text:
Mission Type: Flyby, Sample Return
Launch Vehicle: Delta 7426-9.5 (no. D266)
Launch Site: Cape Canaveral, Fla., USA
NASA Center: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Spacecraft Mass: 385 kg (848 lbs) total, consisting of 254-kg (560-lb) spacecraft and 46-kg (101-lb) return capsule, plus 85 kg (187 lbs) fuel.
Spacecraft Instruments: 1) Aerogel Collector ?Grid
2) Cometary and Interstellar Dust Analyzer (CIDA)
?3) Navigation Camera (NavCam)
?4) Dust Flux Monitor (DFMI)
Spacecraft Dimensions: Main bus 1.7 m (5.6 feet) high, 0.66 m (2.16 feet) wide, 0.66 m (2.16 feet) deep; length of solar arrays 4.8 m (15.9 feet) tip to tip; sample return capsule 0.8 m (32 inches) diameter and 0.5 m (21 inches) high.
Spacecraft Power: Solar panels
Maximum Power: 170 to 800 watts, depending on distance from sun.
Maximum Data Rate: 4,000 bits per second
Principal Scientists: Dr. Donald Brownlee, Univ. of Washington (Stardust) and Dr. Joseph Veverka, Cornell University (Stardust-NExT)?
Total Cost: Primary mission: $128.4 million, spacecraft development; $37.2 million, mission operations; total $165.6 million (not including launch vehicle). Mission of Opportunity: $29 million
Deep Space Chronicle: A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes 1958-2000, by Asif A. Siddiqi
Startdust Launch Press Kit (1996)
Stardust Encounter Press Kit (2004)
Stardust Sample Return Press Kit (2006)
Stardust-NExT Encounter Press Kit (2010)
Stardust was the fourth of NASA's Discovery Program of low cost exploration missions (after NEAR, Mars Pathfinder and Lunar Prospector). The primary goal of the Stardust mission was to collect interstellar dust and carbon-based samples of 10 microns or less from the nucleus of comet Wild-2 (pronounced Vilt-2) during its closest encounter and return them back to Earth for analysis.
While in flight, Stardust also collected samples of interstellar dust grains. Stardust collected the samples using a low-density microporous silica-based substance known as Aerogel.
The spacecraft was launched into heliocentric orbit and performed midcourse corrections on 28 December 1999 and 18 January, 20 January and 22 January 2000. Its first interstellar dust collection operation was carried out between 22 February and 1 May 2000. After approximately a year in heliocentric orbit, Stardust flew by Earth for a gravity-assist (closest approach to Earth was at 11:13 UT on 15 January 2001 at a range of 6,012 km) to send it on a second sample-collection exercise between July and December 2002.
Stardust encountered comet Wild-2 on 2 January 2004, when the spacecraft flew 236 km (about 147 miles) from Wild-2. The flyby yielded the most detailed, high-resolution comet images taken to date.
The spacecraft approached Earth on 15 January 2006 and jettisoned the capsule containing particles from the comet and interstellar dust. The capsule landed safely and on-target, 73-miles southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah, within the Utah Test and Training Range on the US Army Dugway Proving Grounds, completing the world's first sample return from a comet. The spacecraft, responding to commands from the mission's navigators, flew past Earth and began an orbit around the sun that would bring it near the planet every 3 years.
In May 2009, NASA repurposed the spacecraft to to fly past comet Tempel 1 to collect images and other scientific data improving upon the data set previously collected by Deep Impact. The Stardust spacecraft traveled about 21 million km (13 million miles) in its journey about the sun in the weeks following the 14 February 2011 comet Tempel 1 flyby, making the grand total from launch to its final rocket burn about 5.69 billion km (3.54 billion miles).
Mission Websites


text:
Jado Factory Blowout Sale - Lowest Prices Available on Industry Leading Products
Product Features:
- Body spray is fully covered under Jado's limited lifetime warranty
- Superior finishing process - finish is covered under lifetime warranty
- Housing and core are constructed of solid brass
- Body sprays are intended to be used as part of a multi-application shower system
- Featuring a single function full spray pattern
- Swivel ball assembly allows spray face rotation - giving user direction control
- Spray Head Width: 1-3/4"
- Body Spray Depth (From Wall): 3-1/2"
- Escutcheon (Cover Plate) Diameter: 2-3/8"
- Flow Rate: 2.5 gallons-per-minute
- Standard US 1/2" female supply connection
- Ultra-secure mounting assembly
- All hardware required for installation is included
Product Technologies and Benefits:
- Industry Leading Warranty: As part of the American Standard family, Jado has made a point of being an industry leader when it comes to product quality and design. Using only the highest quality materials and engineering products with longevity in mind, Jado has stayed at the top of the plumbing industry for over 15 years. It is with this confidence that Jado offers a lifetime warranty along with all of their faucets, thusly passing that assurance and peace of mind on to you, the customer.
About Jado:As part of the American Standard family Jado follows the same vision of premium quality products with leading innovations. Their European engineers take painstaking care to ensure every faucet they produce is perfectly engineered and exquisitely formed. Their passion for performance is exemplified with the state-of-the-art features present in every kitchen and bathroom faucet. For reliable performance and exquisite design, look no further than Jado's wide selection of faucets and accessories.
Additional Jado Links
This Jado item can also be referenced by the following color/finish specific model #:
- Jado 842007.444*
Antique Nickel
- Jado 842007.144*
Brushed Nickel
- Jado 842007.110*
Carbon Bronze
- Jado 842007.105*
Old Bronze
- Jado 842007.150*
Platinum Nickel
- Jado 842007.100*
Polished Chrome
*Discontinued model or finish
More Than Just a Store - Your Reasons to Shop
Discover the best online deals for the 842/007 and everything else for your home from the leading online home improvement store.
We're committed to providing you with the best assortment of Jado products with over 400 warehouses across the country.
Our knowledgeable product specialists work to bring you the best prices on every product and provide unmatched customer service. Your satisfaction is our highest priority!
Manufacturer Resources
Installation Resource Center
Whether you are installing the product yourself or hiring a professional, our installation Resource Center has everything you need to get your project done. Visit the Installation Resource Center to get started.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Description:IBM Intel Xeon E5603(1.60GHz/4-core/4MB/80W)Full Processor Option Kit w/VRM and heatsinkPart Number(s)IBM Part# 81Y6548
HP Processor Kits:
Manufacturer Part# 81Y6548
This is the full processor option kit. It includes the
Processor(s), Heat-Sink(s), Fan(s), Thermal paste
and VRM (Voltage Regulator Module) where required.
Overview:Intel Xeon processor 5600 series automatically regulates power consumption and intelligently adjusts server performance according to application demand, maximizing both energy cost savings and performance.
CategoryIBM Processor
Part Number81Y6548
Products ID459398
Product TypeProcessor Upgrade
Processor TypeIntel Xeon
Processor CoreQuad-Core
Processor Qty1
Clock Speed1.60GHz
QuickPath Interconnect4.80GT/s
L1 Cache256KB
L2 Cache1MB
L3 Cache12MB
64-bit ProcessingYes
Process Technology32nm
Processor SocketSocket B LGA-1366
Thermal Design Power80W


text:
This feature is documented in standard format here: http://wiki.nginx.org/X-accel
The delivery of a static file which depends on an application header is known as the X-Sendfile feature.
Lighttpd has this feature and there is a mod_xsendfile for Apache2 .
Nginx also has this feature, but implemented a little bit differently. In Nginx this feature is called X-Accel-Redirect.
There are two main differences:
- The header must contain a URI.
- The location should be defined as internal; to prevent the client from going directly to the URI.
Example nginx configuration:
If the application adds an header X-Accel-Redirect for the location
X-Accel-Redirect: /protected/iso.img;
then nginx will serve the file /some/path/protected/iso.img — note that the root and internal redirect paths are concatenated.
If you want to deliver /some/path/iso.img then configure nginx like this:
Note that the following HTTP headers aren't modified by nginx:
Content-Type Content-Disposition Accept-Ranges Set-Cookie Cache-Control Expires
If some of these header lines are not set, then they will be set by the redirected response.
The application can also have some control over the process, sending the following headers prior to X-Accel-Redirect.
X-Accel-Limit-Rate: 1024 X-Accel-Buffering: yes|no X-Accel-Charset: utf-8
Links to this issue
Using X-Accel-Redirect Header With Nginx to Implement Controlled Downloads (with rails and php examples) from Alexey Kovyrin
Nginx-Fu: X-Accel-Redirect From Remote Servers from Alexey Kovyrin
Rails 3.x assets pipeline support for X-Accel-Redirect
proxy_ignore_headers Ignoring Content Type headers when using X-Accel-Redirect
proxy_hide_header Hide headers from upstream servers when using X-Accel-Redirect


text:
Strawbs (or The Strawbs) are an English rock band founded in 1964. Although the band started out as a bluegrass group they eventually moved on to other styles such as folk rock, glam rock and progressive rock. They are best known for their hit Part of the Union, which reached number two in the UK charts in February 1973, and for touring with Supertramp in their Crime of the Century Tour, doing their Hero and Heroine Tour, which drew musical similarities and themes.
This area is intended for discussion only. If you have a question about your order, or require customer service you can get in touch via our Customer Service Area. Comments enquiring about existing orders, including personal details, or with questions will be deleted.


text:
Tim Collings lists the crucial factors that will influence the outcome of the first race of the new World Championship season.
Qualifying - Red Bull set the pace last season with 15 poles from 19 races, Vettel taking ten and Webber five. Alonso had two and Hamilton one. In head-to-head last season between team-mates Vettel outpaced Webber 12-7, but made hard work of turning pole starts into wins.
Here last year's pole man Vettel failed to finish, but the 2008 and 2009 pole-sitters both won and lifted the championship. "I think maybe qualifying has less value this year because there are more factors in the race," said Alonso.
Race pace - Only guesswork can help with forecasts for this opening race, but pre-season testing suggests Ferrari and Mercedes can be threats to Red Bull and that McLaren may have found more performance at Albert Park thanks to their new exhaust, floor and front wing package. Expect Vettel, Webber, Hamilton and Alonso to produce thrilling speed along with Button, seeking his third straight Aussie win.
