Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

Immortalist wrote:
On Aug 15, 6:52 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs
Actually there was plenty of relevance to establishing the
plausibility of the theory.

Nope, not a shred.

I didn't see you offer anything to make the theory weaker.

The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the
mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

Interesting paper...However...I see no conflict with the two ideas
noted in it:

" The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the
mind are identical to states and processes of the brain."

and

"Some philosophers hold that though experiences are brain processes
they nevertheless have fundamentally non-physical, psychical,
properties, sometimes called 'qualia'. Here I shall take the identity
theory as denying the existence of such irreducible non-physical
properties."
I am in complete agreement, that the mind and brain are identical in
the objective sense, that is, all of consciousness is completely
determined, one-to one by physical brain processes (there is no
soul), but this does not imply that "qualia" do not exist, as a
property of such physical systems. It is simple irrefutable that a
good kick in the balls gives an internal experience not shared by
individule particles. However, this property is not described by the
existing axioms (ideas) of physics. "Qualia" are a simply a "new"
property of real, physical systems, not included in the traditional
properties of physical systems, e.g, conservation of energy, momentum
etc.e.g.
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html. We
simply have to add "experiance" as a new axiom of physics, and
explain things from that axiom, along with the others.
So, I would have to take "identity theory" as the mind=brain, but
that it does not have to deny the existence of properties, previously
not described by the laws of physics. i.e. qualia is != soul.

Going back to Mr. Speeds "prove that truly new ideas must be inherently random",

I never ever said anything even remotely resembling that.

this of course, can not be done,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

as this idea itself, is taken to be an axiom, which, by supposition, is taken to stand as a basis for further
explanations.

Meaningless gobbledegook.

All we can do is show that results derived from that axiom are consistent with observation.

And you cant do that with what is being discussed, whether
useful new ideas have anything to do with random processes.

We can argue that given a black box, that if it undergoes a standard Darwinian process, that is it has inputs, and
outputs, and processing that consists of selection, mixing and modifying both randomly and based on prior
(replication) information, it can output everything we define as due to having free will.

More meaningless gobbledegook.

That is, the ability to generate truly new ideas, not based on prior inputs.

You havent established that that has anything to do with random processes.

 

[Rod Speed]

Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

How can a water turbine generator pollute more than a coal fired turbine of the same output?

Trouble is that only a tiny percentage of electricity is generated that way.

World-wide, it's 16% hydro

Like hell it is.

and 15% nuclear.

That neither.

Together, they constitute almost a third of the world's electricity generation.

Nope.

Coal is 40%,
gas 20%,
oil 7%,
and "other" is 2%.

You've plucked those numbers out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

If I provide a better source for those numbers than someones arse,

You obviously cant, or you would have.

will you apologize for your rudeness and general stupidity?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[Rod Speed]

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote

John Larkin wrote
RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
John Larkin wrote

5PM, I'm in a hotel in Santa Barbara. We had a late breakfast in San Francisco.

It's a long trip for an electric car ...
I am thinking about commuting, about 50 km range.

A smallish plug-in hybrid is a sensible vehicle. One could use it as
an electric for short trips, and run a small, efficient, fixed-speed
gasoline engine when you do need to drive all day, or when the local electric grid is collapsing from a few million
of your neighbors trying to charge their cars overnight, too.

That may happen ... if too many misunderstand energy saving with electricity saving and stop building power plants.

Nope, if that does happen, it will be airconditioning that does it, not car charging.

I am convinced that energy saving starts from converting transportation from oil to electriticy

Wont happen much except for very short ranges if that.

and the result would be "less total energy consumption",

That wont happen either.

but "more electricity demand"

And if that does happen, we'll just build more nukes.

There are tons of Smart Cars here lately. They make a lot of sense as a city car, with range for occasional trips.
They don't suffer from the weight and size penalty of batteries and electric motors. A small car with a small gas
engine is fine.

A Smart car save fuel. Surely. But you can save more fuel with and electric car.

But dont get the range.

We stopped for gas once, for about 5 minutes, and ran 75-80 MPH most of the way. And we climbed some serious hills
towards the end.

NiMh or Li-ion batteries and new electronics for energy recovering,
will take all "serious" hills with a breeze.

But not for long. In addition to depleting the batteries, a lot of electric motors can sustain peak output for a very
short time before they overheat. That's great as an acceleration booster, not so good for cresting the Sierras.

Not "a lot of", but "any undersized" motor.

And only in applications that only need short power bursts.

And only if the power controller is bad designed.
If you want a 100hp motor in needs to be a 73kW at 100% duty cycle, not a 50kW at nominal power with 75kW burst power
(your acceleration booster ;-)

We have a friend who has a new Toyota hybrid. Her gas mileage is horrible in San Francisco, from hauling a thousand
pounds or so of batteries up and down hills.

