CPUs don't make sense !

[Zoron]

China, India, Brazil, Russia and the US all passed for some very sound reasons: the Protocol’s were vague, poorly worded, too ambiguous and provided a means for nations with little or no GDP and huge emissions to impose economic penalties on nations with huge GDP and lower emissions (per capita). They provided for no real incentive to reduce emissions for any nation, other than the threat of economic sanctions if certain levels weren’t met…and even the scientists that most agree with Kyoto stated reducing these emissions may not result in any marked decrease in GHG counts.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

-Lower emissions, no sulfur or heavy metal content.
-Today's deisel engines will already run on vegetable oil. But most cool-climate cars have required oil heaters, which is why I stated a pour-point modifier would be required (unless it can be modified by another process).
-There shouldn't be any significant cost difference in maintenance.
-Maintainers should be able to treat it as any other deisel fuel, with the exception that they don't need to discard dirty fuel as hazardous waste.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

I think we could produce enough for our vehicles, but probably not enough for all the other uses (home, industrial, locomotive, etc).

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Rugger]

- I remember reading about a VW Vanagon that had been modified to run on vegetable oil. From what I vaguely remember, it took more than an oil heater/pour-point modifier. Didn't they run into issues with gumming out fuel pumps? I thought they also had to bump up the compression to get it to burn efficiently.
- Although vegetable isn't as bad on the environment as diesel, I would imagine that the EPA would put restrictions on disposal if it was used in this capacity.
- Lower emissions et al, but capable of meeting the emissions standards of California? 2007 emission standards?

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>

 

[endyen]

provided a means for nations with little or no GDP and huge emissions to impose economic penalties on nations with huge GDP and lower emissions (per capita).
They provided for no real incentive to reduce emissions for any nation,

Come on Zoron, you cant have it bothe ways. There are no penalties for not being able to reach your goals. The US stood to loose only face. They chose to snub thier nose at it instead. I believe that Bush, and his oil baron buddies just wanted to tell the rest of the world to screw itself. (or let them do it for you.)

 

[Rugger]

So sign an accord that allows other nations to impose restrictions on US national sovereignty, while failing to impose the same restrictions on said countries or developing countries is a good idea/deal for the US?!

Why you would want to impose unenforceable restrictions makes no sense to me, but whether or not it is enforceable is a moot point. The US stands behinds its word and would have met the imposed restrictions if it had agreed to them. When a solution that is sensible, equitable and enforceable - across the board for all countries - is proposed, then I believe that the US will agree to it.

Since Theodore Roosevelt was President in the early 1900s, the US has done as much or more than any other country to preserve its land and work to clean the environment. Excuse me if i'm tired of hearing how much of a bully the US is...how we don't help others...how all we care about is a dollar. I'm done with being spun up over this one...

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>

 

[Xeon]

Come on Zoron, you cant have it bothe ways. There are no penalties for not being able to reach your goals. The US stood to loose only face. They chose to snub thier nose at it instead. I believe that Bush, and his oil baron buddies just wanted to tell the rest of the world to screw itself. (or let them do it for you.)

Ill be frank your conspiracy theories are retarded one man does not move the globe, I assume you are from the EU and we all know the EU is perfect.

Also let me say this; the Kyoto accord does not work for North America we are too large the scope of the oil industries here is obviously beyond your scope and understanding. Smaller EU nations can easily make progress since you have no oil left you import as well your populations are grossly disproportionate to that of ours. The EU burnt up all their resources and the Kyoto accord is just another stab in NA back. We got something you don’t but like I said before the EU is perfect in all ways just cant figure out why Germany is still open pit mining coal when coal is a no no.

-Jeremy Dach

 

[endyen]

Sorry mate. I live next door. B.C. boy, dont you know.
Under Kyoto, everyone set thier own limits, so no other country is telling us or the US what to do. It's just a group of gentlemen saying they are going to try.
My understanding is that you live in a province that hates liberals because Trudeau told you that you couldn't give your gas and oil to the states for free. All the farmers got pi$$ed off because of all the minimum wage jobs you would be loosing. Take a look at Alberta now. Think you would have gotten where you are without P.E.T.. If you think you would be as well off as a province, you are a bigger fool than I give you credit for.

 

[endyen]

You know nothing about Kyoto!
No-one could would or would dare to impose anything on the good ole USofA.
A bunch of World leaders got together, and said we have a problem. What can we do about it? Some said my country will try to do this. Others said my country will try to do that. Bush said "great, you guys clean up your part of the world, but dont ask me to do anything"
If the big industrials in the U.S. were to put colectors on there stacks, the US would never have to import sulphur again. It's a 5 year cost recovery, with everything after that being profit.
I'll shut up, and you guys keep buying the sulphur from our colectors.

