| Friday,
February 17, 2006
Subject: They've Gone Barmy
See <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2044496,00.html>
I suppose the intent is to keep UK young people
pre-adolescent children until the day they turn 18.
-- "The data (or the marks when teaching) are
sacrosanct--they tell us what actually happened." Harry Erwin, PhD http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0her
==========
I got a LOT
of mail on this. Thanks!
Subject: Energy Flow
Is this it?
>From Mail 391:
http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php
-- Jeff Lackey
It also demonstrates that I need a better
search engine for this place.
========
This was sent to
Robert Thompson with a copy to me. Bob Thompson's reply is below.
Subject: Building the perfect PC
Sir,
I bought your book on line and I am excited about
building a PC. I saw that the book was published in 04 and realized there
would be changes. For example, the case you suggested is not for sale at the
Antec home page. Is the Sonata II a good replacement choice? You get the
point. Have you updated the parts list?
Just a note. I am a mac user who wants to build a PC
to play games.
Yours truly,
Larry Sampson pprlarry@mac.com
=
Thompson replies:
Yes, there have been many changes since the first
edition of _Building the Perfect PC_ was published in August 2004. For
updated component recommendations, visit our web site forums at:
<http://forums.hardwareguys.com/ikonboard.cgi>
With regard to the case, the Sonata II is still one of
our favorite cases, and would be a good choice. It is upgraded in several
respects relative to the original Sonata. Unfortunately, it is also
downgraded in one respect: rather than the high-end TruePower power supply
bundled with the original Sonata, the Sonata II bundles a mid-range
SmartPower 2.0 power supply.
Although the SmartPower is a decent power supply, we'd
have preferred that Antec continue to bundle the superb TruePower units. To
their credit, Antec has been up-front about the reason for the change.
Bundling a TruePower 2.0 power supply would have increased the retail price
of the Sonata II to a level that Antec thought was too high.
Right now, we'd probably choose the Antec P150 case
over the Sonata II. The Sonata II typically sells for $100, versus $140 for
the P150. But Antec is currently offering a $25 rebate on the P150, which
reduces that differential to only $15. The P150 is a better case than the
Sonata II, and it comes bundled with Antec's top-notch 430W NeoHE power
supply.
Incidentally, the second edition of _Building the
Perfect PC_ will arrive in bookstores in autumn 2006.
Best regards.
Bob
-- Robert Bruce Thompson thompson@ttgnet.com http://www.ttgnet.com/thisweek.html
http://forums.ttgnet.com/ikonboard.cgi
Note that the last couple of weeks of my
column at www.byte.com have been about
building a SOHO computer that will also play games.
===========
The Scientific
American discussion continues:
Subject: - Scientific American and Greenhouse
Gas
Jerry,
Been following the discussion with some amusement.
Perhaps you will find the item in today's Junk Science News (
www.junkscience.com ) titled "Bans
cause Global Warming, apparently" interesting.
Give the puppy a hug for me.
Ron Morse
They may put things a bit more strongly than I
do. I know many of the people who are true believers in global warming. They
build their models, and they believe the results. The problem is that the
observational people, including those who want to believe, aren't seeing
what's predicted. Once again there are interpretations that say, well, yes
we do too see the results, but it takes theory to interpret them properly...
The real question is, are we serious about
any of this or is it a way to fund a lot of people's studies (which is to
say their livlihoods)? And see below
==
Dear Jerry,
The attached message is a good con commentary from Dr.
Thomas Reed concerning "Cellulosic Ethanol", which subject featured
prominently in the President's State of the Union message.
Yours Truly,
Mark
From: Thomas Reed
Subject: [Gasification] Cellulosic Ethanol a Red Herring???
Dear Lazslo and All:
I have worked in alternate renewable fuels
since the first OPEC oil embargo in 1973, first at MIT, then NREL, then the
Colorado School of Mines, and now at my Biomass Energy Foundation (WoodGas.com).
It gives one a certain perspective.
In 1918 there was an acid hydrolysis plant
built in Washington (?) to produce fuel for the WW I period. As soon as the
war was over, it was closed down as being uneconomical. (sigh)
In 1975 I visited the Army Natick Laboratories
in Massachusetts. They has discovered an enzyme that broke down cellulose,
and they were hoping to commercialize it. (Ah!) Nothing more heard. (Sigh) I
went to work at NREL (then SERI) in 1978 and started a methanol from biomass
program. Naturally I kept my eyes on the ethanol from cellulosics. I
estimate that at least every other year since then I heard great news that
(1) acid hydrolysis had been improved and the best method and (2) enzymatic
hydrolysis was now solved and was the best method. I keep waiting for my
first gallon of "cellulosic ethanol" at the gas pump.