An ICE engine, has no battery to pull up the hills, but down hills it losses all the potential energy accumulated. An
electric car, which has a bigger electric motor than the Prius and bigger batteries and power controlling capacity,
could recover easily three fourths of that energy, while cruising down hill. An hybrid car has the electric part
undersized to do a good job recovering energy.

But has to cart around a massive battery and move it up those hills.

The USA, especially the west, isn't like Europe or the east coast. It's big and full of mountains and stuff.

I would say that USA has longer commuting distances as Europe, but
don't talk about mountains and hills ... Austria, Switzerland, North Italy, South Germany. Imagine the Rocky Mountains
from Main to Virginia ...
;-)

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Sevenhundred Elves wrote

will you apologize for your rudeness and general stupidity?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

I LOVE that phrase.

Even those that hate me love my phrases and steal them too. Bit like a virus.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48A6FC82.E85758E6@hotmail.com...
.....

"""
...Although half the [USA] uses coal-fired plants, EVs recharging from
these facilities are predicted to produce less CO2 than ICE vehicles

Who said CO2's the problem or do you just believe everything the news
media
says ?

Graham

Come on Graham,
Daniel went to great length to shows you results of a list of studies on ALL
kind of pollutants. Not just CO2.
So why you pick out this one ?

Besides that, with different starting fuels (coal or nat gas->electric->EV
versus gasoline->ICE) it is hard to talk about efficiency differences, but
in absense of any other measure, CO2 emissions overall IS an indication of
efficiency.

Rob

 

[Rod Speed]

Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

How can a water turbine generator pollute more
than a coal fired turbine of the same output?

Trouble is that only a tiny percentage of electricity is generated that way.

World-wide, it's 16% hydro

Like hell it is.

and 15% nuclear.

That neither.

Together, they constitute almost a third of the world's electricity generation.

Nope.

Coal is 40%,
gas 20%,
oil 7%,
and "other" is 2%.

You've plucked those numbers out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

If I provide a better source for those numbers than someones arse,

You obviously cant, or you would have.

First, I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Graham.

Fuckwit still hasnt managed to work out what usenet is about.

Or that I didnt even say anything about your shit initially.

Second, I'm sure that Graham only needs to see the numbers I provided
in order to check his facts, and find out the numbers for himself.

Translation: I couldnt actually find a cite for those stupid numbers.

Unlike you, he is perfectly capable of finding facts on the Internet or in the library.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Third, I have already provided a link to the source in a recent post.

Lying, as always.

If you don't read my posts, it's not my fault.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

will you apologize for your rudeness and general stupidity?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

zinnic <zeenric2@gate.net> wrote:

On Aug 16, 9:40 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 16, 12:39 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On Aug 15, 7:16 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 15, 1:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 14, 4:43 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com
wrote:

A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain

Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled
exclusively by living brain tissue.

Stitched together from cultured rat neurons, Gordon's primitive
grey matter was designed at the University of Reading by
scientists who unveiled the neuron-powered machine on Wednesday.

Their groundbreaking experiments explore the vanishing boundary
between natural and artificial intelligence, and could shed
light on the fundamental building blocks of memory and
learning, one of the lead researchers told AFP.

"The purpose is to figure out how memories are actually stored
in a biological brain," said Kevin Warwick, a professor at the
University of Reading and one of the robot's principle
architects.

Observing how the nerve cells cohere into a network as they
fire off electrical impulses, he said, may also help scientists
combat neurodegenerative diseases that attack the brain such as
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

"If we can understand some of the basics of what is going on in
our little model brain, it could have enormous medical
spinoffs," he said.

Looking a bit like the garbage-compacting hero of the
blockbuster animation "Wall-E", Gordon has a brain composed of
50,000 to 100,000 active neurons.

Once removed from rat foetuses and disentangled from each other
with an enzyme bath, the specialised nerve cells are laid out
in a nutrient- rich medium across an eight-by-eight centimetre
(five-by-five inch) array of 60 electrodes.

This "multi-electrode array" (MEA) serves as the interface
between living tissue and machine, with the brain sending
electrical impulses to drive the wheels of the robots, and
receiving impulses delivered by sensors reacting to the
environment.

Because the brain is living tissue, it must be housed in a
special temperature-controlled unit -- it communicates with its
"body" via a Bluetooth radio link.

The robot has no additional control from a human or computer.

From the very start, the neurons get busy. "Within about 24
hours, they start sending out feelers to each other and making
connections," said Warwick.

"Within a week we get some spontaneous firings and brain-like
activity" similar to what happens in a normal rat -- or human --
brain, he added.

But without external stimulation, the brain will wither and die
within a couple of months.

