Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flaw forcesLinux, Windows redesign

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-01-09 10:12, Paul wrote:
[...]
It's pretty hard to do what the leaf does.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and...ore-efficient/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

https://www.livescience.com/37746-pl...m-physics.html

Paul

True. [Light + CO2 --- Carbohydrate] is difficult. But the first step
of that conversion is [2H2O -- 2H2 + O2]. Daniel Nocera of MIT thinks
that using a "leaf" based on solar panel tech to generate H2 will enable
storage of solar energy. If the process is cheap enough, then even if
it's not much more efficient than a plant leaf, it could make hydrogen a
viable fuel. But note the last paragraph of this article.

From New Scientist, 2011 March 28:

-------------------------------------------------------
Why come up with new ways to generate clean energy, when we can copy
what plants have been doing for millennia?

Daniel Nocera and colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology claim to have done just that - developing the first practical
artificial leaf that mimics photosynthesis.

The leaf, actually a cheap, playing-card-sized solar cell that uses
energy from sunlight to generate electricity to split water into
hydrogen and oxygen, was presented yesterday at a meeting of the
American Chemical Society in Anaheim, California. The hydrogen and
oxygen produced could then be fed into a fuel cell, to generate
electricity when it's needed.

In 2008 Nocera coated a low-cost indium-tin-oxide electrode in a
combination of cobalt and phosphate to catalyse the water-splitting
process.

Last year the team revealed an even cheaper water-splitting device based
on a cobalt and nickel-borate-based electrode. In tests their artificial
leaf, based on that cobalt-nickel electrode, operated continuously for
over 45 hours without a drop in production.

By using cheap, abundant materials, Nocera hopes to ultimately develop a
device that could power a home in the developing world for a day using
just 4 litres of water. His company, Sun Catalytix, in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, is attempting to commercialise the artificial
photosynthesis technology.

Indian firm Tata has already signed Nocera up to help develop a
mini-power plant based on his technology.

The breakthrough comes as four research teams from the UK and US have
today been awarded $10.3 million in funding to improve the process of
natural photosynthesis. The teams are looking at technologies to
overcome limitations in photosynthesis such as natural bottlenecks in
the chemical process. They hope the work could lead to ways of
increasing the yield of important crops for food production or
sustainable bioenergy.
--------------------------------------------------------

I found three other articles about artificial leaves in ew Scientists (I
subscribe). The general approach seems to be emulate, not replicate, the
energy conversions in a leaf. Emulation open the door to higher
conversion efficiencies than plants achieve.


The interesting thing from the quantum physics articles I
listed, was the mention of 95% efficiency. That's just
for a sub-process, with none of the other issues optimized.
So the quantum part, works a treat.

There was one other article, about a tropical begonia with
purple leaves. And the purple color, comes from the enhanced
quantum physics. The purple is almost mirror-like. That particular
plant achieves photosynthesis in low-light conditions (under
a forest canopy).

It could be other parts of the process that drop the
overall efficiency below the 95% level.

A straight catalyst approach, I wonder how it attains the
energy to split water ? I suppose that will be in their paper
when its published.

Paul

In article .com
Savageduck wrote:

On Jan 9, 2018, DaveFroble wrote
(in article ):

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy
(ie, fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the
proportion of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many
litres of some fuel does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?

What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.

So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?

Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

Hydrogen and oxygen reactions are rather eco friendly, though there are some
nitrogen based products we could do without.

Then there is this:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/8/16...gen-fuel-cell-
ev-car-ces-2018

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 20:34, skrev Doomsdrzej:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 12:18:05 -0500, DaveFroble
wrote:

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy
(ie, fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the
proportion of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many
litres of some fuel does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?


What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.


So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?



Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

The first three are worthless and the last is the most dangerous thing
on Earth.


Right. Why not take pause from your bashing of everything else and answer
my question. What is *your* solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 22:41, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy (ie,
fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the
proportion of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many litres
of some fuel does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?


What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.

So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?

Nuclear. Much the safest and reliable.


Nuclear is a dead end and pushing the issues with waste storage onto
many future generations. The nuclear *plans* are quite OK when in
production but a real pain to decommission.

On 01/09/2018 3:42 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

Add Hydroelectric for charging up all these batteries.

Not everyone has mountains.


We don't have mountains in Manitoba, yet virtually all our electricity
is generated by water power, we even supply the USA with our surplus.

Rene

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 22:47, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Doomsdrzej
wrote:

Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

The first three are worthless ...

Right so far.

...and the last is the most dangerous thing on Earth.

Total balls.

