Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Yet another new battery breakthrough

R

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
What, you prefer leaded gasoline?

This is a non-sequitur. I was only saying that it wasn't "the big
agri-industry" who "pushed MTBE on us", it was the anti-lead greenies.

But, it is true, I do believe there's way too much hysteria around lead.

Cheers!
Rich
 
D

Don Klipstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
Wasn't it the greenies and their anti-lead crusade that gave us
MTBE?

MTBE was for oxygenating gasoline, or as I see it diluting it with what
I would call "partially oxidized fuel". This was to make cars burn leaner
to reduce carbon monoxide output.

MTBE was not the only candidate. It was chosen by the EPA over ethanol
then, and many said that was due to influence by the oil lobby since MTBE
can be made from some petroleum fraction.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian said:
This is a non-sequitur. I was only saying that it wasn't "the big
agri-industry" who "pushed MTBE on us", it was the anti-lead greenies.

But, it is true, I do believe there's way too much hysteria around lead.

Cheers!
Rich
On tv last night I saw a researcher tie removal of lead from gasoline with
a a reduction
in violent crime (twenty years later). I just looked up an article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073_2.html
I skimmed it, I don't see anything about the economy or unemployment rate.
Rich, why the small font lately, did you get new glasses? :)
Mike
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Yanik said:
One has to remember that this is just the REACTOR,and not the heat-
exchangers and generators necessary to convert the heat to electricity.

They left out a lot of details.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

You want details?
(Henry emailed Mike,)
"Here is an 870 page Jan. 2007 IAEA document with lots of good info on the
current status of small nuclear power stations intended for wide
distribution all over the Earth. The Toshiba 4S is well covered."

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NENP/NPTDS/Downloads/SMR_CRP1_SRWOSR/2007_new/1536.pdf Mike
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert Latest said:
Martin said:

"The [...] reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and
totally automatic and will not overheat."

Hey, that's great! A safe nuclear reactor at last. Also note the welcome
change in marketing language, quite different from the "Prone to failure
by
human error--non-negligible risk of contaminating large populated arteas"
that we got so used to.

robert

Gee guys, There's risk in most things we do.
40,000 people die every year in driving accidents, should we ban cars?
(Question void in California)
We burn millions of tons of coal in power plants. Is the polution caused by
burning coal safe for humans to breath?
We pay billions of dollars for oil to people who vow to kill us.
Is that a good plan to protect our health?
How many people have died in nuclear power plant accidents?
How many in car accidents?
How many from coal polution?
How many people have died at the hand of people from from oil rich
countries?
There are trade offs, I'll take nuclear power and good battery technology
for my car.
Now get on it.
Mike
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
amdx said:
We pay billions of dollars for oil to people who vow to kill us.
Is that a good plan to protect our health?

The Canadians vow to kill us? Even if they do, I don't think that's much
of a problem! :^)

Tim
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
rate. Rich, why the small font lately, did you get new glasses? :)

As far as I know, all I'm sending is plain ascii text, which has no
font of its own - that's determined by your computer. (or should be).

I even just went and looked at my preferences, and there isn't even
a control for that.

I did just install Slack 12.0, with a new version of pan (0.131);
but that shouldn't have any effect on the ascii itself.

Does somebody want to check and see if I'm sending some kind of
weird invisible HTML or something?

Thanks,
Rich
 
R

Robert Adsett

Jan 1, 1970
0
As far as I know, all I'm sending is plain ascii text, which has no
font of its own - that's determined by your computer. (or should be).

I even just went and looked at my preferences, and there isn't even
a control for that.

I did just install Slack 12.0, with a new version of pan (0.131);
but that shouldn't have any effect on the ascii itself.

Does somebody want to check and see if I'm sending some kind of
weird invisible HTML or something?

Looks like plain text from here.

Robert
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich Grise said:
As far as I know, all I'm sending is plain ascii text, which has no
font of its own - that's determined by your computer. (or should be).

I even just went and looked at my preferences, and there isn't even
a control for that.

I did just install Slack 12.0, with a new version of pan (0.131);
but that shouldn't have any effect on the ascii itself.

Does somebody want to check and see if I'm sending some kind of
weird invisible HTML or something?

Thanks,
Rich
Your font size on my computer #10 everyone elses is #14.
I don't know why.
Mike
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Your font size on my computer #10 everyone elses is #14.
I don't know why.

Me either - not only do I not have any kind of setting to send
anything but plain vanilla ASCII, but my own display is set to #12.

Thanks,
Rich
 
H

Hal Murray

Jan 1, 1970
0
Me either - not only do I not have any kind of setting to send
anything but plain vanilla ASCII, but my own display is set to #12.