"Now we are looking at how best to teach it to behave in certain
ways," explained Warwick.

To some extent, Gordon learns by itself. When it hits a wall,
for example, it gets an electrical stimulation from the robot's
sensors. As it confronts similar situations, it learns by habit.

To help this process along, the researchers also use different
chemicals to reinforce or inhibit the neural pathways that
light up during particular actions.

Gordon, in fact, has multiple personalities -- several MEA
"brains" that the scientists can dock into the robot.

"It's quite funny -- you get differences between the brains,"
said Warwick. "This one is a bit boisterous and active, while
we know another is not going to do what we want it to."

Mainly for ethical reasons, it is unlikely that researchers at
Reading or the handful of laboratories around the world
exploring the same terrain will be using human neurons any time
soon in the same kind of experiments.

But rats brain cells are not a bad stand-in: much of the
difference between rodent and human intelligence, speculates
Warwick, could be attributed to quantity not quality.

Rats brains are composed of about one million neurons, the
specialised cells that relay information across the brain via
chemicals called neurotransmitters.

Humans have 100 billion.

"This is a simplified version of what goes on in the human
brain where we can look -- and control -- the basic features in
the way that we want. In a human brain, you can't really do
that," he said.

For colleague Ben Whalley, one of the fundamental questions
facing scientists today is how to link the activity of
individual neurons with the overwhelmingly complex behaviour of
whole organisms.

"The project gives us a unique opportunity to look at something
which may exhibit complex behaviours, but still remain closely
tied to the activity of individual neurons," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar...

Interesting game. But, is it really anything more than that? I
often have the feeling, these days, that scientific experiments
aren't really intended to accomplish anything at all, other than
attract attention. What really are they trying to design with
this particular monstrosity, other than the outline for a
research grant?

- Hide quoted text -







- Show quoted text -
Should they throw it away then because it will be abused but
possibly developed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlTImvP8M-Q&feature=related-Hidequotedtext
-

- Show quoted text -

Somehow, I'm not too worried about that possibility. What worries
me isn't that this is going to lead to the "Terminator". What
worries me is that it is extremely unlikely to lead to anything,
and was only proposed because it sounds a bit like the
"Terminator".

Can explain why you believe it will ever, in the near or even far
future lead to anything? Using only nerve cells seems like a major
step, like inventing the transistor or something. This could be so
revolutionary that it changes everything in the information world.

Not really. We've hooked up electrodes to the human brain that
allowed people to crudely manipulate devices. But, we haven't
proceeded to be able to manipulate much of anything
psychokinetically, for practical purposes. Now we have a few neurons
that can be used to very crudely manipulate something. The problem
isn't the general concept. It's the crudeness of the technique. And
the total abscence of any general approach to structure the research
process so as to refine the technology. Scientists are good
speculators. But, frequently, they are very bad at moving from
theory to practice. Perhaps because the system doesn't really reward
results. Neurons produce electrochemical discharges, obviously these
discharges can be used to crudely influence an electronic system.
But, to produce something of real practical value, that may be a
qualitatively different step. Which the scientists have no way of
knowing how to proceed to. And may not which to proceed to, if they
have no incentive to do so.

Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove them wrong!

We'll see...

Example- DNA research will have no utility,

Bet you cant cite anyone that said that.

Crude flying machines will never be useful for transport.

That wasnt scientists.

The list goes on and on.

And sometimes it was the scientists themselves too.

Rutherford claimed that nothing useful would ever come out of nuclear physics.

 

[Spaceman]

Strange Creature wrote:

Spaceman wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain

Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
by living brain tissue.


Oh crap,
The creation of the Dalak race has begun.


Yup. Although bigger versions of these little
guys could probably eventually drive an auto or
a semi more safely than a human, they still
have the same defects of biological neural
networks, basically, configurability and
reproducibility of the pattern of neural
connections after one has been trained,
along with long training times to get it
to work properly.

It's also interesting to ask how long the
little soup cans will last considering that
the the original rats might have lasted
only a few years, that is if they will be
preserved for that long. Nerve cells
don't reproduce that much so it might
be an interesting question on several
levels.

So one day we will all be riding our "automated"
travel systems and we will all hear those dreaded words..
EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!

I hope the guy that invented these things real name is not Davros.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
just the pathetic excuse for a troll thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Doug Houseman]

Liquids Coal Natural Gas Renewables Nuclear Total
2005 956 7,152 3,422 3,160 2,630 17,320
2010 858 8,999 4,691 3,703 2,747 20,998
2015 831 10,742 5,925 3,918 2,996 24,412
2020 804 12,134 7,013 4,239 3,283 27,473
2025 791 13,671 7,705 4,640 3,591 30,398
2030 764 15,361 8,389 4,996 3,754 33,264

From the energy information agency eia.doe.gov

In trillions of kilowatt hours...2005 is actuals - the rest
projections...