Race craft - With five World Champions in the field along with another handful of vastly-experienced drivers, there will be no lack of guile being exercised during Sunday's 55-lap contest. The rule changes, introducing a Drag Reduction System (aka adjustable rear wings) and re-introducing a Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS), are expected to aid the bold over-takers.
Tyre wear - The most unpredictable factor this time around. It will be tyre-management that decides the outcome – and dictates strategy -- thanks to Pirelli's arrival with rubber designed to degrade rapidly. This could play to the strengths of men like Button and Schumacher. More wear means more pit-stops, more thought applied to strategy and more risk. Most teams are predicting three or more stops and a late rush to the flag on light fuel loads.
"A new F1 starts here in Melbourne in terms of strategy," said Alonso.
Strategy - The key factor and always an influential, if not decisive, one at Albert Park where Button's finesse in planning last year's race brought him a maiden victory with McLaren and a second successive Aussie win.
Button forecast: "If we're doing three (pit) stops and the race is 60 laps long, you're going to be stopping every 15 laps. But if everyone's stopping on lap 15, you want to stop on lap 14 because you'll overtake them. The problem comes when everyone's thinking the same way and you're going to be bringing it further and further forward. So you'll have people stopping on lap nine and then you have to do the rest of the race on two sets of tyres -- and they're not going to last that long! It's impossible for them to last that long with the degradation. The first few stops are going to be early and the last stint is where you'll need tyre management. I think we'll see so much overtaking in the last stint it will shock everyone. It's going to go to the last corner -- which is great. I don't know if all the races will be like this, but this one will because we don't yet understand the tyres."
Engine reliability - Always a key factor in any race, but important at Albert Park where the teams want to survive the opening race without need to switch units and begin making any serious use of their seasonal total of eight. The relatively cool weather and configuration of the circuit is likely to be kind, but poorly-prepared back of the grid teams may suffer.
Start - A poor getaway can destroy even the fastest man's hopes for glory. Both Webber and Vettel suffered last season from weaknesses in their starting systems. Alonso and Hamilton have proved themselves to be gifted starters, the Briton also being especially strong in producing opening lap speed and passing moves. The new rules may assist this -- or level the playing field.
Traffic, back-markers - All of the top men will want to avoid trouble and becoming embroiled in any contact with slower cars, flustered new boys or frustrated chargers on worn rubber. Every point lost now counts at the end of the year.
Physical fitness - Age is only a number to Webber who may be the fittest man of all at 34, despite his injuries in 2008. At 26, Hamilton is also a fitness-obsessive while Alonso, 29, is clearly fitter than he may sometimes look... Champion Vettel, just 23, has youth on his side while Schumacher, at 42, has worked hard to regain his muscular sheen of former times.
Weather - Who knows? This is Melbourne... but as a twilight race, the sunshine through the trees or dusk's darkness could be a factor.
Form and consistency - Alonso's consistency at Albert Park should make him the pre-race favourite. He has taken points eight times from nine starts, won once, had four podiums and been in the top five seven years in succession. Schumacher is seeking a fifth Aussie win (but first since 2004) and Button a third in a row...
Mental strength - After his roller-coaster career and 2010 setbacks, there is no doubting the determination and focus of Webber, still bidding to be Australia's first F1 champion for 30 years. It is one of his core strengths. Alonso is another great competitor and Vettel, defending his title, should not be under-estimated as he proved all through last season.
Experience - Five champions will take the grid along with five other drivers who have each started more than 100 Grands Prix apiece, including Trulli on 238 and Barrichello on 307. This is Webber's 158th race and Vettel's 63rd. For all, it is the hazards provided by less-experienced men that may be troublesome.


text: Front View larger AudioQuest YIQ-A Component video cable (6 meters/19.6 ft.) Item #: 703YIQA6M 1 Review This item is no longer available. Original Price: $104.99 Shop all Component Video Cables Need help? 1.888.955.6000 Email Chat Ask an expert advisor No pressure, no commission — just lots of good advice from our highly trained staff. Overview Reviews Details Articles & Videos by Kristen Schaub Component video connections can deliver gorgeous high-definition pictures, and are definitely the way to go if HDMI isn't an option for your setup. Component video provides a significantly better picture than other analog connections, like composite or S-video. Its greater color bandwidth results in clearer color reproduction with less bleeding. You can rely on AudioQuest's YIQ-A to deliver sharp detail and accurate, lifelike colors from your video source. The solid copper conductors are plated with silver for improved signal transfer. Hard cell foam insulation surrounds the conductors to minimize distortion. Foil wrap around the insulation and an additional layer of braiding shield the cable from external electronic interference that can degrade the signal. Note: Each component video connection kit consists of three separate video cables. Product Highlights:length: 6 meters (19.6 ft.)26-gauge silver-plated solid copper conductor (silver layer is 1.25% of total conductor)nitrogen-injected hard cell foam insulationgold-plated RCA contactsblack/gray striped PVC jacketwarranty: 5 yearsOur 60-day money-back guarantee AudioQuest YIQ-A Reviews Average Customer Review: 1 reviews Review this product Submit a review and then enter to win a $350 rewards card Filter by rating: 5 Star: (0) 4 Star: (0) 3 Star: (0) 2 Star: (0) 1 Star: (0) Review this product: Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences about this product. Please be sure to focus your comments on the product itself. Read our Review Guidelines for more information. Review title * Email Your email won't be visible. Please use the email address that is associated with your order. Display name (e.g., JohnD) Your review will be signed using the display name and location * Your location (e.g., Charlottesville, VA) * Your rating Click on a star to rate the overall product on a scale of 1-5 1500 characters left * Your review Attach a YouTube Review Crutchfield Video Review Guidelines Only submit videos that you made or are authorized to use. Do not submit videos that contain music, video or visuals that are copyrighted and belong to someone else. Please see our Review Guidelines for more information. Enter the URL of your YouTube™ video review or product demonstration. e.g., "http://www.youtube.com/v/o79TWHh598U" 500 characters left Pros 500 characters left Cons * Agree to Terms By checking this box you agree your review becomes the property of Crutchfield, that you are over 18 years of age, that you own or have owned this product, and that you are located within the United States or its territories. Please see our Review Guidelines for more information. We reserve the right (but are not obligated to) review all submissions and edit or remove any review in any manner which we deem necessary. Your review should be posted within seven days. AudioQuest YIQ-A Written By Tom, Hartford, CT on Sunday, May 08, 2011 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Color coded, easy to install! 1 out of 1 people found this helpful Was this review helpful? Yes No Hands-on research What's in the box? | In-depth notes What's in the box? 6-Meter (19.6') Component video cable Product Research Features YIQ Series Component Video Cables: AudioQuest YIQ component video cables include three identical maximum performance coaxial cables, one for each of the three component signals; the "Y" (b&w) signal and the "I" and "Q" signals (also known as Pb and Pr), which contain all the color information. In the two channel S-video system (also known as Y/C), the "I" and "Q" component signals are combined to create a single "C" signal. When available, a three channel component signal is better because it avoids the degradation caused by the process of combining and separating. Construction: YIQ-A uses a solid Silver-Plated center conductor (26AWG) insulated with Hard Cell Foam (HCF). Silver-plating greatly improves high frequency performance for a fraction of the cost of solid silver. Nitrogen Injected HCF reduces distortion caused by the insulating material, and helps maintain a stable 75-ohms. The combination foil and braid shield provides 100% protection coverage. Gold-Plated RCA connectors are professionally attached with superior AudioQuest solder. Our Product Research Team At Crutchfield, you'll get detailed, accurate information that's hard to find elsewhere. That's because we have our own in-house Product Research team. They verify what's in the box, check the owner's manual, and record dimensions, features and specs. We stay on top of new products and technologies to help people make informed choices. Sorry, the AudioQuest YIQ-A is no longer available. Looking for a similar item? Shop all Video Cables Or, you can still... Write a review Search the website Go


text:
Hi! I'm Liviu!
I'm a passionate web developer & graphics designer. Open to feedback, I'll offer support for the items presented in the portfolio and respond to your messages… that's a guarantee!
Note: Support is limited to questions regarding item features or problems. I'm not able to provide support for code customization or third-party plugins. I may on occasion provide a small snippet of custom CSS.


text:
808 State have been announced as a late addition to the Bangface Weekender line-up at Newquay, Cornwall on 15th September:
Moderators: Ancodia, Pob, markus, nickking
SteveC wrote:If they did a day pass I might consider it. £110 with travel costs just to see 808, hmmmm not sure
SteveC wrote:Markus : You're right about the £40 on the door for a day pass. Although these are limited, not sure how many to though. It's a 5 hour drive to get there for me, plus stops. If I do go it'll be a last minute decision. Although sods law when I get there the day tickets will be sold out.
Return to 808 State discussion
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


text:
Building tiny RC blimps has become very accessible with the ultra micro RC-gear available today at affordable prices. Plantraco's awesome Nanoblimp, a RTF featherweight dog fighting champion, illustrates that. It is just new on the market and if I see it right it must be under 6g, allowing for the use of a 9" balloon. It follows the line set with Plantraco's earlier Microblimp, with its gondola at 10-12g. The Ballooncraft micro blimp on the other hand has been on the market for quite a while, but using a 17" balloon (putting it near 30g without payload), that's has become a heavyweight in the Microblimp League.
Anyway it is always more fun making one yourself. For me the trigger was the market appearance of the wonderful tiny DelTang DSM2 receivers, with a weight of 0.23g or 0.65g including connectors. And hacking sub micro servos makes the rest of the build quite simple.You only need to be willing to work with the tiny gear, keeping the total weight near or under 10 g (situating it between Plantraco's Microblimp and Nanoblimp). Check it out in this video:
I have been building indoor RC blimps for about 12 years now, and dismantling servos has often been the main source for reversible motor controllers and small motors, mainly for the for the tail rotors. For this project the complete three axis propulsion is based on hacked servos.
The servo circuits do not give a perfect proportional control. Actually the concept makes use of the imperfect on/off working of these circuits. In a servo, gets power as soon as the potentiometer is not in the desired position corresponding to the transmitter's stick position (for some more "theory of operation" on servos check here). But the analogue circuits in ordinary servos do not give full power when the deviation is small. The ones in digital servos do, so these are not suitable for this hack.