At TMI...

OK.

and Fukushima, no one killed or injured.

That is simply not according official reports. There was a number of
workers killed at the plan directly in the accident. And the number
of deads reported or calculated in the time after the accident such
as during the evacuation process (caused by the cuclear accident)
has been in the 1000 range.

At Chernobyl (where they had to work very hard to make even a poorly
designed reactor have a meltdown), less than 100 dead....

There seems to be reports of approx. 40 directly dead by the explosion as
such. Then the figures varies a lot, since it is very hard to guess the
final impact. The estimates seems to be in the 9,000 to 90,000 range:

https://nypost.com/2017/11/20/scient...obyl-disaster/

And besides of that, even 31 years after the accident, there are still
effects far away from the plant:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/...ng-legacy.html

Similar issues with wild boars has been reported from Fukushima:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/w...turn-home.html

What other power plan breakdowns has severe consequences decades
or centuries after the accident as such? Covering an area 1000s of Km
from the actual accident?


Per terrawatt-hour of energy produced,
much the safest way to generate electricity. As you'd know if you refer
to the Without-the-hot-air website I referred you to.

Den 2018-01-10 kl. 00:11, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 22:47, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Doomsdrzej
wrote:

Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

The first three are worthless ...

Right so far.

...and the last is the most dangerous thing on Earth.

Total balls.

At TMI...

OK.

and Fukushima, no one killed or injured.

That is simply not according official reports. There was a number of
workers killed at the plan directly in the accident.

No such reports have been seen in the press.

And the number
of deads reported or calculated in the time after the accident such
as during the evacuation process (caused by the cuclear accident)
has been in the 1000 range.

If the Japanese panicked and made a mess of the unnecessary evacuation
that's hardly the fault of nuclear power. The problem is that people
have been lied to about the scale of the danger.

At Chernobyl (where they had to work very hard to make even a poorly
designed reactor have a meltdown), less than 100 dead....

There seems to be reports of approx. 40 directly dead by the explosion as
such. Then the figures varies a lot, since it is very hard to guess the
final impact. The estimates seems to be in the 9,000 to 90,000 range:

Not according to to the World Health Organisation, whose study in the
mid-90s concluded 75 dead to be the most likely figure.


To quote from the link that you snipped from the post:

"The final death toll from Chernobyl is subject to speculation, due to
the long-term effects of radiation. Estimates range from 9,000 by the
World Health Organization to one of a possible 90,000 by the
environmental group Greenpeace."

Here is the link again:

https://nypost.com/2017/11/20/scient...obyl-disaster/

Please provide a current link to the figure of 75 by WHO.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

Add Hydroelectric for charging up all these batteries.

Not everyone has mountains.


You don't need to have an 800 foot head to run hydro.

http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Hydraulic_head

"Low head dams are usually classified as systems with
head differences of around 10 meters or less. These low
head hydro turbines are generally used in facilities such
as run-of-the-river systems where there is a flowing river
with little elevation change"

We have one of those *in town*, but it's closed now. There
may be more of these on other parts of our local river. Actually,
there's one a half mile from the dinky one, that provides
29MW. That's probably why they closed the tiny one, as it's
an "insult to megaprojects" it's so small.

And I don't even know if there is a listing for facilities
that small. I know there are more of them, but I doubt I
could find a map with them marked.

I just found a summary page for our river. It has *50* dams and
hydro stations on it. That's spread over a huge area. Who knew ?
(Apparently, not me.) I guess somebody really likes free energy :-)

"The combined capacity of the hydro-electric generating stations
in the watershed is over 4000 MW, producing over $1 million
worth of energy on a daily basis." [10.4 cents per MW*hour]

That's a watershed draining into the Saint Lawrence river.

Holy ****.

And there is a map, with a boundary drawn for the watershed.
It looks to be a roughly square space 400km x 400km. More than
one river is involved.

I don't think our river passes through mountains, and
at a guess, the stations are all "low head". Some parts
of the river are wider, and could run more generators.
Nothing around here looks like Hoover Dam.

And in a different area of the province, we even pump water
into a reservoir for storage.

https://www.opg.com/generating-power...-beck-pgs.aspx

Well, I'm kinda shocked now. And I thought we got all our
power from nukes. (That's where the tritium in our
river comes from :-) )

Paul

On 9 Jan 2018 13:11:55 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
After the Berlin wall came down in '89, I used to regularly see Trabbies
(Trabant) broken down beside the road. When they did run, they smoked
and barely made it up even modest hills.