This is global electricity production....

NOTE:

Liquids are oil and other liquid fuels
Renewables include all sizes of hydro-electric production


For the US if anyone cares the numbers are:
Source 2005
Coal 305.1
Oil and Natural Gas Steam 4/ 120.8
Combined Cycle 137.4
Combustion Turbine/Diesel 127.4
Nuclear Power 5/ 100.2
Pumped Storage 21.5
Fuel Cells 0.0
Renewable Sources 6/ 92.8
Distributed Generation (Natural Gas) 7/ 0.0
Total 905.2
Combined Heat and Power 8/
Coal 4.6
Oil and Natural Gas Steam 4/ 0.4
Combined Cycle 31.9
Combustion Turbine/Diesel 2.9
Renewable Sources 6/ 0.7
Total 40.4

From the energy information agency

In gigawatts of capacity

1/ Net summer capacity is the steady hourly output that generating
equipment is expected to supply to system load (exclusive of auxiliary
power), as demonstrated
by tests during summer peak demand.
2/ Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose
primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat, to the
public.
3/ Includes plants that only produce electricity. Includes capacity
increases (uprates) at existing units.
4/ Includes oil-, gas-, and dual-fired capacity.
5/ Nuclear capacity includes 2.7 gigawatts of uprates through 2030.
6/ Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood waste,
all municipal solid waste, landfill gas, other biomass, solar, and wind
power. Facilities co-firing
biomass and coal are classified as coal.
7/ Primarily peak-load capacity fueled by natural gas.
8/ Includes combined heat and power plants whose primary business is
to sell electricity and heat to the public (i.e., those that report
North American Industry Classification
System code 22).
9/ Cumulative additions after December 31, 2006.
10/ Cumulative retirements after December 31, 2006.
11/ Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only
plants in the commercial and industrial sectors; and small on-site
generating systems in the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use
generation, but which may also sell some power to the grid.
- - = Not applicable.
Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent
rounding. Data for 2005 and 2006 are model results and may differ
slightly from official EIA data reports.
Sources: 2005 and 2006 capacity and projected planned additions:
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric
Generator Report" (preliminary).
Projections: EIA, AEO2008 National Energy Modeling System run
aeo2008.d030208f.


From EIA...

Actual Production in 2005 by fuel source in billions of KWH

Source 2005
Coal 1956
Petroleum 111
Natural Gas 3/ 554
Nuclear Power 782
Pumped Storage/Other 4/ 1
Renewable Sources 5/ 319
Distributed Generation (Natural Gas) 0
Total 3722
Combined Heat and Power 6/
Coal 37
Petroleum 6
Natural Gas 130
Renewable Sources 4
Total 180
Total Net Generation 3902
Less Direct Use 33

Net Available to the Grid 3869

1/ Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose
primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat, to the
public.
2/ Includes plants that only produce electricity.
3/ Includes electricity generation from fuel cells.
4/ Includes non-biogenic municipal waste. The Energy Information
Administration estimates approximately 7 billion kilowatthours of
electricity were generated from a
municipal waste stream containing petroleum-derived plastics and other
non-renewable sources. See Energy Information Administration,
Methodology for Allocating
Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Nono-Biogenic Energy, (Washington,
DC, May 2007).
5/ Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood waste,
biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, other biomass, solar, and
wind power.
6/ Includes combined heat and power plants whose primary business is
to sell electricity and heat to the public (i.e., those that report
North American Industry Classification
System code 22).
7/ Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only
plants in the commercial and industrial sectors; and small on-site
generating systems in the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use
generation, but which may also sell some power to the grid.
8/ Includes refinery gas and still gas.
9/ Includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam,
sulfur, and miscellaneous technologies.
- - = Not applicable.
Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent
rounding. Data for 2005 and 2006 are model results and may differ
slightly from official EIA data reports.
Sources: 2005 and 2006 electric power sector generation; sales to
utilities; net imports; electricity sales; and emissions: Energy
Information Administration (EIA), Annual
Energy Review 2006, DOE/EIA-0384(2006) (Washington, DC, June 2007) and
supporting databases. 2005 and 2006 prices: EIA, AEO2008 National
Energy Modeling
System run aeo2008.d030208f. Projections: EIA, AEO2008 National Energy
Modeling System run aeo2008.d030208f.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
just the pathetic excuse for a troll thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Rod Speed]

Doug Houseman <doug@msen.com> wrote:

Liquids Coal Natural Gas Renewables Nuclear Total
2005 956 7,152 3,422 3,160 2,630 17,320
2010 858 8,999 4,691 3,703 2,747 20,998
2015 831 10,742 5,925 3,918 2,996 24,412
2020 804 12,134 7,013 4,239 3,283 27,473
2025 791 13,671 7,705 4,640 3,591 30,398
2030 764 15,361 8,389 4,996 3,754 33,264

From the energy information agency eia.doe.gov

In trillions of kilowatt hours...2005 is actuals - the rest projections...