 

[Crashman]

California's Zero Emissions program INCREASES overall polution compared to their Ultra Low Emissions standards. It does that by putting strain on the electrical production industry, where coal is the predominate fuel used. An Ultra Low Emissions gasoline engine produces far less polution than an equal amount of energy from coal. So their tightening standards have the effect of hurting the environment. Screw California, let's worry about the rest of the country now!

I think the increased viscosity of vegetable oil could require higher fuel pressure or larger nozzles, but there's been enough flexibility in the adjustments of many vehicles that I don't think a hardware change is always required.

Really I'm just looking for a interum solution while we get to cleaner, more reliable electric power. Significant measures there will take at least 20 years!

Now if California wants to push hydrogen power to technological highs while destroying the rest of the country with soot, so be it. It's not like we're changing their minds. And when it's all over and the oceans have overcome their coastline due to global warming, they'll get the return on their efforts, while the rest of us get mature hydrogen techology based on cleaner electric power.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Xeon]

Well before my time good sir.

-Jeremy Dach

 

[Zoron]

I would venture to guess you know nothing about Kyoto and prefer to believe what the media spoon-feeds you about it. I would suggest actually reading the accords so you can form an informed opinion on the matter.

Canada is going to waste <b>billions</b> of taxpayer dollars (like they don't already spend enough) to reduce emissions and it's not going to make even a small dent in the amount of GHG in the atmosphere. This one-ton challenge is nothing but a ton of bullshit.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[Xeon]

Wow finally someone sees it as it is.

-Jeremy Dach

 

[endyen]

Oh, sorry, have read it. Looks like Canada is looking for places to sell ghg reductions. Should be pretty profitable.

 

[Zoron]

*Snicker*

You have to be able to sell a product before it becomes profitable.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[Cybercraig]

Now if California wants to push hydrogen power to technological highs while destroying the rest of the country with soot, so be it. It's not like we're changing their minds. And when it's all over and the oceans have overcome their coastline due to global warming, they'll get the return on their efforts, while the rest of us get mature hydrogen techology based on cleaner electric power.

You make some good points but here are the facts:
1. It costs more to produce hydrogen fuel than natural gas. It takes more energy to make it than burning it produces. Not a real fun prospect.

2. Most of the pollution in California is autos. The air has gotten much better in L.A. in the last 20 years even with many more vehicles on the roads. There must be a reason.

3. With stop and go driving the Toyota Prius makes an immediate 20% reduction in fuel burned. Americans are starting to realize this. SUV sales are down and Hybrid sales are way back-logged. The Bush push for hydrogen is just lip-service. It will NEVER happen. Hybrid is the wave of the future.

4. Coal is currently about $2.75 per million btu's. Natural gas is still in the $7.00 range. No big secret why coal plants are being built.

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot

 

[Crashman]

1.) Fuel cells are a clean way to burn Hydrogen OR Hydrocarbons. That's right, there are some fuel cells that can make use of the carbon content as well. Of course that produces CO2, but other processes waste the carbon off as CO2 anyway, so you'd might as well use that carbon. But resistance to hydrocarbons has caused such things as direct methanol fuel cells to be ignored in place of hydrogen fuel cells that use methanol-to-hydrogen conversion, simply so the maker can claim "it burns pure hydrogen". But the same idea of course could make natural gas fuel cells. And natural gas internal combustion engines could suffice durring the maturing of fuel cell technology.

But that won't happen because California has taken the Hy off of Hydrogen!

2. Read the book "lying with statistics". Most of California's air polution is caused by the few power plants that haven't been closed, and crude oil processing (cracking plants). There are a couple ways to lie and say it's cars however:
a.) Cars produce the greatest amount of Oxides of Nitrogen, the key polutant in smog. So if you ignore other polutants, you can lie and say cars are the biggest problem.
b.) Since cracking plants produce gasonline and diesel fuel (as well as heating oil, asphalt, etc), you can lump the cracking plants with the automobiles and claim cars are the problem.

Either of these is simply a scam to pass the blame from industry to the consumer of course.

3. Hydrogen WILL happen because the push behind it in California is too strong to be countered. But hybrids are a GREAT idea. Of course a vegetable-oil powered hybrid might be a better idea than a gasoline engine based hybrid.

4. I still think that more efficient handling of spent fuel rods (to include recycling the useful metals out of them), and new plant designs, would make Nuclear a great idea. Except that the current president can't even pronounce nuclear, which means nothing good can happen until after his term ends!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[endyen]

We are always looking for the "big fix". We could be taking a little from geo-thermal, some from solar, some from boiler exhaust based generators, maybe even a little from tide powered turbines.
Putting in some small scale hydro generating plants (without the big dams) isn't that bad an idea.