Maybe increasing cost of oil will permit CE to
become commercial. However, there typically only 50% of the plant residue is
cellulose, the balance hemicellulose and lignin.
The final nail in the cellulosic ethanol coffin
is that President Bush promises that it will replace significant oil in 10
years. We can't wait that long. Cellulosic Ethanol has kept a lot of
scientists and engineers busy for a LONG time. I hope someone will examine
the DOE budgets over the last decade to see how much has been spent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, gasification converts biomass efficiently to either methanol or
Fischer Tropsch diesel (or also ammonia). So of course there is no money in
the DOE budget for gasification. I am building and testing biomass gasifiers
daily in our new BEF Laboratory, but finding it hard to pay the rent.
Onward and (I hope) upward,
TOM REED
==
Subject: Ethanol, Bio-Diesel and the Emerging US Food
Crisis
Dear Jerry,
In the absence of real national - Washington
leadership on fuels a default policy has been adopted and mainly
consciously. This policy is to encourage the burning of ever greater
mega-tonnages of food crops that are consumable by humans. Recent reports
indicate that in 2005 about 12% of total US corn production was turned into
ethanol. Also in 2005 new ethanol plant projects totalling a 50% plant
expansion were booked. 'Progress' is also strong on biodiesel, i.e. turning
soybeans into bio-diesel fuel rather than animal feed and vegetable oil. It
takes little imagination to see 50% of arable US acreage engaged in fuel
farming by 2010 (i.e. less than four years from now). All that's needed is
for oil prices to remain at their current levels. Nor can this be prevented
in our 'free market' except by legally limiting the amount of ethanol
produced in the USA (or by deploying other alternates to obtain liquid
fuels, which isn't being done).
Here is a double whammy for food prices. First are the
higher absolute fuel costs for fertilizer, mechanized agricultural
production and distribution transportation. These cost increases are being
compounded by simultaneously adding, indeed subsidizing the addition of,
tens of millions of additional food 'consumers' to the demand curve in the
form of internal combustion engines. If you live in a rural or suburban area
you'll be able to ease the impact by returning to an ancient tradition,
which is the large sized family garden and a chicken coop. If you are a true
urban or condo dweller your choice is limited to deciding what to delete
from your monthly budget.
In my opinion this conscious policy of making eatable
foods a primary alternate fuel to petroleum based fuels can only be
described as evil. Nor can Mother Nature be depended upon to consistently
cooperate with a Just In Time agricultural system. Droughts and other
inimical weather comes along at the most inconvenient moments
Historically it will be extremely unusual for a
government that consciously chooses to drastically raise food prices and
also decrease food reserves to -0- or Minus to survive longer than a few
more years. Stalin's regime was able to survive artificially induced
famines. His methods of political control are exactly what it will take here
to persist in the current policies. Obviously subterranean black rocks could
offer an alternative to this in the form of synthetic fuels. But expanding
the use of these black rocks, of which we have staggering amounts, is
currently under a Ban of International Morality since it is alleged they are
a primary cause of Global Warming. Conversion of non-eatable 'biomass'
(mainly wood chips) to methanol is another possibility but is also not being
pursued by the Government.
Apparently burning human foodstuffs is better since
it's stated this doesn't increase the Earth's free carbon load.
Best Wishes,
Mark
================
Dogs In Elk
I read that when it was first going on back in 1999
and a few years later and have never laughed so hard in my life. Knowing the
breeds of dogs Ann had it made a lot of sense and I could just envision my 2
pitbulls doing something very similar, only they might just get the carcass
through an open window if they really wanted to and they'd put it in their
bed and sleep with it as well.
Was looking for something to cheer up a friend of mine
going through Chemo the other day and thought of that hilarious string of
posts but I no longer had it bookmarked due to multiple computer crashes
over the years. Did a websearch and came across your posting on it and the
link to the original in Ann's reply. Thanks so much - he's been reading it
daily and laughing like a fool he says and it helps to cheer him up.
Reason for my email... did you ever hear back from her
about the final outcome of that whole insane situation ?
Thanks Denise
Here is the link:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/dogsinelk.html You will
find all kinds of interesting things in
Reports...