This is global electricity production....

NOTE:

Liquids are oil and other liquid fuels
Renewables include all sizes of hydro-electric production

And solar and wind and tidal etc etc etc.

For the US if anyone cares the numbers are:
Source 2005
Coal 305.1
Oil and Natural Gas Steam 4/ 120.8
Combined Cycle 137.4
Combustion Turbine/Diesel 127.4
Nuclear Power 5/ 100.2
Pumped Storage 21.5
Fuel Cells 0.0
Renewable Sources 6/ 92.8
Distributed Generation (Natural Gas) 7/ 0.0
Total 905.2
Combined Heat and Power 8/
Coal 4.6
Oil and Natural Gas Steam 4/ 0.4
Combined Cycle 31.9
Combustion Turbine/Diesel 2.9
Renewable Sources 6/ 0.7
Total 40.4

From the energy information agency

In gigawatts of capacity

1/ Net summer capacity is the steady hourly output that generating
equipment is expected to supply to system load (exclusive of auxiliary
power), as demonstrated
by tests during summer peak demand.
2/ Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants
whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and
heat, to the public.
3/ Includes plants that only produce electricity. Includes capacity
increases (uprates) at existing units.
4/ Includes oil-, gas-, and dual-fired capacity.
5/ Nuclear capacity includes 2.7 gigawatts of uprates through 2030.
6/ Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood
waste, all municipal solid waste, landfill gas, other biomass, solar,
and wind power. Facilities co-firing
biomass and coal are classified as coal.
7/ Primarily peak-load capacity fueled by natural gas.
8/ Includes combined heat and power plants whose primary business is
to sell electricity and heat to the public (i.e., those that report
North American Industry Classification
System code 22).
9/ Cumulative additions after December 31, 2006.
10/ Cumulative retirements after December 31, 2006.
11/ Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only
plants in the commercial and industrial sectors; and small on-site
generating systems in the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use
generation, but which may also sell some power to the grid.
- - = Not applicable.
Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent
rounding. Data for 2005 and 2006 are model results and may differ
slightly from official EIA data reports.
Sources: 2005 and 2006 capacity and projected planned additions:
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-860, "Annual
Electric Generator Report" (preliminary).
Projections: EIA, AEO2008 National Energy Modeling System run
aeo2008.d030208f.


From EIA...

Actual Production in 2005 by fuel source in billions of KWH

Source 2005
Coal 1956
Petroleum 111
Natural Gas 3/ 554
Nuclear Power 782
Pumped Storage/Other 4/ 1
Renewable Sources 5/ 319
Distributed Generation (Natural Gas) 0
Total 3722
Combined Heat and Power 6/
Coal 37
Petroleum 6
Natural Gas 130
Renewable Sources 4
Total 180
Total Net Generation 3902
Less Direct Use 33

Net Available to the Grid 3869

1/ Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants
whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and
heat, to the public.
2/ Includes plants that only produce electricity.
3/ Includes electricity generation from fuel cells.
4/ Includes non-biogenic municipal waste. The Energy Information
Administration estimates approximately 7 billion kilowatthours of
electricity were generated from a
municipal waste stream containing petroleum-derived plastics and other
non-renewable sources. See Energy Information Administration,
Methodology for Allocating
Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Nono-Biogenic Energy,
(Washington, DC, May 2007).
5/ Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood
waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, other biomass,
solar, and wind power.
6/ Includes combined heat and power plants whose primary business is
to sell electricity and heat to the public (i.e., those that report
North American Industry Classification
System code 22).
7/ Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only
plants in the commercial and industrial sectors; and small on-site
generating systems in the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use
generation, but which may also sell some power to the grid.
8/ Includes refinery gas and still gas.
9/ Includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam,
sulfur, and miscellaneous technologies.
- - = Not applicable.
Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent
rounding. Data for 2005 and 2006 are model results and may differ
slightly from official EIA data reports.
Sources: 2005 and 2006 electric power sector generation; sales to
utilities; net imports; electricity sales; and emissions: Energy
Information Administration (EIA), Annual
Energy Review 2006, DOE/EIA-0384(2006) (Washington, DC, June 2007) and
supporting databases. 2005 and 2006 prices: EIA, AEO2008 National
Energy Modeling
System run aeo2008.d030208f. Projections: EIA, AEO2008 National
Energy Modeling System run aeo2008.d030208f.

