Ar, and some Ne, He, Kr, Xe, CH4, H2S, NO, NO2, CO, acetone, freon, dmso, etc.)

Comment Re:Dangerous (Score -1) 155

Electrical resistance gives you straight heat, whatever your energy source, fossil or not.
Heat pumps instead "steal" heat from the cold seawater and lift it to a higher temperature, spending the same electric energy on driving the compressors instead, ending up with a lot more heat than just straight electric to heat conversion. A heat pump "pumps" heat, instead of generating it. The COP (coefficient of performance) can be as high as 400% (i.e. 4x as much heat obtained by stealing it with a ginormous air conditioner in reverse heat pump, instead of straight conversion with a tiny and cheap heating filament) if the temperature differences are small, such as 5 F, but it can drop to as little as 115% if the temperature differences are huge. Air "cooled" heat pumps also build up ice superfast, and in a situation where it's -40F outside, and you want 60F inside, and all you have is air cooling that will massively frost over, and even if it's constantly scraped clean, the COP is no better than 105%, that extra 5% of heat seldom justifies the running costs and maintenance involved. (Luckily seawater is always above 30F or so if not frozen.) So it's always a question of economics, you have x amount of dollars to invest, and you get a savings of 15,000/yr, so what's the APR, 2%, 20%? A lot of businesses are so tight on cash and want to keep their process so uncomplicated (because complications can creep up on you and ultimately bite you in the ass hard when you end up with something with so many possible details that can go wrong, that you're constantly down - availability is number one business consideration, efficiency is not always top, see the douglas self Loco Locomotives site about complicated fuel savings on engines and how they don't make it, and i personally was a qc tech somewhere with 19 parameters tested, which is too many, almost guaranteed nothing ever passes, but with 15 or 6 different possible things to go wrong, almost everything always passes) - that unless the APR is 100% (i.e. the thing pays for itself in savings within 1 year, 50% or 2 years not good enough) the project is not undertaken. I assume their heat pumps cost a lot more than $15K. On the other hand, a normal payback time for a solar panel installation is often 7 years, and it's undertaken. And heat pumps are nothing new, but yeah, if you have a pond or lake or seawater available for heat pump heat exchange, that's nice.

Comment Re:SSH keys (Score -1) 51

it's in the friggin chipset... no matter how secure you implement the software, Da Man is snoopin on you, and will forever snoop on you, and collect information, including the microsoft shortwave bands in the amateur wavelength range, and all possible frequencies and venues, including stray wifi and cellular signals that you don't even get a "connected" signal, because the chipset does not provide a software interface to the snooping hardware, it's all one way, it listens, but does not emit even a whimper.. it's built into the chipset by intel, amd, etc, and there is no such thing as computer security, unless you built a chip and you know what it does, and nobody has physical access to it to swap it out with a fake one that looks like the one you built.. then you can begin to talk about computer security... until then just live with it, and every time you get hacked, start talking about suing the manufacturers, microsoft, intel, dell, etc.. that will hold them back from using their channels to actively attack you to "prove" that you should spend more on computer security such as buy buy buy upgrade buy, and will be satisfied with simply collecting secret information about you, just so they have a little card file about you and everyone of what they are guilty of, what their weaknesses are, and how they can be dealt away with, in case they are in their way

Comment Re:'10 times more efficient' and xenon gas (Score -1) 52

i was thinking the same thing, why not use liquid oxygen instead, freely available from silicate rock in space
but then i realized you're spending $2 worth of electricity to accelerate $0.0001 worth of xenon, gold, platinum or diamond to 30% speed of light in a cyclotron (where relativistic mass might get it out of sync, unless you modulate your field to pulses that change the frequency as the particles relativistic mass grows to keep the cyclotron in sync, and get 80% speed of light), so whatever.. use xenon for start, then replenish out there in outer space with whatever gaseous ionizable things you can get your hands on, such as solar wind hydrogen or vacuum vaporized meteorite atoms sorted out in a magnetohydrodynamic generator, in a mass spectrometer way, each isotope of each element getting their own accelerator tunnel and cyclotron, and meteorite silicate elemental abundance means dealing with vaporized isotopes atoms of O, Si, Al, Ca, Fe, Na, K, Ti, that's pretty much it, the rest you can discard

Comment Re:Interesting, but.. (Score -1) 381

i have horrible karma so it only lets me post 2 comments in 24 hrs, and last time i wrote this comment roughly but i couldn't post it
i thought about it some more, and of course the whoosh is not so woosh when light takes 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun, and it would take 40 mins at 20% speed of light.. so you got a couple hours, but there isn't much to see you're just lookin at a starry sky, seeing images the likes of seeing venus, mars, saturn in the background of other stars.. just stars that move faster relative to the background "fixed stars".. so there isn't that much to see, and chances of close encounters with a planet are nearly nil, unless you can decelerate and stop there, and hang around, wait for commands to move around

and here is what i wrote last time but it didn't let me post it, i saved the comment, but somehow it's gone from my computer so i'm writing this from memory
it's about the aforementioned peltier issues in deep space, where solar power becomes not worth it, here is how to make solar panels worth it high up away from the Sun, powered not by the Sun directly, but by coherent high intensity lasers aimed and shot at them from down here..
as far as travel in space is concerned acceleration via light is not very "impulse or momentum efficient".. energy transfer via light is "energy efficient" .. to better utilize the energy, one could carry some matter to accelerate in a cyclotron via energy received through solar panels.. which is a better way then simply getting kicked around by photons, partly because you can also decelerate or go about that way.. of course there is still issue of aiming accuracy, especially to lightyears distance away, but getting around in the region of Jupiter/Saturn/Neptune/Pluto you might get away with it.. you'd basically have huge solar panels collect sunlight nearer to the Sun such as orbiting Earth, then from that generate a very focused narrow beam laser to shoot at your spaceship near Saturn, whose solar panels may not function much with light received from the very distant Sun, but in the path of a highly coherent laser beam of many Suns local intensity, it might be worth it.. and then the fuel you carry, such as liquid oxygen you extract from silicate rocks of Saturn's rings, can be efficiently harvested for impulse by accelerating it via a cyclotron to very high speeds.. if aiming accuracy suffers, even if it's oscillating or gets it right most of the time (via feedback of hey, we're not getting any juice here, the beam veered off to the left, 8 o clock last time we saw it, bring it back, hey

Comment Re:Interesting, but.. (Score -1) 381

One more thing. Or two.
- the classic computer game Asteroids gives a feel for impulse, interstellar acceleration and deceleration needs. It's not enough to simply accelerate.
- but if you simply accelerate, and woosh by, the fast the images you get back are at best the likes of Hubble images of the starry sky, and you'd simply get a what the starry sky looks like in that neighborhood, including, if, flying by with 20% of light speed, how it changes from picture to picture to detect nearby planets lit up by the star, kind of like ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans knew about planets that were stars nearby that moved more than the other stars in the background, on their own "epicycles." Such images may be very well worth the trip though, just don't expect closeup pictures of another Saturn or Neptune unless you are able to decelerate and stop and move about in that neighborhood.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"