As people building tiny RC stuff know, at this scale wiring and connectors become important in the weight. But for this Ible I kept things basic,holding on to the connectors and avoiding soldering. In general soldering is not difficult, but at this scale it does need some experience and the right gear. Obviously this means there is some room for further weight loss, and in step 7 I list some tips for more experienced builders.
You can fly your blimp around in at home and if you have two you can go for a "Plantraco style dogfight" attaching a short pin on the front of each balloon.
Or you can go for a payload version and add a miniature camera. With a large enough balloon a wireless camera is possible, but I kept to a miniature recording camera giving a total weight for camera + propulsion of about 20 g (see last step). Here is a video of the camera version:
If you like this Ible, please don't forget to give it your vote. Many thanks for your attention!
did u actually own the interlectual property of this project because I found the indentical project on popsci source
please excuse my grammer also I just wanted you to be aware of it because otherwise it could count as infridgement and therefore liable I am not from that sight I am just making sure your aware
Sadly enough they didn't mention Instructables in the article, even though I asked them to.
I didn't shoot any video as I was running late this morning but I did put a prop on it and put a lot (90%) expo on the channel controlling the servo motor. I did get what seemed to be a proportional response. I am going to setup a little test rig with strips of paper to see how much wind is blowing in either direction at different stick positions. It seems to be more proportional one way than the other. I also plan to pull apart a hxt500 analog servo and see what that gets me. My friend who asked if I could make a "mini blimp that poops coupons" for her show is very excited. I think my step-daughters are going to like it too. I might have to make a bunch of these and have battles.
I once hacked a chinese servo that was supposed to be digital. It actually showed such a clear proportional response, I doubt it really was digital.
It's certainly worth a try. As you've already hacked one, mount a prop and see what it gives, just holding it. keep me posted.
What do you want your servo to do? Just run continuously in one direction? Run it from one direction to another or have it make controlled movements as a servo originally does (but without an RC receiver I suppose)?
thank u
To make controlled movements without a receiver or Arduino, you will need a so called servo tester. You can buy one ready made, build it from a kit or build it from scratch like this simple one.
Hacking a micro servo for continuous rotation, is done just the same way as for standard servo's. This is just one of many descriptions available. Many hacks, like the one mentioned above are meant for use with a receiver, an Arduino or a servo tester. If you want to run it without, you need to remove all electronics and connect directly to the motor. Like this. With this option changing the direction of rotation is done by reversing the polarity, for example with a switch wired like this.
I hope this gets you started.
You're close. Indeed, you take out all the gears and keep the motor and the potentiometer AND the servo electronics. The latter serves as reversible throttle output (with the potentiometer determining the middle zero throttle point). The servo's original lead is attached to any channel output of the receiver, just as a normal servo.
Some receivers have built in speed control, which you could call a direct throttle output. That is not used in this concept. It is used in the alternative shown in step 7, but then a motor (possibly also from a servo, but without the potentiometer and without the electronics) is connected to that output directly.
One can build airplanes or helicopters suitable for flying at home, in your living room, but that is something quite different.
really liked this instructable! keep up the great work.
Indeed, once you start soldering, enamel coated wire is the way to go.
Im intrigued about the filming aspect of it, so I went looking for a vid on YT of that camera - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEupsuwdFQo
This quality isn't half bad, and only has poor panning performance due to not being able to encode the rapid image changes, or no able to write to the memory card quick enough.
Are you seeing this quality, because I wouldn't be at all disappointed to see that quality in something costing a tenner!
I'm still not sure about water on the camera component itself. Will its lens and packaging protect the sensor? It could very well be, but I wouldn't be surprised if water gets in by some capillary effect. It should be dust tight, but not necessarily waterproof. What do you think?
But indeed, at this price...
I actually bought one of the 808 cameras since your recommendation, thinking for the future as I want to build an RC blimp too.
I have to say, the footage from my camera is about as good as some of the YT vids make out.
Looking at the footage from your camera, I'd have to say your footage doesn't look as good as mine. The image quality is about the same, but yours appears to be recording at a much lower Frames Per Second rate.
It could be the camera itself, or it could be a very slow memory card.
I bought mine off Ebay for £11, and I chose an auction that came also with a 4GB card bundled!
Dare I suggest it, but you might want to look at buying another of the 808 cams, or at least changing over the uSD card.
The footage is definitely lacking in the fine detail areas of the footage, but I really couldn't be much happier with it for the price.
I'm also thinking of getting hold of the slightly costlier genuine 720p models, which look really impressive for the price.
Is there any news on your wide angle lens yet? The angle on mine is quite limiting I have to say.
In the meantime the lens arrived. I will test it soon.
Following your recommendations, I checked the micro SD card and although it is a class 6 (good sequential writing speed), it has a pretty low random writing speed.
So I will try and pick up a better micro SD card and do some tests.
Thanks for the input!
When looking through with the naked eye I wouldn't call what I see a spectacular fish eye effect either. The distortion is more obvious at the edges.
With cap, string, jelly ring removed and eyelet cut off, it weighs 2.1 g. Maybe I can remove some more plastic.
Whatever increase in viewing angle you can get, the better.
Can you let us know where you got this 'jelly lens' from?
I was thinking actually what if you put a small bulbous drop of water on the basic lens? I will get round to trying that myself probably tomorrow. Of course its not a very permanent or resilient solution, its worth a try and the surface tension might last for one whole flight.
For your info, the ebay seller bundled in the uSD card, its a non-branded ebay job, marked at class 4. But is clearly sufficient.
Whilst more expensive, its always worth going for a well branded card such as a sandisk. If the price gets a bit silly, perhaps its worth upgrading to a true 720p 808 keyfob camera! :-)
Do you plan for any protection of the camera from water?
I just tried the drop of water approach, no real joy.
I used a very sharp implement and let a tap drip onto the end until a drop was suspended, then guided it into the lens opening. Tried this three times.
The first and second attempts resulted in totally blurred video, I had managed to smear the water all around the lens casing.
The third attempt resulted in a perfect dome of water protruding from the lens casing, It gave the video a well focused image, but it wasn't at all 'fisheyed' or wider at all, and it had the side effect of weird lighting anomalies entering the lens. I think part of the problem is that the lens is slightly recessed into the lens casing, making it difficult to get water right onto all the glass.
I also accidentally let a load of water into the keyfob casing, some of it got onto the circuit board, I dried it off, and its still working fine.
By the way, a simple dab with a piece of kitchen roll cleared the water from the lens completely, the quality has returned to normal, dare I say it, a little better!
Oh well, perhaps you might get better luck, its all down to getting the water to completely cover the lens glass, and make an almost perfectly round dome of water protrude, I got the dome, but it clearly didn't get to all the glass.
Yeah there could be an issue with the vibration.
But ultimately we're talking about only micro-litres of water, so it would be nearly impossible to short circuit any part of a modern production PCB.
The boards are designed with multiple layers of material, one of which is that green protection layer. Sure enough there are bare metal solder areas, but drops of water would have to miraculously bridge a connection between two of these spots to *potentially* cause an issue - but remember also that electricity always takes the easiest path, and an intact PCB offers the electrons a far better path to follow than through water with a relatively higher resistance.
Still I admit all this is theory only! ;-)
If you're concerned about it, I would imagine a small amount of clingfilm sandwich wrap, surrounding the camera PCB, would suffice.
Today I've bought myself some small props, and some 175mAH LIPO batteries from a nearby helicopter shop! My blimp build is nearly in progress! ;-)
If you wish, you could get almost the same concept as mine if you take the servo motors out of the receiver unit and fit them with propellors. You will need to solder longer leads, at least to the tail motor though.
Yours is definitely the best method. Very, very clever!
The control is made quite easy by adding the tail fin.


text:
Use this on salads as a dressing and as a marinade for meat, chicken and fish.
Serves 8; 2 tablespoons per serving
Combine the olive oil, balsamic vinegar, honey, Dijon mustard, shallot, garlic, black pepper together n a glass jar with a lid. Replace lid on the jar and shake vigoriously until thoroughly combined.
Nutritional Information Per Serving:
133 calories, 0.2 g protein, 3.2g carbohydrates, 13.5 g fat, 0mg cholesterol, 0.1 g fiber, 67 mg sodium


text:
- 0
- people in the U.S. have this name View Anne Borsch-Grifo on Whitepages
Meaning & Origins
English form (via Old French, Latin, and Greek) of the Hebrew girl's name Hanna 'He (God) has favoured me (i.e. with a child)'. This is the name borne in the Bible by the mother of Samuel (see Hannah), and according to non-biblical tradition also by the mother of the Virgin Mary. It is the widespread folk cult of the latter that has led to the great popularity of the name in various forms throughout Europe. The simplified form Ann was much more common in the 19th century but the form with final -e grew in popularity during the 20th century, partly perhaps due to L. M. Montgomery's story Anne of Green Gables (1908), and partly due to Princess Anne (b. 1950). See also Anna.
|174th in the U.S.
The meaning of this name is unavailable
|This name is too rare to be ranked.


text:
- Rob Freda
- Pylesville, MD
- United States
This conversation is closed.
In a rigorous analysis is this "missing link" a solution or evidence of a much larger and systemic policy, market, and investment problem?
While Prof. Sadowy is correct on energy issues, his "the missing link" conclusion lacks perspective and highlights a larger problem in clean energy.
The Yardstick
"Missing link" technology has to have specific performance (other technologies have these) and cost. The most central feature for a "missing link's" is -
The combined system cost per kWh must net out lower than today's renewables to have value.
This battery's cost is 1/3 "the best battery technology" (MIT). AGM batteries are ~$250 per kWh of storage. Renewable output needs to be leveled (store when producing a lot, supply when not) to behave like fossil. Wind requires 3-5 days of leveling storage equal to 50% of rated capacity (the turbine's max output) (LBNL).