 

[Rod Speed]

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
John Larkin wrote
RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
John Larkin wrote

5PM, I'm in a hotel in Santa Barbara. We had a late breakfast in San Francisco.

It's a long trip for an electric car ...
I am thinking about commuting, about 50 km range.

A smallish plug-in hybrid is a sensible vehicle. One could use it as an electric for short trips, and run a small,
efficient, fixed-speed gasoline engine when you do need to drive all day, or when the
local electric grid is collapsing from a few million of your
neighbors trying to charge their cars overnight, too.

That may happen ... if too many misunderstand energy saving with electricity saving and stop building power plants.

Nope, if that does happen, it will be airconditioning that does it, not car charging.

Airconditioning ... overnight ?

Doesnt matter when it peaks when its the peak that determines the power station capacity you need.

I would guess they will be full power at noon, not midnight

Guess again. The max temp is well into the later afternoon, around 4pm with daylight saving.

I am convinced that energy saving starts from converting transportation from oil to electriticy

Wont happen much except for very short ranges if that.

We have:
- cars ... may we say about half of the demand is short range ?

Nope, nothing like it.

- trucks ... long range could change to railway (ok ... that could be diesel, long lines electrification is costly,
but near the cities ?)

Still much too much distance travelled in a day for electric to be viable.

and the result would be "less total energy consumption",

That wont happen either.

Take a MAN 5S50ME-C7 low speed engine.
95 RPM, 3'800 kW power, 159 gr/kWh specific fuel oil consumption

http://www.manbw.com/engines/TwoStrokeLowSpeedPropMEEngines.asp?model=S50ME-C7

In the MW range, the efficiency of a conventional 1 MW synchronous
machine is 95%. So 3800 kW in 1 hour would deliver:

3800 * 0,95 = 3610 kWhe

In a hour, fuel oil consumption is 3800 * 0,159 kg = 604.2 kg
Fuel oil lower calorific value is 42,700 kJ/kg
Primary energy is 604.2 * 42,700 = 25'799'340 kJ = 7'166,48 kWht

Fuel oil to electricity efficiency is 3610/7167 = 50,37%

Pity about the power station efficiency.

In one day, consumption is 14'501 kg fuel oil and electricity production is 86'640 kWh.

Let us forget that fuel oil is neither gasoline nor diesel fuel.
Let us say that with 1 kg of fuel we make 10 miles.
So with 14'501 kg fuel, we do 145'010 miles

Le us say that we power 1'000 homes, each one with one car.
If every home gets 14,5 kg fuel, an ICE engine car could make 145 miles a day.

Instead, say that every home get's 87 kWh of electricity.
Tesla Roadster charging efficiency is 86%.
That's 87 * 0,86 = 75 kWh, enough to fully charge 1,4 times.
Tesla Roadster range is 221 miles on the EPA combined cycle.
That's 1,4 * 221 = 309 miles ... double the milage of an ICE engine car.

Or we can power 1'000 cars 221 miles each and 22 kWh free electricity
(forgetting the power plant price ;-) for each home.
In winter the power plant could additionally give some 40 kWht of
waste heat for heating (say about 30 kWht losses) and warm water.
In summer, the waste heat could be used for a 300 kW ORC plant, and
luke warm water for the homes. That is cogeneration + combined cycle.

May I say: 75% efficiency ?

No you cant, thats a complete wank.

but "more electricity demand"

And if that does happen, we'll just build more nukes.

Replacing oil with nuclear power is not so bad ...

Corse it isnt.

But has to cart around a massive battery and move it up those hills.

But downhill that massive weight gives back the accumulated potential energy ...

With the ineffeciency losses.

And, anyway, how much "massive" are you thinking ? 100 kg ? 200 kg ?

Depends on the battery technology used.

How heavy is a ICE engine, complete with automatic drive ?

Not much with a SMART car.

 

[Rod Speed]

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I am convinced that energy saving starts from converting transportation from oil to electriticy

Wont happen much except for very short ranges if that.

We have:
- cars ... may we say about half of the demand is short range ?

Nope, nothing like it.

- trucks ... long range could change to railway (ok ... that could be diesel, long lines electrification is
costly, but near the cities ?)

Still much too much distance travelled in a day for electric to be viable.

and the result would be "less total energy consumption",

That wont happen either.

Take a MAN 5S50ME-C7 low speed engine.
95 RPM, 3'800 kW power, 159 gr/kWh specific fuel oil consumption

http://www.manbw.com/engines/TwoStrokeLowSpeedPropMEEngines.asp?model=S50ME-C7

In the MW range, the efficiency of a conventional 1 MW synchronous
machine is 95%. So 3800 kW in 1 hour would deliver:

3800 * 0,95 = 3610 kWhe

In a hour, fuel oil consumption is 3800 * 0,159 kg = 604.2 kg
Fuel oil lower calorific value is 42,700 kJ/kg
Primary energy is 604.2 * 42,700 = 25'799'340 kJ = 7'166,48 kWht

Fuel oil to electricity efficiency is 3610/7167 = 50,37%

Pity about the power station efficiency.