 

[mrmonsoon]

From what I have been able to read and understand, the "REAL" reason they went to dual cores is heat-or the excess of it.

The faster a processor goes, the faster the transistors must go and the faster the transistors work-the more voltage leaks from them (heat)-notice the p4 prescot stopped at 3.8 G.

This all came to a head when Intel could not air cool (heatsink and fan) a 4 gig processor enough to run properly.
The only choices were water cooling or slower processors (dual cores and eventually quad cores and eventually hyper threading to the mix).

Since the "average" user is afraid/doesn't want to deal with water cooling, another choice had to be made.

If you say wait-dual core processors only help in multitasking and multithreading programs (very few out now) what is all the hype about-good question. As a matter of fact, a dual core 3.2 processer will be "less" powerful than a single core 3.8G processor in "non-multithreaded" programs-Surprise!

The real cure will be to create new materials that leak less voltage at higher speeds or different cores that are more efficent at lower speeds-think Pentium M processors. A 2.0G Pentium M processer is a match for a 3.2G P4 and desapates about 25 watts of heat as opposed to over 100 watts for the 3.2G processor.

This may be a longer post than u wanted, but the question was not as simple a one as u may have thought.

 

[fishmahn]

I dripped some milk on a CPU w/o HSF and boy did I get a scent... If I'd've dripped something different on it at the same time (beer maybe), I'm sure I would have gotten it to make scents... <groan>

Mike.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

4. I still think that more efficient handling of spent fuel rods (to include recycling the useful metals out of them), and new plant designs, would make Nuclear a great idea. Except that the current president can't even pronounce nuclear, which means nothing good can happen until after his term ends!

**ROFL** Ain't that the truth. Dubya scares me almost as much as the entire electoral process. :O

Seriously though, while the fuel rod recycling would be a big step forward, an even bigger one would be cookie-cutter nuclear power plant design. Just design one and design it well, and make everyone use that one design. If the US went forward with something like that, nuclear power could easily replace coal power.

Of course, I wonder what the US would do without any coal power plants to burn all of that nasty coal? (Besides breathe easier and have sufficient power for a change...)

-----
200,000 miles or bust!
<pre><font color=white>Antec Sonata, 2x120mm fans, P4C 2.6GHz, Asus P4P800Dlx,
2x512MB CorsairXMS3200C2 in DC, Leadtek A6600GT TDH, 2xHitachi 60GB in RAID1</font color=white></pre><p>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

And I'm still waiting for my four-wheel-drive (where the horse power loss from exhaust routing problem is fixed of course) five-speed automatic hybrid turbo-charged V6 Pontiac Vibe with paint-free scratch-and-dent-proof colored polymer panels and four wheel anti-lock disc brakes.

:\

Isn't anyone going to invent one of those for me? 2007 maybe? 2008?

I'd even take an equivalent Toyota Matrix so long as I can get the same options (like sun roof, stereo upgrade, wheel upgrade, cargo nets, etc.) for the same end price.

-----
200,000 miles or bust!
<pre><font color=white>Antec Sonata, 2x120mm fans, P4C 2.6GHz, Asus P4P800Dlx,
2x512MB CorsairXMS3200C2 in DC, Leadtek A6600GT TDH, 2xHitachi 60GB in RAID1</font color=white></pre><p>

 

[Crashman]

Yes, france's lack of imagination when it comes to things so technical paid off good when they made all their power plants identicle and so simple monkeys could run any of them.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[over_c]

an even bigger one would be cookie-cutter nuclear power plant design.

Such a design exists and was starting to be considered prior to September 11th, 2001. In the aftermath of that event these next generation plants were deemed to be too vulnerable to large scale terrorist attack and the plans for beginning construction were put on hold.

I believe the term for the new type of reactor is a "pebble-bed reactor."

 

[slvr_phoenix]

and so simple monkeys could run any of them.

Which is a necessity for any culture adamant about putting mayo on hamburgers! :O

Everyone knows it's ketchup on burgers, mustard and/or relish on dogs, mayo on chicken, and tartar on fish. (Granted, <i>personal</i> preferences can vary from this, but that's specified at the point of distribution. You don't mess with the <i>standard</i>.) If you can't even get something simple as condiments right, god help you when it comes to nuclear physics.

And considering how much the French have corrupted Canada with this, and how it's even now destroying the basic moral condiment fibre of America, I think we'll need cookie-cutter nuclear plants in North America ASAP before <i>Something Bad Happens</i>.

-----
200,000 miles or bust!
<pre><font color=white>Antec Sonata, 2x120mm fans, P4C 2.6GHz, Asus P4P800Dlx,
2x512MB CorsairXMS3200C2 in DC, Leadtek A6600GT TDH, 2xHitachi 60GB in RAID1</font color=white></pre><p>