Storage for 1MW wind turbine = 3 x 24 x 500kW x $80 = $2,880,000
1MW turbine cost = $1,800,000
Wind subsidy is ~$.026 per kWh to equal Natural Gas at $.065 per kWh
Combined wind/storage cost = $.15 per kWh, Subsidy raw = ~$.085 per kWh, Subsidy w/externals = ~$.05 per kWh
The effect of subsidizing a large percentage of global consumption at current rates is severe (see Edenhoffer's ADAM) on the order of a 2% global economic contraction per year. More expensive renewable energy that behaves like fossil is not a solution.
The Larger Problem
As long as governments are subsidizing (driving private investment) energy technologies that are highly unlikely to solve our core energy problems, our problems will not be solved because we frittered away the money to solve them. The last 30 years provide a snapshot of this problem.
The US has funded and subsidized incremental storage, solar, and wind technologies for 30 years at a cost of tens of billions of dollars without producing anything that can or is on track to actually compete with fossil. If we continue to lack rigor in clean energy policy and investment and to invest large sums without vision, the future for climate change and/or our standard of living looks very dark.
shawn disney
Jan 16 2013: There certainly is an energy problem, and our "solutions" so far are rather inadequate, and not well thought out. It seems quite true that a moderate level of "civilisation" depends strongly on cheap energy, and translates into money directly,
- +1
As to systemic problems, that;s for sure. The fairly obvious answer to the world baseload energy problem was invented and demonstrated 50 years ago, then forgotten about. So much for the "Informatiion Age'. I'm referring to the OTHER type of nuclear fission power plant, developed as an aircraft engine project for the Air Force in the Cold War.. See Thorium Liquid Fueled reactor, Youtube, Kirk Sorensen , for details, if anyone is interested.
Jan 17 2013: Thanks, Shawn, for the pointer to thorium liquid fueled reactors. Really exciting to me. I had not known about that technology.
I'm working on an open letter to a group of climate scientists who wrote to the President urging him to continue rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline (see 350.org blog). That request is all well and good, but I think 350.org, climate scientists, and others need to focus on getting alternative energy such as thorium-based fission into the news and public consciousness. All I see in the press and in popular anti-global warming movements is push back on fossil fuels but little push forward on what we can do technologically to get out of this mess. (This could partially be because of my own ignorance of what everyone is up to or due to bias of the press, I don't know. But I'll happily make a fool of myself in trying to push for technological solutions.)
Given that the Obama administration has signaled that "climate change" is one of its top 5 priorities for its second term, we need to ratchet up the pressure somehow. I see that someone created a White House petition for thorium-based fission (and even renewed it last June). Certainly that could be resurrected once again, but perhaps also with a focus on nationalization of the electric grid and utilities, and preceded with a push to get some groups with big mailing lists on board _before_ opening the petition. Other avenues include the open letter I mentioned.Jan 17 2013: A further note on thorium. It's going to take me quite some time to sort out this area. Studies such as the one from MIT (http://mitei.mit.edu/publications/reports-studies/future-nuclear-fuel-cycle) or the pointers to the failures of India's program are cited by detractors as showing LFTR is not a good investment. It's frustrating to read, though, because, 1) I can't find a head-to-head debate on LFTR's pro's and cons (just repeated claims that thorium makes a lousy replacement fuel for current reactor technology, which appears to not be what advocates are advocating), and 2) all the vitriol from both advocates and detractors.
Is there any sober discussion out there between detractors and advocates (for us poor folk who don't have enough background to come to our own conclusion)?
Jan 21 2013: stephen: Thanks for asking. Much of the anti-Thorium effort seems to be based on merely not being familiar with the whole ORNL Liquid Fueled nuclear aircraft engine effort, combined with a lack of knowledge about Alvin Weinberg and Eugene Wigner. Also, seriously misleading is the fact that the Indians, although they are certainly interested in Thorium , are trying to use it as a cheap substitute for Uranium, in LWR solid fuel reactors, which is of course also scheduled to run out in time, and is clearly not cheap., as well as having the usual problems. Also I believe they want bombs, unofficially, of course. Good wbsite FYI is , with a forum. Sorry if this is somewhat garbled; the "edit" button doens't show the whole paragraph.
For an excellent account of the whole energy scene, try "Thorium: Energy Cheaper than Coal". by Robert Hargraves. For some more detailed diffculties with it, see website , which seems to try to be fair about it, , and feel that LFTRs are are the best bet, though they are not as optimistic as Weinberg and Wigner (the inventors). has some interesting video interviews with surviving engineers from the ORNL projects, who believed that all the supposed difficulties would not be show-stoppers. This site also has a an ongoing forum , which one can view or oin, for serious questions.
Jan 22 2013: Thanks Shawn. Much appreciated. If you get a chance, please post those two links. Somehow they didn't show up in your post.Jan 15 2013: Thanks for the pointers to those articles. I will read those.
As for "without lobbying influence," man, is that a tough one. Here in California, I don't think state regulators even write laws anymore. They simply get behind this-or-that lobby-written legislation.
The idea about Eisenhower and the interstate highway system is another good one (and instructive). It's another idea I can add to my own thinking.
(A side note: I remember when many Republicans were quite concerned about the environment and were responsible for important legislation in that area both nationally and at the state level--my, how times have changed.)
I was aware of the funding for liquid metal batteries (including the funding from Bill Gates). For me, the petition represents my frustration with the national dialog. I mean, for goodness sake, the only national news show to cover liquid metal batteries so far (i.e., last time I looked) is the Colbert Report—a fake news show!
I'm also hoping to influence the work of organizations such as 350.org to add pushing for new technologies (such as liquid metal batteries) to their political strategy. Of course, I may not get anywhere with this, but I am learning valuable lessons; e.g., getting random people on the street to even talk about global warming (let alone sign a petition) is like pulling teeth.
Jan 15 2013: what is your background?
Jan 15 2013: I spent many years in software engineering and a few years before that as a technical writer. I have no background related to this discussion (other than being keenly interested and concerned).
Jan 15 2013: so I can give you a bit of a shortcut on getting up to speed. Three main areas:
1) Conservation/efficiency
2) Transmission
3) Generation
Storage is a secondary area with its main effect being on solar and wind intermittancy and somewhat on generation demand offsetting. Important but not primary.
On 1 this is mainly smart grids and building efficiency software which should be easy for you. This area is a short term solution given that our financial markets are driven by growth and maximizing it. Over mid to long term effect is likely negligible but it is a good bridge focus area.
On 2 think about it similar to a network backbone only a lot older with server farms in the middle of nowhere that do not have enough bandwidth to be used fully. Most grids globally cannot handle current demand let alone the next 2 decades of growth in population density which has a compound effect on demand (every extra person needs a home, a workplace, and more retail services). NYC alone will have to spend ~$25 billion to keep up with current demand from ex-urban power sources.
On 3 more than 90% of all new installations since 2000 have been Natural Gas. Natural Gas creams everything else due to its power density and flexibility (can be installed at 25MW in a trailer size turbine - 500MW in a central facility), NG is about the same as coal on GHG emissions when you look at the full life-cycle especially the well head leakage which is methane and about 75 times more powerful at heat retention than carbon.
The way to think about the confluence of all this in its simplest form, which assumes avoiding as much transmission investment as possible, is in terms of urban electricity consumption intensity (avg. US annual ~ 60 kWh per m^2) vs. electricity production intensity. If a gen tech has high production intensity it is better and more competitive. On policy you need to fold in population trends and urban population density growth to see what is needed over the mid-term.Jan 15 2013: Thanks for the shortcut, Rob. Much appreciated.Jan 16 2013: Rob: Good points. But Gas means carbon pollution, and other problems. Have you heard about the Thorium Liquid Fuelled nuclear reactor? IIt was invented and demonstrated 50 years ago as an aircraft engine. Its Energy Density simply blows away all competition. Its failsafe, cheap , and "Greener" than anything other than Hydropower. Solves the transmission problem too, since it is scalable, and doesn't require pressure vessels, water, steam , etc. Fuel is laughably cheap.
Jan 16 2013: Would say gas means carbon and methane pollution, so a bit of a double whammy though its carbon emissions are about 1/2 of coal. LFTR's seem to hold out promise but to the point as long as we are dropping $20-30 mil on multiple non-solutions then no one is going to dump in the billions needed to get LFTR tech up and running. Estimates I have seen are that it is roughly 30 years out.
seems to me we need a rational bridge/near, mid, and long term policy of which multiple fusion, fission, and other energy dense technologies are all in the hopper.Jan 8 2013: Like John, I too have abit of an issue with the following sentence...
"The US has funded and subsidized incremental storage, solar, and wind technologies for 30 years at a cost of tens of billions of dollars without producing anything that can or is on track to actually compete with fossil"
Oil receives around x6 times the amount in subsidies, despite such industries being some of the most profitable in the world, if not THE most profitable.
Ontop of that, half of the subsidies for renewable research are tax subsidies, not actual spending.
Its also important to note that it was the oil industry that went out of its way to get rid of electric cars, which were fairly common 100 years ago and they ultimately had a range as far as the electric cars we have now.
The research needs heavy investment to make up for all that lost time.
Only then we will see real results.
Jan 8 2013: Oil has nothing to do with electricity generation except in Hawaii and a couple old generators here and there in cities around the US. Oil is for home heating and cars. Coal and NG get less than 1/2 a cent per kWh.
If you throw electric cars into the mix then wind and solar become even less attractive in terms of their ability to supply a significant % of consumption although there are some interesting studies in using the cars' fuel cells as a distributed storage microgrid.
Agree research needs heavy investment which begs the question why is 90% of our money going to subsidies (not R&D) for technologies like solar, wind, and geothermal which are all mature and well into the diminishing returns portion of their cost reduction curves, eg exponential decline.Jan 8 2013: Xavier,
Just as a note it would be useful for you to have a look at the Annual Energy Outlook 2013
and have a look at where most of our generation is projected to come from - Natural Gas. the EIA has fairly sophisticated models and solar is not even a blip by 2030. Over 90% of all generation installed in the last decade is natural gas.Jan 21 2013: To stephen williams: this thread is kind of hard to handle. All I wanted to do was edit my reply to you.Jan 21 2013: Sorry about the garble. Websites, which didn't print, are "energyfromthorium.com" or org. and "whatisnuclear.com" or org.Jan 21 2013: stephen: I had a lot of trouble with listing websites, and the "edit" button. Sites: "energyfromthorium.com or org." and "whatisnuclear.com" You can ask me directly if you want @email@example.com, if this doesn't work.Jan 21 2013: I hate to be the resident pragmatist, that seems to annoy people, but....