=========
Subject: SciAm, hot air, and Mars
Hi Dr. Pournelle,
I was bemused by the exchange with John Rennie on your
blog. This comment in particular seems puzzling:
"...For example, considerable study has gone into the
question of whether solar variability could account for the measured
temperature rise. The conclusion is that solar variability might be a factor
in the rise seen before about 1950, but since then, there's no way that it
could be affecting what we're seeing."
Which makes me wonder why Mars also is warming up, as
these MGS images seem to indicate:
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/CO2_Science_rel/
It's probably just waste heat from those rover
batteries, right?
Don Dixon, FIAAA
Scientific Illustration
ddixon@cosmographica.com
http://www.cosmographica.com/gallery
==
Biodiesel,
Jerry,
Has anyone made an authoritative study of the amount
of fossil sourced diesel that is consumed in growing a given amount of
biodiesel? I once saw a report the the ratio was close to 1:1.
John Edwards
I have not looked at this since A Step
Farther Out, which was twenty years ago. It is my understanding (subject to
being shown I'm wrong) that growing crops to produce ethanol or biodiesel is
marginal at best; but there are ways to convert a lot of biowaste into fuel,
and some of those look economically interesting as oil stays above $60/bbl.
I should look into this, but I expect I have readers who already know.
And see next item:
Subj: Biomass gasification
I'm confused by the clash between (a) the contribution from Dr. Thomas
Reed of woodgas.com via Mark in
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail401.html#Friday [See
here]
and (b) the apparent existence of the NREL Thermochemical Users Facility
described in
http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/workingwithus.html#tcuf
One would think, from the description, that the NREL has available a
facility in which industrial experimenters could test their test articles,
in the same way NACA used to provide wind tunnels for aeronautical
experimentation.
Yet Dr. Reed seems to say that DOE is doing nothing on the thermochemical
front.
What in the world is going on? Is NREL a Potemkin village laboratory? Has
the physical plant been scrapped, leaving only an orphan web site? Or what?
From
http://woodgas.com/synthetic_fuels.htm =Hydrogen Science
Institute: Synthetic Fuels= it looks like Dr. Reed worked at NREL/SERI in
1980 on gasification.
Dr. Reed says explicitly, "[T]here is no money in the DOE budget for
gasification."
But
http://www.energy.gov/news/3150.htm
=Department of Energy - Department of Energy Requests $23.6 Billion for FY
2007= links to
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/index.htm which links to
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/07budget/Start.htm which links to
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/07budget/Content/Labandstate/lab.pdf
which has a page for NREL on which there is a line
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Appropriation Appropriation Request Biomass and
Biorefinery Systems R&D 22,222 14,662 27,500
in a table where the numbers are dollars in thousands.
I also Googled up this:
http://www.bera1.org/annual.html =Biomass Energy Research
Association= which seems to show that there was in the 2005 Conference
Report, H.R. 4818, =funding under Energy and Water Development
Appropriations ... of $82.147 million for Biomass and Biorefinery Systems
research including 28 earmarked projects that totaled about 42.5% of this
appropriation; 15 of the earmarks are for new projects and the others are
for existing earmarks.=
That looks like there's funding, and that a lot of it is eaten by the
Congressional Earmarks Monster.
The overall impression I have so far is that the federal funding would be
a lot easier to understand if it was for prizes for demonstrations of
well-specified capabilities, rather than for a hodge-podge of
Congressionally-earmarked projects.
But I also think it might be useful to have a FedGov-funded testbed
facility like NREL/TCUF, just like it might be useful to have some FedGov-funded
wind tunnels for aerodynamics R&D.
Rod Montgomery==monty@sprintmail.com
Well, as you know, I would very much favor
adequate prizes for actual demonstration of specific capabilities; just as I
favor X Projects (sometimes called feasibility demonstrations) but one has
to be careful that the X Project doesn't become a monster as X-33 did; the
only thing "X" in X-33 was the name. It was a boondoggle from beginning to
end, and wasn't even run by the people who were supposed to be in charge.
REAL X projects don't try to develop new technology, they take the best we
have as of a closeoff date and built the best system one can make from that.
X-33 tried to develop tankage that was not cylinders of rotation, something
we don't know how to do for good mass ratios, and a lot of other stuff that
needed development, not demonstration. What I wanted from X-33 was SSX, a
600,000 GLOW VTOL ship with at least 12 engines; we could build that, and
while it probably wouldn't make orbit it would fly and we would learn a lot
from it. But that's another matter.