They are _supposed_ to smoke. It's a 2-cycle engine, that's what makes it
work.
--scott

No, I'm aware that they have 2-cycle engines. I'm talking about a volume
of smoke way beyond what I'd expect.

Char Jackson wrote:
On 9 Jan 2018 13:11:55 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
After the Berlin wall came down in '89, I used to regularly see Trabbies
(Trabant) broken down beside the road. When they did run, they smoked
and barely made it up even modest hills.
They are _supposed_ to smoke. It's a 2-cycle engine, that's what makes it
work.
--scott

No, I'm aware that they have 2-cycle engines. I'm talking about a volume
of smoke way beyond what I'd expect.


50:1 gasil mixture ?

Can you do that on a larger displacement 2-cycle engine like that,
or is a separate oil system needed ?

If you're burning oil on purpose, expect
a little "color" to your exhaust.

*******

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant_601

"Two-stroke engines of this sort, with crankcase scavenging
and lubricating oil provided during fuel intake, burn their
lubricating oil by design and produce smoky tailpipe emissions."

"The original engine was only 23 hp, but in 1969 a new
version was offered with a 26 hp engine. [ Turbo??? :-) ]

Think of the pollution level!

With some VTEC stickers and a set of exhaust tips, you'd
have a car. You could leave the competition behind in
your oil smoke screen.

Paul

Paul wrote:
Char Jackson wrote:
On 9 Jan 2018 13:11:55 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
After the Berlin wall came down in '89, I used to regularly see
Trabbies
(Trabant) broken down beside the road. When they did run, they smoked
and barely made it up even modest hills.
They are _supposed_ to smoke. It's a 2-cycle engine, that's what
makes it
work.
--scott

No, I'm aware that they have 2-cycle engines. I'm talking about a volume
of smoke way beyond what I'd expect.


50:1 gasil mixture ?

Can you do that on a larger displacement 2-cycle engine like that,
or is a separate oil system needed ?

If you're burning oil on purpose, expect
a little "color" to your exhaust.

AmsOil synthetic, mixed 100:1, no smoke, no lube failures.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail:
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

Add Hydroelectric for charging up all these batteries.

Not everyone has mountains.


Then you get some nice smooth wind.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail:
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 12:18:05 -0500, DaveFroble
wrote:

So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?


Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

The first three are worthless and the last is the most dangerous thing
on Earth.

Worthless? Then I wonder what the solar panels I have are doing. Sure seems to
do away with my electric bill.

Thermal can be very good, in locations where it's available.

I can look out my window and see windmills. Gee, I wonder what they are there
for, if they are worthless for producing electricity.

I have to ask, what do you know about "nuclear", or, are you one of those idiots
that don't know anything about it, but curse the word? Anything can be
dangerous. Nuclear done right is as safe as anything else. I have reason to
"KNOW" this.

Nuclear is always on.

Hydrogen and oxygen reactions are rather eco friendly, though there are some
nitrogen based products we could do without.

Hydrogen is the only one that I believe has potential.

Ok, how do you produce the hydrogen? You gonna run some collection ships
through Jupiter's atmosphere?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail:
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Doomsdrzej
wrote:

Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

The first three are worthless ...

Right so far.

...and the last is the most dangerous thing on Earth.

Total balls.

At TMI and Fukushima, no one killed or injured. At Chernobyl (where
they had to work very hard to make even a poorly designed reactor have
a meltdown), less than 100 dead. Per terrawatt-hour of energy produced,
much the safest way to generate electricity. As you'd know if you refer
to the Without-the-hot-air website I referred you to.


Anything can be dangerous.

Three Mile Island, if I have my facts straight, was a rather new facility, with
fairly new operators. Inadequately trained operators.

Water level was dropping in the core. A particular valve had 600 PSI on one
side, and 200 PSI on the otherside. Closed, right? WRONG! If they had closed
the valve, no problem would have occurred. High pressure steam can be funny
that way.

I think better design might have given indications of the status of the valve.

So, some rabble rouser says some things, and people who don't have a clue
believe it, then the mob is off and running.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail:
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-09 kl. 22:41, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy
(ie, fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the
proportion of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many
litres of some fuel does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year?
Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?


What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.

So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?

Nuclear. Much the safest and reliable.


Nuclear is a dead end and pushing the issues with waste storage onto
many future generations. The nuclear *plans* are quite OK when in
production but a real pain to decommission.




So then, it's just an engineering issue, right?

Better design, better planning, and such.

Just where did that waste come from? Some aliens shipped it in from off planet?
It came from right here. It should be a manageable problem.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail:
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486