Shawn has hit the nail on the head. Civilization's life blood is a reliable source of very cheap energy.
A local newspaper describes a new home built in the Texas. Powered by a wind generator and solar panels with battery backup, this home is completely off the grid and has over 150 A of power to energize a modern home. Most of us are not this fortunate.
Big population areas require big energy producers/suppliers which are big private industries looking for sustainable profits or big government entities looking for tax dollars. So, it seems to be about the cost per wKh and fossil fuel seems to lock that cost.
In the beginning, the big energy supplies came from dams and coal fired generators. Soon enough we had smoke and downstream water problems. Rivers to dam, places to put coal plants were few and far between so a large transmission grid was built to get energy from here to there. In the 60s the problem of pollution etc, came into public view. Renewable and non polluting energy sources were needed. Nuclear, solar, wind, wave action, the list of ideas and theories go on. Nuclear energy met the cost per wKh but since the ending of WW 2, people have developed atomic phobia. Getting nuclear anything done today is not even discussed in most parts of the world. Billions of dollars have been spent on new technology that for the most part was not well thought out. Most "renewable" sources are not constant and continuing.
Our power grid is highly inefficient and failing due to old age. Sustainment costs are going out of sight. In Texas, with 300 days of sunshine, supplement solar panels are relieving some pressure on fossil generators, not sure if solar is viable in Seattle with 300 days of rain a year. Maybe the use of small fuel cell generators in local applications is the future of energy sources. There are no grids and no generator plants. But, use natural gas. Fracking?
Jan 22 2013: you have a very good understanding of the space. take it you must be in energy. I would add a couple of notes.
NG is dominant with or without fracking mainly due to the transmission situation you mentioned.
Solar rooftop cannot supply sufficient power within the population centers (even the southern ones) to really move the needle.
Fuel cells are super expensive for generation when you look at the unsubsidized cost. a nice cheap fuel cell would definitely do the trick. of course that is mainly a natural gas fueled tech so am not sure what the end difference between a combined cycle and a fuel cell supply would be given that neither really solves the environmental problems Sadowy was speaking to.
the atomic phobia is really a sticking point but I would note there that unless the reactors are small and very safe nuclear has the same issue as coal, wind, and solar, transmission from ex-urban locations.
Jan 22 2013: Hi Rob,
I was in charge of a small city Utility Division a number of years ago. Our division was responsible for water, gas, electricity, sewer and waste management. I was very fortunate to have highly skilled subordinates handling their areas and they were able to give first class service to our city under budget, year after year. My job was to clear the path for them to excel .
You would probably not believe the hysterical, fanatical accusations I had to face. Fluoridation of water was a communist plot to take over our country, Garbage dumps where generating methane to cause global warming and killing polar bears. You get the drift. Electrical energy was our biggest utility. We had coal fired generators and a gas turbine we brought online for peak demands. I look at all the options, having to consider what the city could possibly afford. Coal was cheap, but the EPA was looming. Nuclear, forget it. Gas seemed to be the best bet, but the cost of reconversion was just short of the national debt.
So, as my grandson tells me, " When they get di-lithium crystals to work in our space ships and hand phasers, these problems will go away." It scares me that he may be right.
Jan 22 2013: dealing with that must have been....fun.
nothing better than having been in the trenches to inform an opinion. was wondering. very few people outside utilities get the basic landscape and almost no one in clean tech. willful blindness. you probably get it a lot better than I do.
landfills to kill polar bears. that has to be one of the better ones I have heard.
unfortunately if we keep sticking to the current paths and do not expand our solution space your grandson is likely not far off the mark. there is always the chance of an outlier though. fingers crossed.Jan 15 2013: no doubt, mr sadoway engaged in some hyperbole about how good that technology is. if you read the comments of the talk, you find references to some existing battery technology that can provide not much worse economic efficiency. i mean, good work and all, but the real breakthrough is still ahead us, sadly.
Jan 17 2013: Science could use a few more good sales people like Mr. Sadoway. :-) As for the "real" solution, unless you know what that is and when we can use it, I think we need to move now. We must get the public to understand the true cost of burning fossil fuel (i.e., famine, floods, hurricanes, drought, loss of continental coasts, disappearance of entire island nations, and so on). Perhaps then the cost of moving to alternatives will be more palatable, particularly if we insulate the markets from those costs through, for example, nationalization of the electrical grid and utilities. I don't care what technology is used (that's for people more knowledgeable than I to determine), but somehow we've got to get the true cost of fossil fuels brought into the discussion when debating alternative energies. (On this score, I am quite excited about Thorium Liquid Fueled reactor technology that Shawn mentions. I had not known about that until he made his post.)
Jan 18 2013: Come on Kriz, What's the real break through?
I see Laser tech being investigated and exotic material creation but what's that one mover that could get us in another acceleration curve. That's what i'm waiting for but i fear i might be dead by that time.
I keep wondering if we are in the early 20th century fad where radioactive substances were sold as elixirs of life, i know this sounds strange but we haven't exactly evolved have we?Jan 15 2013: overstated on Republicans if there are any real ones left. just need to dump the Tea Party.
given your points earlier about size of economic impact (and the essential destruction of developing world consumer market growth and thereby exports, both here, EU and China) I cannot wrap my head around their backers not wanting to hedge climate change as they do their market investments. strange. the way I would look at it as simply as 50/50 risk of real estate asset loss with 6 ft rise in sea level and assuming avg. 16 ft storm surge on the coasts given that most assets are on the shore. that is something they would gladly hedge if it were anything else.
i know the lobbying is a tough one but I can give you an example why it would have to be excluded (which may argue for this waiting until something truly disastrous happens so that the action is swift and clean). In California the SF VC's went very heavily into solar early in the last decade. None of the promises panned out and those investments were all at risk. VC's and the companies they backed lobbied heavily for net-metering (so they do not need batteries) and subsidization from the state (and the feds). So where I live in MA same thing and until recently here solar existed in a complete bubble where a solar REC was worth a minimum of $.28 per kWh while wind geothermal etc all were traded at less than $.02. They took the minimum guarantee off and it is already causing problems here.
The problem with this is if you look at where solar investment, government and private, dollars have gone ever since that bubble got set up by the lobbyists they have gone to very small incremental technologies that would reduce fab cost by 20% or have an efficiency improvement of 2%. The bubble pretty much guarantees that the VC's can make their money back even if the tech does not pan out. So innovation in solar has slowed to a snails pace with nothing addressing solar's issues.
imagine that over the whole system.
Jan 15 2013: As for Republicans, I'm afraid they're going to gerrymander moderate, rational Republican candidates out of the picture altogether (via primary fights and fixed House seats).
I agree with you about excluding lobbyists, I was just sort of gasping at the difficulty of it in today's politics.
Your discussion of VCs and solar is very interesting to me. If you have a pointer to this background info, please share it. (Again, I find myself with more time recently, and I'd like to come up to speed. I can't think of a more interesting/important area to get involved in and learn about than global warming and what to do about it technologically and politically.)
Jan 15 2013: No primer on VC's and solar. Based on my observations, dealings, and talking to some high-school buddies who do lobbying in CA and watched the solar lobby go into high gear a while back when the time horizon on the investments started to get a little long in the tooth. It is not just solar. They do it on wind, fuel cells, geothermal, broadband, etc..
What is interesting to do is to go to the open secrets database and look up RE or VC companies. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000054103&year=2011
In the normal course of events nothing wrong with it except that it hinders advance. in this area I think it is playing with fire and I think Obama and Chu made a big mistake continuing this "private-government" partnership and relying on the private sector to produce innovation instead of a big government push per Mahattan Project or Apollo. Do not know about your experience but private sector in my experience does not innovate well unless someone else is footing the bill and controlling the direction. DoD and NASA innovate well.
it is how the system works so c'est la vie. my only point is if you are going to de-privatize or do a "interstate energy act" in the first stages such an action would have to be divorced from private or single issue interests to the greatest degree possible so the solutions, planning, and policy elements that lay out the roadmap are based on fixing things vs. tossing bones to the dogs. I would include banning environmentalist lobbies in that as well not just private industry.
never going to happen without a big disaster anyway and what is far more likely is death by a thousand cuts. 20 kids get shot and we cannot even bring an assault weapon ban to the floor let alone get it passed. Not sure what happened to us. We used to be good at getting things done when they really needed to get done.
good that you are focusing your attentions on this area. if I were you I would also read V. Smil's papers.Jan 15 2013: Rob, your understanding of market forces and analysis is much deeper than mine (though I would like to become better informed). That said, the sheer enormity of the consequences of continuing on our current path is staggering, both financially and in the cost of human life and environmental treasure. (Already some are connecting the dots between famines in parts of Africa with global warming. Whether or not that connection is legitimate at this point, I don't know. But if not legitimate yet, it will be soon enough.) So, on the face of it, it seems that any approach must be radically different from anything attempted so far.
So I find your idea of making the electrical grid a public utility for a few decades exactly the kind thinking we need. Having recently taken early retirement from a big tech company, I have more time on my hands and I plan to use some of it in this area. I recently created a petition to the White House to try to push the administration into looking at liquid metal battery technology (see https://sites.google.com/site/liquidmetalbatteries/ for details). I'm having trouble getting more than a few dozen signatures, though, so I'm pleading with some big organizations for help.
Nationalizing the electrical grid for a few decades sounds like area worth pushing for. I really like that idea. In times of national (or, in this case, world) emergencies, it is exactly the job of the government to step in the interest of the welfare of everyone. (Of course, such an approach can be abused, but every approach has its downside and danger.) The free market is simply incapable of intervening in a timely manner. As for what I can do personally, I don't know what else to do but educate (via petitions like the the one above and other avenues—e.g., pushing newspapers and other media to do stories on liquid metal battery technology).
Somehow we have to change the focus to real solutions. I really appreciate this discussion. It's got me thinking in new ways.
Jan 15 2013: Liquid metal already has funding from DOE (I think through ARPA-e) and private investment.