NACA had wind tunnels and worked with the
aerospace industry. NASA has been the enemy of anything not invented at
NASA, and NASA Marshall cracked the tank of DC/X in needless -- utterly
needless -- "testing", then "repaired" badly, so that the accident when DC/X
fell over became a disaster as hydrogen leaked from the cracked tank; had
that not happened we could have taken Clipper Graham and pushed her upright,
hammered out the dents, and flown again in a month or less. We had
worse damage during the time USAF was in charge. NASA lost her on the first
flight. I was not astonished.
Expecting NASA to work with private
industry other than industry captives is a pipe dream. NASA doesn't know how
to conduct an X project and wouldn't want to if it could.
We are in complete agreement that our
experimental programs have become a nightmare of earmarkery.
Regarding biomass research, I expect we'll
find out the facts soon enough. One thing I like about being me is that I
have readers who collectively know everything.
==
Subject: ethanol from food
I understand Mark's concern. It's also true that
high-maintenance plants like domestic corn don't do that well in the amount
of energy produced versus energy expended in ethanol production.
The key to biofuels will be processes that can use the
cellulose-containing plant tissue, like wood chips, waste brush, and farming
waste. People are working on this. Biofuels become attractive when they can
exploit plants that can be grown in areas with little water and fertile
soil. Areas that would not otherwise be used for food. Salt-tolerant plants
would be good, too.
News article here.
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060126/sc_nm/environment
_ethanol_dc;_ylt=AtRzOg_3GiKnGmXqdB1A4_
Os0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ->
The original Science article in the January 27th issue
costs money, but maybe you're a subscriber.
Robert Zubrin also has a good article here:
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18976/article_detail.asp
Tom Brosz
=========
Subject: reactionless drive
Hello,
I've just discovered your website - and I've
bookmarked it.
after reading your comments on the Dean drive, I
wonder if you've heard of this:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm
It's not clear - at least to me! - whether it would
work in deep space, but it really does seem to work down here.
The catch seems to be it's not very efficient: the
power requirement is about 1Kw/kg of thrust. Maybe it'll become really
useful when small fusion reactors become available...
Jean-Louis
I have never actually seen a "lifter"
although many have written to me about them. I may be remiss here, but have
there been working models? I know magnetic levitation is not only possible
but common -- Michael Hyson used to do a lot of magnetic levitation as part
of some biophysics work he was doing -- and I see no real reason why
electro-static repulsion wouldn't work, but it's surely subject to the
inverse square laws? Or have I misunderstood the concept? I'd appreciate
enlightenment.
And see below
==========
What is the Value of Algebra?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/blog/2006/02/15/BL2006021501989.html
--- Roland Dobbins
I am not one of Mr. Cohen's fans, but this
issue cuts way across ideological lines.
And see below
========
Subject: IMac Virus, buffy
willow
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602281.html
Virus Targeting Macs Spreads Via IM Program
By Mike Musgrove and Brian Krebs Washington Post Staff
Writers Friday, February 17, 2006; D05
A rare piece of malicious software targeting Apple's
Mac OS X operating system -- instead of the more common victim, Microsoft
Windows -- has been spotted online and appears to be spreading. Like many
computer viruses, the bug lures people to click on it by posing as something
else, in this case a file containing a picture of the next-generation Apple
operating system.
The malicious software causes computer programs to
crash and transmits itself through an instant message program for the Mac
called iChat. To get infected, users must download the file, called "latestpics.tgz,"
and install it on their computer. Infected computers will then automatically
attempt to send the program to all contacts on the infected user's "buddy
list."
Mac users typically have not had to worry about the
computer worms and viruses that regularly hit the Windows-using world. It's
a regular debate among techies whether this is because the Mac operating
system is inherently more secure or whether computer hackers simply do not
bother attacking an operating system that is not widespread. Apple Computer
Inc. has less than 5 percent of the U.S. computer market.
Apple released a statement yesterday warning users to
download files from only companies they have confidence in.<snip>
===========
Subject: Re: Diversity & Job Applicants
FWIW: I don't think the new regulations will matter,
at least not for technology companies. Just read through the job postings
for IT positions on Monster, et al. Almost every posting will have an
impossible list of qualifications that almost no one could possibly fulfill.
Therefore every applicant will be unqualified for the position as listed and
the company will just have to settle for someone who can merely do the job.
Those of us in IT often laugh at the list of qualifications that no shop
would ever want in one person, but you will find the impossible list
consistently on the job postings.
Kenny Biel
Wait until the lawyers get through with
that one. The point of credentialism is to allow you to prove you didn't 'scriminate
someone.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Friday
|
A strategic tragedy? Or a new beginning?
