On 4/15/2011 20:05, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> There is a battery for small devices in the works that "does" that. The
> problem, in most cases, is that its not the radiation that is used, its the
> heat. That is why the reactors are made the way they are.

You can do it for small stuff with thermocouples. That's what's running 
things like the voyager space ships. Stick a lump of uranium next to two 
different types of metal pressed together, and bingo instant current. But it 
only generates a couple of watts that way.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 15/04/2011 07:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/15/2011 10:00, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> If it's so simple and easy, why isn't everyone doing it?
>
> Hey, 3GHz 4-core processors only cost like $200. Why didn't we have
> those back in the original PC?

I've often wondered about this. Why did people design a 33MHz CPU, and 
then a 66MHz one, and then 100MHz, and so forth? Why didn't they just go 
straight to 4GHz?

> The longer the half life, the less radiation is being emitted per pound
> of material. That just falls out of the definition of half life.

So the radiation is actually *caused by* the substance decaying?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> I *would* be surprised if you can make a car that can withstand a 100MPH
>> crash. :-P
>
> Yet again, reading comprehension is low. ;-) I didn't say anything about
> the *car* surviving the crash.

Designing it so the car doesn't survive the crash but the people inside 
do would be even more miraculous...

> It's pretty commonly understood, and really not at all difficult to
> prove, considering you can go out and buy one of those cars and plug it
> in to see. It's hard to have controversial statements about things like
> "how much does gasoline cost?" or "how much electricity does this
> commercially-available consumer product use?"

It's news to me that anybody is producing electric cars yet. I'm aware 
that they've been producing proof-of-concept designs for decades. But I 
didn't think any of this stuff had reached the shops yet.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Le 16/04/2011 12:09, Orchid XP v8 nous fit lire :
> So the radiation is actually *caused by* the substance decaying?

Indeed.
When the atom splits (a bit of paradox for the greek atom), it results
in two or more atoms and radiation (alpha, beta or/and gamma).
(as well as heat)

radiation alpha, beta & gamma are in fact: photon, electron or positron
and helium nucleus (in opposite order, gamma is a photon, alpha is helium)

There is also neutron radiation.

Radiation can be spontaneous (hence the half-life) or generated by a
collision with another atom/particule/radiation.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:04:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >> A solution to global warming? No.  A solution to running out of oil?
> >> Quite possibly.  A solution to having a power generation technology
> >> that a poor uneducated population can use without fear of actually
> >> killing people on the other side of the world when they screw up? Sure.
> > 
> >   Burning coal is only a temporary solution, and a bad one.

> I'd have to agree with Darren here, it may be a bad solution, but unless 
> there is another solution, the alternative is "well, it sucks to be you 
> since you won't have power - deal with it."

  The problem is that if poor countries started increasing their burning
of fossil fuels significantly, *the entire world* would suffer from it,
not just them.

  So if it sucks, then it sucks.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> And the alternative is...? What exactly?

  You don't need to throw out current power generation technologies and
come up with something new in order to significantly reduce pollution.
Not all developed countries pollute even nearly as much as eg. the US,
Greece or China (not even if you scale it per capita).

  Finland is a pretty developed country, with a pretty advanced industry
and high living standards, yet Finland is on the lower end of the pollution
scale. (The same is true for many other European countries, especially the
northern ones.) The trick is to produce and use energy more smartly.

  For example, in China the most common way to heating homes is to burn
coal on each building. (For example this is extremely common in Beijin,
and not surprisingly Beijing is one of the most polluted cities in the
world.) In many other countries homes are heated using electricity, which
is extremely wasteful.

  Not so in Finland. The heating of homes in cities is centralized (iow.
so-called district heating). It basically works by having central heating
plants which heat water, which is then transported via tubes to homes.
(The water is then run through radiators.)

  There are efficient, low-polluting ways to heat the water (such as using
geotermal heating), but even if more polluting methods are used, reducing
the pollution (by using filters etc.) is easier, more efficient and cheaper
when this is centralized, reducing the total amount of pollution.

  Automobiles can be made less polluting via legislation (for example by
demanding the installation of catalytic converters, and overall defining
a maximum allowed amount of pollution for each car, such as is the the
case in Finland).

  Improving public transportation to reduce the need for private cars is
another efficient way to reduce pollution.

  If every country in the world used the same ecologic techniques as the
best ones, the amount of pollution in the world would be significantly
lowered.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 11:55, Warp wrote:
> >    I don't understand how it can be legal to expel someone for the sole
> > reason of wearing a t-shirt that says you're an atheist.

> The authorities treated it the same as someone wearing a shirt that said 
> "nigger" on it or something. Basically, it was insulting and harassing the 
> people who aren't atheists. They treated it the same way as they would have 
> treated someone religious preaching at you during class.

  Seems that the authorities there have a rather poor understanding of
their own constitution. (Perhaps it's a case of tl;dr.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/16/2011 5:44, Warp wrote:
>    The problem is that if poor countries started increasing their burning
> of fossil fuels significantly, *the entire world* would suffer from it,
> not just them.

This is true. What's the alternative?

The argument I've heard usually goes along the lines of "get them rich 
enough that pollution, rather than starvation, is what they're worried about."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/16/2011 3:11, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Designing it so the car doesn't survive the crash but the people inside do
> would be even more miraculous...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEBQ399k3aU

He broke a le:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJfQ-5pYjJQ&NR=1

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/16/2011 3:11, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It's news to me that anybody is producing electric cars yet.

LMGTFY.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message