I agree completely with your take on the role of government. Unfortunately I fear that conversation has been pushed so far to the libertarian side that the government might not see its role that as clearly as you do in this area. Also the DOE has a tendency to focus on incremental solutions so they would need to shift their thinking. That said perhaps enough of the economic hits you mentioned might spark the US or (more likely) other governments to take such action.
One other idea would be to treat our energy system like Eisenhower did the interstate highway system. Estimates of the cost of the interstate highway system in 2006 dollars are around $500 billion, but the overall net effect for the country was positive. Also keeping in mind that without the interstate highway system the cost was merely a less efficient distribution system. With global warming the costs are substantially higher. Figure restructuring the entire energy system might be around $2-3 trillion over 10 years. By providing very cheap capital directly from the treasury to "energy groups" (likely utilities) which would be responsible for the build out and operation could bring the cost of wind and geothermal down into the natural gas range and solar into the coal range. Combined with intelligent nuclear development we could minimize emissions. Republicans would have to lose their majority in the house for anything like that to happen though so earliest would be 2014.
Big problem there is would have to make sure the initial policy is done without lobbying influence.
Of interest to read on the economics side:
Both of these indicate global losses, though to your point the Climate change is much worse.Jan 14 2013: Rob, if the technology is not the answer to storage for renewables, what about other factors such as grid support and as a local UPS?
Jan 14 2013: sure. he and his investors can build a business out of it I would think although I would like to see the models on which he is basing his estimates.
On grid storage ostensibly it would depend on where it is deployed and whether there was some overall savings on spinning reserve and peaking power.
I actually may have not been as precise as I could have been. Was not saying it was not a viable business or would not be useful once the underlying generation issue is solved (or in the cases you mention). In either case though without the underlying issue being solved it does not seem to be of the importance Sadowy highlights.
I was mainly trying to point out that this seems to me to be symptomatic of a misalignment in policy, discussion, and resources relative to the primary objective. I assumed as the primary objective - a substantial reduction in GHG emissions and preferably a low-cost or cost-neutral method to do so, avoiding any significant economic impacts that a substantial increase in the cost of energy would cause.
Given those parameters the current investment and policy focus on solar, battery storage, and building management software (together these probably make up 90% of current "innovation" investment) seems a bit like the old "Nero's fiddle" approach. Reducing the cost of battery storage from $250 to $80 per kWh has a significant impact on how low state of the art solar and wind have to go to be viable. With Sadowy's technology instead of being 20% of fossil cost now these technologies would only have to be 50-60% of fossil. Of course the likelihood of any of the current techs getting there is extremely low and even if they did there would still be massive transmission costs (which to your point could be lessened by 25%? with a cheap grid storage).
Given all that Sadowy's tech should fall into a "support tech" bucket that should make up maybe 20%? of policy driven investment. Cannot see any evidence though of any bucketed policy.Jan 11 2013: I can't see how an analysis can be "rigorous" without accounting for the enormous cost of fossil fuels that are pushed out into the future (e.g., the disappearance of entire island nations, famine, increased "natural" disasters, etc. caused by man-made global warming via burning fossil fuels). Fossil fuel is phenomenally expensive. It may be too late to turn global warming around, but that doesn't make the true cost of fossil fuels any cheaper. I would very much like to see a full-blown rigorous exploration of the issues raised, but that's no simple matter.
Jan 11 2013: one of the reasons we are in the position we are in with fossil fuels is the lack of rigor applied to analyzing the potential of renewable technologies over the last 20 years. we have frittered away time and money for no result. technology after technology after technology has failed to displace fossil generation. Promise after promise after promise has turned out to be false hope. Meanwhile we continue to throw capital at technologies like this that are second tier techs without having solved the core generation issues
This talk is a perfect example. Solar and wind are already expensive and uncompetitive and now to get them to run like baseload we are going to double their cost and that is a solution? One could argue that is because the full cost of fossil is not folded into its price but one must accept the reality that doing so to make substandard renewable techs viable would have a large scale economic impact. better to try and build something useful in the first place.
by wasting time with techs that do not move the needle we are insuring the the full cost of fossil is exactly what we are going to have to pay.
Jan 11 2013: UPDATE: Rob, I realized later today that I misread your post. My apologies. I read it to fast. I deleted my initial response/rant from this spot.
I agree, we have a systemic problem. We need a comprehensive strategy that takes into account realistic estimates of how fossil fuels (and even biomass renewables) can be replaced with a combination of alternative energy sources (both old and new technology), efficiency, conservation, change of lifestyle, etc. But, given the limitations of alternative energy sources as we know them today, the future looks bleak, and human beings are unlikely to give up their perceived standard of living any time soon.
However, I wish cost were much less of an issue. Then the "missing link" technology might be viable. We can do amazing things (at tremendous expense) when we deem it important enough (particularly war and defense), but, collectively, we still don't take global warming very seriously (as when the true cost of burning fuels isn't considered part of the price).
Jan 12 2013: Unfortunately humans are not exactly known for their long range thinking or more precisely guiding their short-term behavior based on long-term probability. If, to your point, asset loss from sea level rise alone could exceed $44 trillion one would think investing even $5-10 trillion over the next ten years would be worth it, but until it is right in our face getting anything done in today's environment is unlikely.
So that would beg the question what should we be looking for from renewables or other areas to help guide our policy? And secondarily what development strategy should we apply?
Seems there are two basic dev options:
1) Butterfly theory approach - problematic with the current structure. as long as 90% of the gov's budgeted dollars are going into subsidies rather than R&D (Solyndra alone got more than ARPA-e has given out in R&D grants) the spray the bushes approach is unlikely to produce solution/s.
2) Probabilistic analytic approach - One would expect this is the route they are already on but from where government R&D dollars have been spent in the last decade and given the DOE's primary initiatives there is very little evidence that this is guiding policy.
There is an additional problem with subsidized flaws in policy. There is a compound effect as long as the technologies are not only R&D funded, but also subsidized. This essentially is why when I saw the talk I decided to pop up this debate. Subsidization basically only really insures that both private and public dollars are spent in the same areas regardless of the effectiveness of the area. Rather than helping generate solutions subsidies contract the fundable solution space and insure that the rate of innovation outside of given areas will be restrained. If you pick the wrong areas initially you have an enormous opportunity cost and make it difficult to pivot or expand the space.
Since the subsidies are not going away any time soon option 2 seems like the only option. Thoughts?Jan 12 2013: "and human beings are unlikely to give up their perceived standard of living any time soon"
that really does sum it up.
we are definitely looking like the Dodos from Ice Age at the moment.Jan 15 2013: Stephen, had a think about it and it seems to me that one of the major challenges on your "wish" list is how to get a marketplace to fold in externalities that are long-term and which nothing in the market's initial or current integration with society was set up to accommodate.
what I mean by that is the global economy is inextricably tied to the price of electricity and I cannot see a mechanism where that price can rise without negative effects. ostensibly that is what subsidies are but I think underpinning value premise is that the subsidized supply must eventually become cheaper (thereby creating growth) than the existing supply you desire to replace or your economy ends up with the negative effects down the road anyway.
would be interested to know if there is a corollary in other areas for incorporating such externalities. one simple way to do it would be to make power generation temporarily (say for three or four decades) a public service which would then at least give you back the margin and stock/dividend/corp portion to partially reduce the economic impact of all the new equipment. not sure how far that gets you though.
cannot see any other way to get it done within the current financial/market structure. could be my vision is limited. hate to even think this, but could this be a useful application for derivatives?Jan 9 2013: For those coming into this debate and those already in, just wanted to say that the purpose of the debate was to point out that, while this is a cool technology and storage cost reduction is great, given the level of subsides renewables already require and the amount and expense of storage needed to run as fossil, there is a very wide gap between Sadowy's "promotion" of his idea and the impact it could have in reality on Sadowy's stated goal. The impact is minimal.
This is a bit systemic in clean energy. Big claims, big ideas, middling results and little effect on the landscape mainly due to the fact that there is little or no rigor in judging clean energy technologies ability to solve the problems we face when applied to reality vs the bubble of the investment world.
Renewables supply less than 1% of global energy consumed. Even if that figure was 10 or 20% the other 80+% is coming from fossil so what exactly is being solved? It should be clear that if the low impact of renewables is already a problem that loading more cost into it is just going to make it worse not better.
Sadowy's and most other clean energy techs I have seen are nibbling around the edges of the problem but are not even close to providing solutions for the problems mainly because they and their investors have ignored the bigger picture in favor of short to mid-term personal profit or satisfaction. The central issue is a cheap clean generation technology. storage is largely a second phase symbiote if you want to knock out more than 20% of fossil use, not the core tech to do it.
Clean tech investors have been egged on by the government and their ability to use lobbying to provide protection for their investments through subsidization which hinders and sucks resource away from innovation and new r&d and because of this we are now into a phase where severe climate change is unavoidable and there is still no light at the end of the tunnel or any shift to stop wasting more time.Jan 8 2013: Can you clarify something for me? Hasn't it already been proven that the energy demands for the united states can be met using a combination of the renewable energy sources that we already have?
Jan 8 2013: If you count the technical resources as proven and ignore where the resource is then sure. Transmission investment to get that resource to the cities nationally is well over $100 billion. That does not deal with intermittancy which will destabilize the grid if solar and wind go over 20% of supply.Jan 8 2013: "The US has funded and subsidized incremental storage, solar, and wind technologies for 30 years at a cost of tens of billions of dollars without producing anything that can or is on track to actually compete with fossil."
Actually solar is well on its way to become an affordable alternative (especially in warmer regions) and of course you do realize fossil fuels are also subsidized and mask part of their cost by externalizing them to the taxpayer. In any case it's only a matter of time before a solar panel from the 1970s produces cheaper power than fossil fuels since fossil fuels are finite. The big "missing links" of energy will be a new generation of mass produced solar panels enhanced with nano-technology, and nuclear fusion, that too is just a matter of time.
Jan 8 2013: John,
Kind of figured this would be the first response.
For your first point, solar has approached retail grid parity in Hawaii which has the most expensive cost per kWh on earth at an avg. of $.25 per kWh. Avg. US retail grid cost is $.12 per kWh (EU ~$.2) which is 1/2 solar's cost. Add another 5 cents to solar's cost with this storage and even in Hawaii it is not competitive especially when you figure that the solar output and storage will only return 90% of the original energy produced increasing cost per kWh. This all assumes that the recent reduction in solar cost was due to technology. The recent decline in solar costs is mainly due to market competition for share between Trina solar and First Solar primarily. Same thing happened in wind back in 2000 when the installed cost per KW dropped to $1,200 due to share competition. It is now back up $1,800 per KW.
On your second point, coal and NG receive ~$.005 per kWh in subsidies. Solar receives more than $.15 per kWh and wind receives more than $.05 once you fold in REC trading, Federal ITC/PTC, and State subsidies. Additionally there is the cost of net metering which is almost never figured into the subsidized figure. Net metering is how the cost of storage is avoided for solar.
The main issue with solar is not even cost. Cost was the issue I focused on above given the tack Sadowy took on his "missing link" logic. The main issue with solar is supply capacity which defines how much energy a generation tech can supply in a given location. Problem with renewables is the location of the resource, the middle of nowhere, which means you need a lot of transmission to get the energy to the cities where it is consumed. In LA, one of the best solar resources, in-city solar can supplyJan 8 2013: sorry end got cut off
solar can supply less than 5% of LA's annual consumption. If you build it out in the desert then pretty massive transmission investment (~$4-6 billion) is necessary to get the energy to LA
Jan 8 2013: "solar can supply less than 5% of LA's annual consumption. If you build it out in the desert then pretty massive transmission investment (~$4-6 billion) is necessary to get the energy to LA"
While transporting oil, coal and natural gas to LA doesn't cost a dime... Btw, I sincerely doubt that covering LA's roofs and skyscrapers with solar panels would only provide 5% of that city's power consumption (though it's true American cities waste power on a colossal scale compared to their European counterparts).
"If you count the technical resources as proven and ignore where the resource is then sure. Transmission investment to get that resource to the cities nationally is well over $100 billion."
The Iraq War alone cost over $1 trillion, and that's just part of the total money being spend to keep the fossil fuels flowing...
"For your first point, solar has approached retail grid parity in Hawaii which has the most expensive cost per kWh on earth at an avg. of $.25 per kWh."
That's strange, the Netherlands has recently achieved grid parity with a price of EU 0.23 per kWh for fossil fueled power (that's defo more than $0.25) and that's without subisides on the solar panels and without Hawaii's tropical climate and also without accounting for the cost of fossil fuel subsidies and externalities (Dutch troops were in Iraq).
The reason you don't see solar pop up in greater quantities then it is doing now is that the only parties who have the available funds to affect change invest their money in more lucrative sectors such as pharmaceuticals and the financial sector, if petroleum were discovered today those same people wouldn't invest much in a petroleum infrastructure either. Nevertheless the Chinese government believes solar power will pay off big time in the long run and they're hardly bleeding heart environmentalists.
Jan 8 2013: that transport cost is already baked into coal and NG levelized cost of energy. Oil is not a generation fuel in the current system. beside the direct transport cost on the solar transmission line would be its annual maintenance cost, not its initial capital cost which is the figure I was quoting.
if you bake in the transmission investment and the necessary storage to supply LA as baseload with solar, it's cost would go well over $.5 per kWh roughly 1000% higher than the cost of natural gas. Coal is over in terms of new installations unless they ban fracking (and yes I do not think fracking is a good idea but for now it is a reality) so it is only a conversation item with regard to retail grid cost.
Let me posit something to you. Suppose I do this for a living and suppose I have done some fairly in depth studies of these issues and what I am saying is a fair but not perfect representation of the situation (there are complexities which will never be captured in this type of discussion). Have a look at what Edenhoffer, the co-chair of the IPCC SRREN report, says matters - Carbon Capture Technologies and Biomass.
Do you still think that we should be subsidizing an even more expensive form of solar?
Don't you think that maybe we should be a bit more rigorous in our policy decision?
Maybe some of the billions of solar investment and subsidization should have gone into developing a cheap technology to scrub Natural Gas exhausts or better well caps to reduce methane leakage, no?
Not saying kill solar, but when %80 of private investment in generation techs goes into the worst renewable, solar, because solar has been insulated through lobbying by its initial investors - Goldman Sachs, etc. - to get their 10x ROI, I think that is a pretty dangerous state of affairs for us and our kids.Jan 8 2013: sorry missed the second two
on the first once again oil is not a generation fuel so the war has nothing to with Coal and NG which are both from the good old US of A. compressed NG is actually starting to approach gasoline costs so....that said we should have subsidized ethanol to the EU and China at $2 a gallon and cut the economic underpinnings out from under the middle east (we only get 8% of our oil from the ME) instead of going to war.
on the third item
that is the peaking price not the average I believe.
Subsidization of solar in EU is pretty heavy due to the really bad resources. Also their average grid price is higher than ours given their lack of natural resources and their peaking price is off-the charts. not sure what hawaii's peaking price is but given they import everything they generate with it has to be higher than EU.
as noted issue is not as much price as ability to supply. In holland the rate of supply would be more likeJan 8 2013: "The reason you don't see solar pop up in greater quantities then it is doing now is that the only parties who have the available funds to affect change invest their money in more lucrative sectors such as pharmaceuticals and the financial sector, if petroleum were discovered today those same people wouldn't invest much in a petroleum infrastructure either. Nevertheless the Chinese government believes solar power will pay off big time in the long run and they're hardly bleeding heart environmentalists."
not to be an ass but this is just naive. the same "financial sector" people invested in pharma are the same people invested in solar and in case you did not notice who underwrote SolarCity and SunRun, it was BOA, Goldman, Blackrock (i think), etc. Those "financial sector" people are the only reason solar is still around. If they were not sunk into solar it would have died a well deserved death about 6 or 7 years ago. And the Chinese gov? Come on. I was in shanghai 4 months ago and drove from there to Hangzhou and did not see a single solar panel. they are competing for our subsidies. not exactly a huge surprise but given the debt situation it is a bit of a circle.....Jan 9 2013: " Btw, I sincerely doubt that covering LA's roofs and skyscrapers with solar panels would only provide 5% of that city's power consumption (though it's true American cities waste power on a colossal scale compared to their European counterparts)."
If you covered every square meter of rooftop in LA you could offset about 15-20% of direct building load. That is roughly 70% go the total load associate with the buildings. Generous studies indicate that LA's deployable rooftop is 17%. Easiest way to look at this is - average building height in la is four stories. So for every meter of rooftop you have 5 meters of consumption. 1 m^2 of floor area is about equal to what 1 m^2 of rooftop panel can produce. So..
Solar contribution = (annual solar production per m^2 x .17) /( (annual consumption per m^2 x building stack m^2 )/.7 ) = (1 x .17) / (5 / .7) = 2%
NY is less than 1% given higher population density and poor quality of resource
Actually eu city power consumption correlates to population density just about the same as their us counterparts.Jan 8 2013: by the way totally agree with you on nano-tech and nuclear fusion. I would add small modular non-crtical (cannot melt down) nuclear fission to that list. Apart from the National Ignition Facility, these technologies have gotten a fraction of solar investment and subsidization despite their much greater promise of actually solving the problems.
Jan 8 2013: Nuclear fusion projects are funded internationally (including by the US) and take up billions, the NIF is an American project that's not very promising. ITER is a more promising ($15 billion) international project. However nuclear fusion is still decades away from being commercially available, solar power will compete with fossil fuels in most countries long before then and it's expected that ITER will teach us all we need to know about nuclear fusion, building 15 more test reactors won't really accelerate the research. Note that nuclear fusion research too has been the domain of governments, the private sector is simply not interested in investing so much in projects that might pay off 30 years later, they'd let the world go to waste before compromising on their short term profits.
Jan 8 2013: Can either of you post some references that I could use to understand what you are talking about?Jan 9 2013: What stuff do you need help with? Would be good to know specifically so I can give you appropriate references.Jan 9 2013: Thanks for responding but patience isn't one of my virtues, I've been using google to comb through the comments so far, ill probably have something to add to the discussion in a few days.Jan 9 2013: As a start
V. Smil has a primer on power density and renewables. This is his papers page. http://www.vaclavsmil.com/publications/
Energy information admin EIA is always good if you don't want to dig into their modeling the annual energy outlook just gives a clearer idea of how daunting the next 20 years are and the dominance of natural gas
More sophisticated stuff is stuff like PIK ADAM project that is quite in depth.


text:
Vacancies in schools
With over a million people, over 400 schools and 180,000 pupils Birmingham is the largest urban local authority in the UK. We're also one of the youngest, and one of the most diverse – both in the population we serve, and in the variety of our schools.
So whether you're just starting in education or looking for promotion, we'd love you to join us. It's your opportunity to make real progress in your career, and to use your skills and experience to make a real difference to young people's lives.
Searching for Teaching and Support Staff Vacancies
Use the links below to search all the latest school vacancies.
- Jobs with Birmingham City Council
Details of vacancies in all council departments including teaching and support roles. The search current vacancies link has an Occupation feature - choose between three Education options: Adult, Teaching and Non-teaching.
- eBriefing
The Teaching Jobs Bulletin and the Support Staff Jobs Bulletin are now available from eBriefing. A new edition of the Teaching Jobs Bulletin is uploaded each Monday during term time and a new edition of the Support Staff Jobs Bulletin is uploaded each Wednesday during term time. You can also follow us on twitter for links to the most recent Bulletins.
- Schools are also choosing to advertise their vacancies with WMJobs, see all current vacancies at: www.wmjobs.co.uk


text:
Search all MERLOT
Select to go to your profile
Click to expand menu where one can log in to or sign up for MERLOT
Select to go to your workspace
Select to go to your Dashboard Report
Select to go to your Content Builder
Select to log out
Search Terms
Enter username
Enter password
Please give at least one keyword of at least three characters for the search to work with. The more keywords you give, the better the search will work for you.
select OK to launch help window
cancel help
You are now going to MERLOT Help.
It will open in a new window
Don't show this message again
For optimal performance of MERLOT functionality, use IE 9 or higher, or Safari on mobile devices
Don't show this message again
Skip to Content
Log In/Sign Up
Forgot username?
Forgot password?
Remember me
Remember Me
Log In
Not a member? Sign Up Now!
Search MERLOT
My MERLOT
About MERLOT
MERLOT Communities
Create Materials with Content Builder
News & Information
Add to Collection
Search Materials
Search Members
Search Materials by ISBN
Search Other Libraries
Search Learning Exercises
Search Virtual Speakers Bureau
Browse All Materials
Browse All Members
Browse All Learning Exercises
Browse All Comments
Browse All Bookmark Collections
Browse All Course ePortfolios
Browse All Peer Reviews
Browse Virtual Speakers Bureau
View Category Index
Academic Discipline Communities
Agriculture and Environmental Sciences
Communication Sciences and Disorders
Criminal Justice
Fire Safety
Health Sciences
Information Technology
Professional Coaching
Teacher Education
Technical Allied Health
World Languages
Academic Support Communities
Faculty Development
Library and Information Services
MERLOTx - Student Learning Library
Mobile Learning
Online Courses
Partner Communities
Calif State Univ - Affordable Learning Solutions
Calif State Univ - Biotechnology
Calif State Univ - Common Core Science Standards for Math
Calif State Univ - Course Redesign w/Technology
Calif State Univ - Education Leadership
Calif State Univ - EnACT/ Universal Design for Learning
Calif State Univ - General Education and Student Engagement
Calif State Univ - ICT Literacy
Calif State Univ - Linked Learning
Calif State Univ - Math Education
Calif State Univ - Mental Health Advocacy & Promotion
Calif State Univ - Next Gen Science Standards
Calif State Univ - Noyce Scholars
Calif State Univ - Prep for Academic Life/CDIP
Calif State Univ - Rural Teaching Residency
Calif State Univ - Science Education
Calif State Univ - Student Learning Outcomes
Calif State Univ - Transforming Course Design
Calif State Univ - Transitional Kindergarten
Calif State Univ - Virtual Labs
California Open Online Library for Education
Lucknow University: Innovative and Inquiry-based Teaching
MEITAL @ MAOR - Metadata and Learning Object Repository
MERLOT Africa Network
MERLOT Center for Learning in Virtual Enviro's
MERLOT Chile
MERLOT ELXIR - Video Case Stories
NASA Lift Off
Northern Michigan Univ - Active Learning Catalysts
OER Accessibility
OER Africa
OER for Cancer
OER for Cancer in India
Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed - Affordable Learning
Open SUNY Affordable Learning Solutions
Open University of Nepal Library
Tennessee Board of Regents Affordable Learning
Univ System of Georgia Affordable Learning
MERLOT Voices
MERLOT on YouTube
Become a Partner
My MERLOT
Become a Member
Log In to MERLOT
Log In to MERLOT
Browse All Members
Become a Partner
Become a Member
Add to Collection
Submit a Material
Create Materials with Content Builder
Browse All Materials
Create Course ePortfolio
Create Materials
Create Materials with Content Builder
News & Info
What's New in MERLOT
Grapevine Newsletter
MERLOT Blog
Our Conference
MERLOT Programs and Projects
Media Center
MERLOT on Twitter
About MERLOT
Who We Are
MERLOT Collection
MERLOT Technologies
Media Center
Become a Partner
Faculty Development
Policies and Practices
Our Conference
Search MERLOT:
Advanced Search
You are now going to MERLOT Help. It will open a new window.
Virtual Speakers Bureau
Browse Path:
Browse Virtual Speakers Bureau
Academic Support Services (63)
Arts (14)
Business (56)
Education (73)
Humanities (37)
Mathematics and Statistics (6)
Science and Technology (87)
Social Sciences (21)
Workforce Development (4)
New Search:
All categories
Academic Support Services
Mathematics and Statistics
Science and Technology
Social Sciences
Workforce Development
Advanced Search
31 - 40
shown of 371 results
Sort by:
Date added
Speaker's name
Best way to contact
Fees involved
Thomas Tobin
Topics of Expertise: Universal Design for Learning, Evaluating Online Teaching, Copyright in the Academy, Academic...
Presentation Titles: Universal Design for Learning, Evaluating Online Teaching, Copyright in the Academy, Academic...
Best way to contact: email
Fees involved: negotiable
Date added: Dec 17, 2014
Barbra Bied Sperling
Topics of Expertise: Usability; software design
Presentation Titles: MERLOT 101; Hands on experience with MERLOT
Best way to contact: email
Fees involved: negotiable
Date added: Dec 14, 2014
Carole Comarcho
Topics of Expertise: Faculty Development - Flipped Classroom Student Success Strategies
Presentation Titles: 2014: "Flipping the Script - Moving from Teaching-Centered to Learning-Centered Classrooms." 25th...
Best way to contact: email
Fees involved: negotiable
Date added: Jul 15, 2014
Sara Simmons
Topics of Expertise: Standards-Based Instructional Design, Differentiated Instruction, Responsive Teaching, Formative...
Presentation Titles: Illustrative examples: Teaching for I.M.P.A.C.T. Model (for standards-aligned instructional design),...
Best way to contact: email
Fees involved: negotiable
Date added: Jun 01, 2014
Maryann DiEdwardo
Topics of Expertise: Areas of Expertise: Publishing Writing Authorship Writing Coach Research Distance...
Presentation Titles: "Creative Journaling As the Basis for Writing the Short Story and Methodology for Creating Paradigms...
Best way to contact: email
Fees involved: negotiable
Date added: Jan 02, 2014
Benjamin Klatt
Topics of Expertise: Human Resources Training and Assessment Industrial Relations RPL Auditing
Presentation Titles: Train the Untrainable L&D Mining and Learning Frontline Management Employee Attitude not...
Best way to contact: email
Fees involved: negotiable
Date added: Sep 20, 2013
Brett Bixler
Topics of Expertise: Learning Design, Educational Gaming, Gamification, Digital Badging
Presentation Titles: 20+ Ways to Gamify Your Course, Badges? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!
Best way to contact: email
Fees involved: negotiable
Date added: Sep 10, 2013
rafael macario
Topics of Expertise: classroom management,use of games and dynamic activities in a class,planning
Presentation Titles: 1.-use of realia in a ESL classroom. 2.-icebreakers ,games and more. 3.-how to evaluate effective...
Best way to contact: email
Fees involved: negotiable
Date added: Aug 05, 2013
Nemuel Fajutagana
Topics of Expertise: Health Professions Education
Best way to contact: email
Fees involved: negotiable
Date added: Jul 15, 2013
Arthur Finkle
Topics of Expertise: Political Science, History, Religion, Mediation, Government, Administration (Business and...
Presentation Titles: How Government Works So You Thought You Knew Other Religions Facts and myths of American...
Best way to contact: email
Fees involved: negotiable
Date added: Jul 13, 2013
Results page 4 of 38
Jump to page
Search community
Search VSB members
Sort members by


text:
INTERVIEW: Building Science Pioneer Dr. Joe Lstiburek on the Good, Bad and Ugly Side of Buildings
The term 'building science' is used quite often now in sustainable building circles, but much of what we understand of it can be traced back to the work of Dr. Joe Lstiburek, founder of Building Science Corporation. He is anything but your typical engineer or scientist who spends time crunching numbers or hiding away in a lab. Lstiburek has spent most of his career out in the field, testing and examining what works and what doesn't. Many of the building standards today — from building codes to ASHRE to testing methodology — have his finger prints all over them, and his tough love criticism of building design is undercut with his wry humor and, of course, an encyclopedic knowledge of building construction. Read on to learn where buildings go wrong and what we can do about it.
Inhabitat: What does building science really mean? Did it not exist 50 years ago?
Joe Lstiburek: Well, it always existed. It's really the technical side of architecture that architects gave up. If architects did their job there wouldn't be any need for building science. You know, I'm flabbergasted by the architectural profession giving up control of such a profitable part of the industry, which is the interaction of the building enclosure with the climate and the people and the mechanical system.
You know, this occurred because of the change in the focus on the education of the architects, the school. They're focused – they're trained in art. They're not trained in physics and material science to actually execute their designs.
Back in the day, 100 years ago, or maybe 50 years ago in Europe, architects were trained like master builders. They understood structure. They understood mechanical. They understood physics. They understood material science. They understood how everything worked together. The focus now on the architectural education is all art and what's missing are all of those other pieces — one of those missing pieces is building science or building physics.
Inhabitat: Do they feel like it's not their problem? Such as how a building envelope will necessarily function in the real world — that if it's down on paper and it's been done before, then that's okay?
Joe Lstiburek: I can't speak for the architectural community, although I often try to – that is I think the arrogance of the profession drives me crazy. I think they feel it's beneath their dignity to worry about these little, minor problems, like how to keep the rain out of the building, how to keep the air in and the air out. Let somebody else worry about that. I'm here to make an uplifting building to society to basically send a message about how this building is going to make this place a better place to live, and the people that live and work in it are better people. That's what my mission is. This other stuff somebody else will worry about.
Inhabitat: So how do you get them excited about building science again?
Joe Lstiburek: Well, I don't. What happens is the legal profession does that for us. The most effective technology transfer in the world is a lawsuit. They never call us when things are going well. They call us, "Oh, my God! We're getting our ass sued because this problem occurred."
Related Posts
7 Comments
April 1, 2013 at 3:11 pm
So after some reflection and thought, I\\\'m coming around to the passiv house standard, especially for larger commercial buildings — 15 kWh/sf/yr for cooling and heating and 0.6 ACH50 air tightness. The City of Brussels has jsut adopted this standard as their building code starting 2015. Elegant and simple. Figured out after sponsoring a several year award program in which real architects built real buildings to meet this standard and now they have 6 million sf of commercial space built to the standard and everyone has figured it out and there you go (I\\\'m channeling my inner Joe here). I thing this rant is important because we\\\'re spending an amazing amount of time (and money) in California tyring to incorporate net zero energy into the upcoming Title-24 buiilding energy code. Well, there it is…. or close to it. Like Joe saids, no need for software (except to figure out the initial models, like how much glass you can put on a building, orient it and shade it. Build it and measure it. end of story. The hard part will be getting designers to design.
Read Inhabitat
Search Categories
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Browse by Keyword