It raises interesting questions ...

And that cant be ignored when you are claiming a drop in energy total consumption.

Corse its hard to quantify if we do what makes sense
and generate 80% or more of the electricity using nukes.

In one day, consumption is 14'501 kg fuel oil and electricity
production is 86'640 kWh.

Let us forget that fuel oil is neither gasoline nor diesel fuel.
Let us say that with 1 kg of fuel we make 10 miles.
So with 14'501 kg fuel, we do 145'010 miles

Le us say that we power 1'000 homes, each one with one car.
If every home gets 14,5 kg fuel, an ICE engine car could make 145 miles a day.

Instead, say that every home get's 87 kWh of electricity.
Tesla Roadster charging efficiency is 86%.
That's 87 * 0,86 = 75 kWh, enough to fully charge 1,4 times.
Tesla Roadster range is 221 miles on the EPA combined cycle.
That's 1,4 * 221 = 309 miles ... double the milage of an ICE engine car.

Or we can power 1'000 cars 221 miles each and 22 kWh free
electricity (forgetting the power plant price ;-) for each home.
In winter the power plant could additionally give some 40 kWht of
waste heat for heating (say about 30 kWht losses) and warm water.
In summer, the waste heat could be used for a 300 kW ORC plant, and
luke warm water for the homes. That is cogeneration + combined cycle.

May I say: 75% efficiency ?

No you cant, thats a complete wank.

Electricity (50%) +

Combined Cycle (+5%) +

like the BMW concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosteamer

With a stationary plant we don't have weight and size problems.

Home Heating (+20%)

recovered waste heat.

You're ignoring the power station inefficiency with electricity.

You cant do that.

We have a friend who has a new Toyota hybrid. Her gas mileage is horrible in San Francisco, from hauling a
thousand pounds or so of batteries up and down hills.

An ICE engine, has no battery to pull up the hills, but down hills it losses all the potential energy accumulated.
An electric car, which has a bigger electric motor than the Prius and bigger batteries and power controlling
capacity, could recover easily three fourths of that energy, while cruising down hill. An hybrid car has the
electric part undersized to do a good job recovering energy.

But has to cart around a massive battery and move it up those hills.

But downhill that massive weight gives back the accumulated potential energy ...

With the ineffeciency losses.

Yes, but "less" losses than a ICE engine (without any energy recovering)

And doesnt have to cart that massive battery up those hills.

And, anyway, how much "massive" are you thinking ? 100 kg ? 200 kg ?

Depends on the battery technology used.

I see that the Tesla Roadster (a "true" car) ha 450 kg :-(

Pity about the price.

How heavy is a ICE engine, complete with automatic drive ?

Not much with a SMART car.

100 kg ?
If the SMART car is the reference ... 100 kg of batteries would do the job

Nope, not with an adequate range it wouldnt.

An electric car with the SMART specifications could weight, with batteries, about 500-600 kg.

And would have a lousy range.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:02:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:



Rod Speed wrote:

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote just the pathetic
excuse for a troll thats all it can ever manage.

Ah, showing your true colours again I see.

Recommendation to serious posters ..... Ignore ALL posts from 'Rod
Speed'.. They are purely trolls.

It may be someone trying to pass the Turing test with a sheet of rat neurons.

Whereas yours is using a dog turd.

 

[Phil Allison]

"lerameur"

** = primate relative of the lemur

But the UJT is taking...

** Huh ?????????

UJT = what ?

Uni - junction transistor ???

The term you want is " BJT " - fuckwit.





...... Phil

 

[Daniel T.]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Recommendation to serious posters ..... Ignore ALL posts from 'Rod
Speed'.. They are purely trolls.

Pot calling the kettle black... Granted, your trolls are much less
juvenile.

 

[Bob Masta]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT), oeguet@gmx.de wrote:

Hi Bob,

indeed, this is really an interesting and fascinating project. The
digital lock-in amplifier is a pure software implementation which is
applied on the input signal (A/D converted receive signal). The lock-
in amplifier is a very sensitive phase detector even the signal is
buried in high noise. Any small changes can be detected with it (=B5V
measuring). Using a 24 bit sound-card at 96 kHz sample rate increases
the signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range. It will also work on 16
bit and 44.1/48 kHz with reduced SNR and dynamic range.