Your headers say:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I suspect either of two things:
The receiver doesn't have a 14 point font for that charset
so his system substitutes a 10 point font that it does have.

The receiver's UI has options to display different type
fonts in different sizes and he has UTF-8 set for 10 point.
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hal Murray said:
Your headers say:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I suspect either of two things:
The receiver doesn't have a 14 point font for that charset
so his system substitutes a 10 point font that it does have.

The receiver's UI has options to display different type
fonts in different sizes and he has UTF-8 set for 10 point.
I have three computers that I use regularly, I'm sure two of them ( and I
think all three ) print Rich's posts in the small font, and only Rich's
posts. Everyone else's posts
are larger. Twenty years this wouldn't make any difference, hmm, two
reasons, my eyes were better and
I wasn't on the internet twenty years ago. :)
Mike
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Your headers say:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit

I suspect either of two things:
The receiver doesn't have a 14 point font for that charset
so his system substitutes a 10 point font that it does have.

The receiver's UI has options to display different type
fonts in different sizes and he has UTF-8 set for 10 point.

Thanks - this pretty much settles it.

I just noticed, I've been getting empty posts from Richard Henry -
what do his headers say? (others seem to be seeing them; Richard's
original post shows up in the followups).

This could be an artifact of my latest greatest upgrade - I'm
seriously tempted to go back to last version of Pan.

Thanks!
Rich
 
"The [...] reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and
totally automatic and will not overheat."

The design I heard about a few years back was a telephone pole sized
core to be dropped, encapsulated, in a hole in the ground. The
composition and fuel density of the core was such that a reaction was
not possible. To make a reaction go, a sliding reflector had to be in
place around the outside of the core. With the reflector in place,
the core would run, but not so fast that the containment would fail
even if coolant were to be lost (it may be that coolant was also
needed as a moderator, don't remember). Eventually, the fuel in the
region covered by the reflector would be spent, and the reaction would
stop. To keep it going, the reflector was designed to very slows
slide down the core over the life of the unit. If it stopped sliding,
the reaction stops. If it slides to fast, it simply gets to the
bottom too soon and the life is shortened.

The idea is that they designed out any risks they could think of.

The question is what risks they didn't think of.
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
    "The [...] reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and
     totally automatic and will not overheat."

The design I heard about a few years back was a telephone pole sized
core to be dropped, encapsulated, in a hole in the ground.  The
composition and fuel density of the core was such that a reaction was
not possible.  To make a reaction go, a sliding reflector had to be in
place around the outside of the core.  With the reflector in place,
the core would run, but not so fast that the containment would fail
even if coolant were to be lost (it may be that coolant was also
needed as a moderator, don't remember).  Eventually, the fuel in the
region covered by the reflector would be spent, and the reaction would
stop.  To keep it going, the reflector was designed to very slows
slide down the core over the life of the unit.  If it stopped sliding,
the reaction stops.  If it slides to fast, it simply gets to the
bottom too soon and the life is shortened.

The idea is that they designed out any risks they could think of.

The question is what risks they didn't think of.

Theft and use in a dirty bomb.
 
Theft and use in a dirty bomb.

Stealing a telephone pole sized solid object buried in the ground is
not trivial. And once you've stolen it, you probably need to figure
out how to break it up into manageable chunks, then clean up that
mess and package the results.

But yes, this design predated the current prominence of that concern.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
"The [...] reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and
totally automatic and will not overheat."

The design I heard about a few years back was a telephone pole sized
core to be dropped, encapsulated, in a hole in the ground. The
composition and fuel density of the core was such that a reaction was
not possible. To make a reaction go, a sliding reflector had to be in
place around the outside of the core. With the reflector in place, the
core would run, but not so fast that the containment would fail even if
coolant were to be lost (it may be that coolant was also needed as a
moderator, don't remember). Eventually, the fuel in the region covered
by the reflector would be spent, and the reaction would stop. To keep
it going, the reflector was designed to very slows slide down the core
over the life of the unit. If it stopped sliding, the reaction stops.
If it slides to fast, it simply gets to the bottom too soon and the life
is shortened.

The idea is that they designed out any risks they could think of.

The question is what risks they didn't think of.

These days, I don't think anybody's really paranoid about those things
any more - just look at Japan and Europe - they've been using nuclear
safely for decades. So have we, now that I mention it. (Yes, TMI, but
we learned a lot there.)

What they're paranoid about is somebody stealing it up and turning
it into a bomb.

Of course, these are the people that got their science education from
Saturday matinee "B" sci-fi movies, like "Them" and "Plan 9 from Outer
Space". ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
Top