It is quite time-critical application. You must not loose the
synchronisation of the transmitted to received signal. The continious
wave form is buffered to the sound-card to avoid signal gaps due to
operating system task switches. But this is easy to handle and only
the DMA is busy and relieves the CPU. Laptop has enough CPU power for
doing this and much more in real-time (FFT, digital filter, lock-in
amp, detection, signal generation, synch generation, graphical
output ..).

The operating frequency for the sensor is between 5 to 24 kHz (VLF
range). It depends only on the resonant frequency of the search head
(L,C resonant defining elements) and sampling rate (fmax=3DSR/4). The
higher the operating frequency, the better the sensitivity of the
sensor (Faraday's law). So it is mostly defined by the sensor
specification.

The sensors are typically D shaped coils with same inductivity L for
transmit and receive coil. This will allow a simple matching of the
capacitors (same for transmitter and receiver). The coils are in
overlapped co-planar position and forming a circle (two D's). The
receive coil should have a minimum of signal level (10-50 mV rms).
This position must be found by moving one of the coils.


What about digital lock-in amplifier for your application? This would
be a quite useful feature.

Regards,
Aziz

Aziz:

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I am quite familiar with real-time
issues. Daqarta needs perfect sync to do synchronous waveform
averaging for noise reduction, so I've been there and done that!

A digital lock-in would be a definite possibility for Daqarta. I'll
put that on my "Wish List" for future enhancements. I probably won't
offer the "lock-in" (PLL) part that hardware lock-ins have, since I've
always thought that was pretty silly unless you really do need to sync
to an external signal.

For those who are following this thread and aren't familiar with
lock-in amplifiers, they are essentially a single-frequency Fourier
Transform. You separately multiply the incoming signal by the sine
and cosine of the reference signal, and low-pass filter the results.
From the old high-school formula for the product of sinusoids, you get
only terms at sum and difference frequencies. It's the difference
term we want here. The low-pass removes the sum and produces an
output only if the input is exactly the same frequency as the
reference (difference = 0), or very near.

(See <www.daqarta.com/eex01.htm> for an FFT explanation that
goes into more detail about this.)

The only real difference between a lock-in and the output of an FFT
is that the FFT has a very crude low-pass filter (one for each
spectral line) and the lock-in usually has a better filter (longer
time constant in lock-in terms). That statement assumes that the
FFT has a spectral line just where you wanted the lock-in reference
frequency. This is no big deal if you are generating the output
frequency yourself... just make sure it lands squarely on a spectral
line.

Daqarta can already do this. And it can get the noise reduction by
synchronous waveform averaging before the FFT. The only thing
is that it doesn't display the data in lock-in format, with separate
sine and cosine or magnitude and phase readouts. That would be a good
addition!

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v4.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Daniel T.]

Doug Houseman <doug@msen.com> wrote:

facts snipped...

Here's another one:

<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf>
"20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S.
Electricity Supply"

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rod Speed wrote:

That is, the ability to generate truly new ideas, not based on prior
inputs.

You havent established that that has anything to do with random
processes.

Oh dear....here we go again...
There are two options:

1 A new idea is derivable from existing ideas - i.e. not intrinsically new

2 A new idea is not derivable from existing ideas - i.e. intrinsically new

If "1" is correct for an idea, then by construction it is not a new idea, it
is simply a logical consequence of existing traits.

If "2", the idea is new, that is not derivable from existing traits, then
that idea must therefore be non predictable. However, a non predictable
trait is, essentially, a random trait, by definition.

************************


It is trivially obvious that *if* an "idea" was, in actual fact, generated
from a random process, and if such a generated idea, does not, by chance
duplicate an already existing idea, then it is logically a necessity that
such an idea must be classed as truly new. i.e one that is not derivable, as
this is part of the very definition of a random process. That is, a new idea
is logically *sufficient*, and explainable from a proposal that the new idea
is a result of a random process. Although, in practice, it is usually a
random variation, of a highly selected, (non random) process, e.g, highly
filtered white noise, but this does not negate the required random
component.

Thus, I have established the sufficiency that a randomly generated idea can
generate truly new information.

Now, is it a *necessary* condition that a truly new idea *must* have a
randomly generated component. According to Classical Mechanics, from an
initial system state, the next state is uniquely determined. Hence, the next
"new" state, can not be intrinsically truly "new", in the sense of the
proposed claim. The only known condition under the laws of physics, that
allow for an undetermined next state, is under the laws of Quantum
Mechanics. Under QM, the next state is not uniquely determined, but has a
component that is said to be intrinsically random. That is, only the
probability of a next state can be determined.

Now..unless there is an alternative view to physics other than Classical
Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, I have established with the above argument,
that no other method exists to produce a truly new idea other than random,
therefore all truly new ideas generated by the brain, must be the result of
a random process.


Kevin Aylward
kevin@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice