I call thermal imaging since they only fly at night when it's clear-If they are flying these nightly perhaps the they are scanning for variations??

Obviously swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a thermal pocket and reflecting the light from Venus.

I wonder what the explanation is though. You know, apart from "Aliens.".

In certain cases, this would cause an energy drain rather than boost. Infrared light is pretty much the electromagnetic form of radiant heat (thermal radiation). In many places in the world, it is usually the times of cold that more energy is used; as the heat deltas of a cold winter are much greater than the heat delta of a hot summer. So, heat from the sun, as sparse as it is in the winter, is still radiating into your house. Blocking it, and turning it into electrical energy, then turning that back into heat energy is most surely a loosing proposition. Depending on the needs of the user, this might inflict a greater cost than cost savings. So while there are times that blocking thermal radiation and turning into electrical energy would be of worth, it is a regional issue that has a lot to do with local climate swings and average annual temperature; the colder the average temperature, the more of a waste this could be.

It is probably a near perfect mirror from this liquid mecury.

The big problems with liquids for telescope surfaces are -

1) gravity - the mirrors can only point straight up

2) the thermal coefficient of expansion for liquids is huge, as temps change, liquid components are dimensionally unstable

I suspect what you see is the state of the art for liquid mirrors and you shouldn't expect to see much more in our lifetimes.

>> ^CreamK:

You deny their entrance. They have now sufficient proof that a crime is being committed right now since you refused a look-around (it's defined in the law, they can enter but not touch anything, can't open doors or drawers etc.) and the previous six months minimum limit is thrown out of the window...


The "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind being searched" people you refer to don't understand how the state/cops/browncoats/whatever can abuse that law. They don't understand that even though they are law-abiding citizens, they can still be victimized/harrassed by police. I don't trust cops AT ALL. They are revenue-raising, lying pieces of shit as far as I'm concerned, and the last thing I would agree to is a voluntary search of me, my car, or my home, whether I have something to hide or not. Here, we can refuse searches, unless they have a warrant.

Here's a case where cops right here in Oregon were using thermal imaging to detect homes that had heat signatures that indicated pot growing. Went all the way to the Supreme Court. Even though the police didn't enter the home, the action was considered an unreasonable search, and therefore unconstitutional. Scalia actually got one right.

>> ^charliem:

Whats its application?


Many new reactors are experimenting with new fuel types. This has a higher fissile density because of the structure, so you can pack more fuel into a given space, it also has better thermal transfer and less susceptible to radiation damage that traditional uranium oxide. Hyperion Power Generation plans to use a uranium nitride compound in their Gen4 reactor. Gen4 reactors are a whole new breed of reactor, the infusion of modern computer modeling and materials development. While we still have a shitty regulatory system in the US as to not allow newer safer reactors to come online here, they will be launching in places like China, the UAE, and Korea in the future. America is poised to fall behind in the technology it invented, as it has with many other areas that aren't wall street or the technology sector.

>> ^criticalthud:

2. mostly unrealistic. america is #1 energy hog and neither technology advancements nor more drilling here will solve that or feed that gluttonous thirst. we are dependent on foreign energy, which is partly why we have 450 military bases around the world. We need to reduce need, and to do that, we need to re-examine our role in the world as pure consumers.

Well said. There are number of things that would reduce the power consumption right away. Refine the stupid pollution control that favors higher consumption in vehicles (lower consumption = more pollution per gallon when it should be mileage vs pollution.. now you can make a car that goes 10MPG but "pollutes" less), invest in public transport, invest in renewal sources.. You got huge amounts of land empty that could be used for solar farming, long coastlines to harvest wave energy, enough thermal activity to take energy from there (allthou thinking that USA is drilling to the core frightens me, you people have never been could at moderation...).

It seems to be that the thinking goes: This (particular) renewable source is not enough so we don't do it at all. But step by step, it would start to play a major part in the big picture. And there's endless supplies of solar energy, 250 W/m2 in average taking cloud cover and sun angle in to account.

>> ^Kalle:

One serious question that bothers me is.. why isnt it possible to use gravity as an energy source?
Would such a machine be a perpetual motion machine?


Gravity is REALLY weak. Like 36 orders of magnitude less than the electromagnetic force. 36 orders of magnitude is massive...larger the the total number of stars in the known universe. For instance, a fridge magnet is defeating the ENTIRE gravitational force of the earth AND the sun. Gravity makes for a great way to bind the macro-universe together, but it is shit as an energy source.

Also, gravity has only one polarity...and it doesn't turn off. So for the EM force, we have 2 poles that can be switched around via electrical current to make lots of different energy related things. But for gravity, you just have one ground state, and once you are there you need to input energy to get away from that ground state...no way around that. However, what has been done and is done in certain areas is to have a closed system where you apply energy at certain time and store that energy for later. The example most commonly used is in dams, where the will pump a large volume of water back up stream (potential energy) and store it (a gravity battery if you will) and release it as a later time when demand is high. This is always a loss based way to make energy; your going to spend more pumping it back up (heat loss and other losses including evaporation) than you will when you get it back...so it is just a way to cause demand shifting towards other hours with additional entropy.

You have 4 fundamental forces to draw energy from; and 3 of those are the only practical ones. Strong (nuclear) force, the EM force, and the gravitational force (the weak force is actually the force that powers the earths core, but isn't useful to use in power generation for a similar reason gravity isn't).

The EM force is what we use in internal combustion engines and electrical motors. Chemical reactions are rearrangements of the electron structures of molecules, which makes gasoline engines possible via liquid to gas expansion pressures. Generators deal with EM fields, polarity and current which is what drives thermal reactors like coal or can drive a car with a motor via conversation of stored electrical energy(just a backwards generator). Nuclear reactors deal with the strong (nuclear) force, and combine that with kinetic/thermodynamic forces of same flavor as coal and other thermal plants.

Even gravity isn't perpetual, the orbits of ALL celestial bodies are unstable. Gravity is thought and reasonably well satisfied to travel in waves. These waves cause turbulence in what would seem calm orbits, slowly breaking them down over time...drawing them closer and closer together. Eventually, all orbits will cause ejection or collision.


As to what energy is best, I personally believe in the power of the strong force, as does the sun . When you are talking about the 4 forces and their ability to make energy for us, the strong force is 6 orders of magnitude greater than other chemical reactions we can make. The EM force is not to much weaker than the strong force, but the practical application of chemical reactions limits us to the electron cloud, making fuels for chemical reactions less energetic by a million to a billion times vs strong force fuels. Now, only fission has been shown to work for energy production currently, but I doubt that will be true forever. If you want LOTS of energy without much waste, you want strong force energy, period. That and the weak force are the 2 prime movers of sustained life on this planet. While the chemistry is what is hard at work DOING life, the strong and weak force provide the energy to sustain that chemistry. Without it, there are no winds, there is no heat in the sky nor from the core, no EM shield from that core. Just a cold, lifeless hunk of metals and gases floating in the weak gravitational force.

Sorry for the rant, energy is my most favorite current subject



(edit, corrected some typos and bad grammar)

This is me in the bathroom whipping my hair taken with an L3 Thermal-Eye X200XP Thermal Imaging Infrared Camera (Y'all should getcha one a these babies!).... Check that aura, Dora.

I was told it was because air is a good thermal insulator, so the hairs stand up to have more air trapped around them and provide additional thermal insulation for the skin. That would explain goosebumps in response to cold.

Interesting, but I really dislike the Drake equation. First, it doesn't really tell you anything; so many of the "variables" are unknown, arguably un-knowable, or overly broad generalizations that it makes the whole thing rather pointless. There is nothing mathematically intelligent about it. When so many of the factors are things that we can't even really take an honest guess at, you might as well say "N = N". Instead, it tries to work backwards and just overly complicates the whole mess.

Second, a whole bunch of it is based on things that are, in my opinion, false premises. In fact, you could provide reasonably solid arguments against the relevance of every single factor/variable.

Take the first 3: how many stars are there, how many have planets, and what percentage of those planets are habitable. Why must life come from planets? We've discovered life on Earth in thermal vents with temperatures in multiple hundreds of degrees C, frozen layers well below zero C, places with no light, oxygen, etc. etc. Who's to say that other things that are recognizably alive couldn't exist in other environments that seem "extreme" to us, outside of a planetary setting?

fl, fi, and fc are all things that would require us to exhaustively search every single planet in the galaxy, not just across space but across time as well, to really "know". If we could do that, then we could just give a direct answer for N to begin with. Seems pointless.

Safe nuclear refers to many different new gen4 reactor units that rely on passive safety instead of engineered safety. The real difference comes with a slight bit of understanding of how nuclear tech works now, and why that isn't optimal.

Let us first consider this, even with current nuclear technology, the amount of people that have died as a direct and indirect result of nuclear is very low per unit energy produced. The only rival is big hydro, even wind and solar have a great deal of risk compared to nuclear as we do it and have done it for years. The main difference is when a nuclear plant fails, everyone hears about it...but when a oil pipeline explodes and kills dozens, or solar panel installers fall off a roof or get electrocuted and dies...it just isn't as interesting.

Pound per pound nuclear is already statistically very safe, but that isn't really what we are talking about, we are talking about what makes them more unsafe compared to new nuclear techs. Well, that has to do with how normal nukes work. So, firstly, normal reactor tech uses solid fuel rods. It isn't a "metal" either, it is uranium dioxide, has the same physical characteristics as ceramic pots you buy in a store. When the fuel fissions, the uranium is transmuted into other, lighter, elements some of which are gases. Over time, these non-fissile elements damage the fuel rod to the point where it can no longer sustain fission and need to be replaced. At this point, they have only burned about 4% of the uranium content, but they are all "used up". So while there are some highly radioactive fission products contained in the fuel rods, the vast majority is just normal uranium, and that isn't very radioactive (you could eat it and not really suffer any radiation effects, now chemical toxicity is a different matter). The vast majority of nuclear waste, as a result of this way of burning uranium, generates huge volumes of waste products that aren't really waste products, just normal uranium.

But this isn't what makes light water reactors unsafe compared to other designs. It is all about the water. Normal reactors use water to both cool the core, extract the heat, and moderate the neutrons to sustain the fission reaction. Water boils at 100c which is far to low a temperature to run a thermal reactor on, you need much higher temps to get power. As a result, nuclear reactors use highly pressurized water to keep it liquid. The pressure is an amazingly high 2200psi or so! This is where the real problem comes in. If pressure is lost catastrophically, the chance to release radioactivity into the environment increases. This is further complicated by the lack of water then cooling the core. Without water, the fission chain reaction that generates the main source of heat in the reactor shuts down, however, the radioactive fission products contained in the fuel rods are very unstable and generate lots of heat. So much heat over time, they end up causing the rods to melt if they aren't supplied with water. This is the "melt down" you always hear about. If you start then spraying water on them after they melt down, it caries away some of those highly radioactive fission products with the steam. This is what happened in Chernobyl, there was also a human element that overdid all their safety equipment, but that just goes to show you the worst case.

The same thing didn't happen in Fukushima. What happened in Fukushima is that coolant was lost to the core and they started to melt down. The tubes which contain the uranium are made from zirconium. At high temps, water and zirconium react to form hydrogen gas. Now modern reactor buildings are designed to trap gases, usually steam, in the event of a reactor breach. In the case of hydrogen, that gas builds up till a spark of some kind happens and causes an explosion. These are the explosions that occurred at Fukushima. Both of the major failures and dangers of current reactors deal with the high pressure water; but water isn't needed to make a reactor run, just this type of reactor.

The fact that reactors have radioactive materials in them isn't really unsafe itself. What is unsafe is reactor designs that create a pressure to push that radioactivity into other areas. A electroplating plant, for example, uses concentrated acids along with high voltage electricity in their fabrication processes. It "sounds" dangerous, and it is in a certain sense, but it is a manageable danger that will most likely only have very localized effects in the event of a catastrophic event. This is due mainly to the fact that there are no forces driving those toxic chemical elements into the surrounding areas...they are just acid baths. The same goes for nuclear materials, they aren't more or less dangerus than gasoline (gas go boom!), if handled properly.

I think one of the best reactor designs in terms of both safety and efficiency are the molten salt reactors. They don't use water as a coolant, and as a result operate at normal preasures. The fuel and coolant is a liquid lithium, fluoride, and beryllium salt instead of water, and the initial fuel is thorium instead of uranium. Since it is a liquid instead of a solid, you can do all sorts of neat things with it, most notably, in case of an emergency, you can just dump all the fuel into a storage tank that is passively cooled then pump it back to the reactor once the issue is resolved. It is a safety feature that doesn't require much engineering, you are just using the ever constant force of gravity. This is what is known as passive safety, it isn't something you have to do, it is something that happens automatically. So in many cases, what they designed is a freeze plug that is being cooled. If that fails for any reason, and you desire a shutdown, the freeze plug melts and the entire contents of the reactor are drained into the tanks and fission stops (fission needs a certain geometry to happen).

So while the reactor will still be as dangerous as any other industrial machine would be...like a blast furnace, it wouldn't pose any threat to the surrounding area. This is boosted by the fact that even if you lost containment AND you had a ruptured emergency storage tank, these liquid salts solidify at temps below 400c, so while they are liquid in the reactor, they quickly solidify outside of it. And another great benefit is they are remarkably stable. Air and water don't really leach anything from them, fluoride and lithium are just so happy binding with things, they don't let go!

The fuel burn up is also really great. You burn up 90% of what you put in, and if you try hard, you can burn up to 99%. So, comparing them to "clean coal" doesn't really give new reactor tech its fair shake. The tech we use was actually sort of denounced by the person who made them, Alvin Weinberg, and he advocated the molten salt reactor instead. I could babble on about this for ages, but I think Kirk Sorensen explains that better than I could...hell most likely the bulk of what I said is said better by him



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

But the real question is why. Why use nuclear and not solar, for instance?

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

This is the answer. The power of the atom is a MILLION times more dense that fossil fuels...a million! It is a number that is beyond what we can normal grasp as people. Right now, current reactors harness less that 1% of that power because of their reactor design and fuel choice.

And unfortunately, renewables just cost to darn much for how much energy they contribute. In that, they also use WAY more resources to make per unit energy produced. So wind, for example, uses 10x more steal per unit energy contributed than other technologies. It is because renewables is more like energy farming.

http://videosift.com/video/TEDxWarwick-Physics-Constrain-Sustainable-Energy-Options


This is a really great video on that maths behind what makes renewables less than attractive for many countries. But to rap it up, finally, the real benefit is that cheap, clean power is what helps makes nations great. There is an inexorable link with access to energy and financial well being. Poor nations burn coal to try and bridge that gap, but that has a huge health toll. Renewables are way to costly for them per unit energy, they really need other answers. New nuclear could be just that, because it can be made nearly completely safe, very cheap to operate, and easier to manufacture (this means very cheap compared to today's reactors as they are basically huge pressure vessels). If you watch a couple of videos from Kirk and have more questions or problems, let me know, as you can see, I love talking about this stuff Sorry if I gabbed your ear off, but this is the stuff I am going back to school for because I do believe it will change the world. It is the closest thing to free energy we are going to get in the next 20 years.

In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
Just stumbled onto your profile page and noticed an exchange you had with dag a few months back.
What constitutes "safe nuclear"? Is that a specific type or category of nuclear power?
Without context (which I'm sure I could obtain elsewise with a simple Google search, but I'd rather just ask), it sounds like "clean coal".

This is MY thermal!

I've burnt up a few computers - releasing the magic smoke, as they say. Computers tend to run quite hot, and even a few minutes with a faulty fan can do it, particularly in essential components with less heat-sink like the southbridge. But, like @swedishfriend said, there's no reason it should light on fire like that.
>> ^longde:

Interesting. I've heard of batteries combusting, and CPU packaging melting, but never heard of combustion of a CPU or its packaging. How would this happen? What material in the packaging would be susceptible to becoming inflamed?
Also, I know some CPUs have thermal sensors built in to "lock up" at a particular temperature (at least some Intel CPUs). Why wouldn't these kick in? >> ^swedishfriend:
CPUs do combust. It happens all the time. Don't know why there would be more than some smoke though as it wouldn't be surrounded by many materials that would fuel a fire like that. Reading malformed data may cause a system to malfunction which may leave it open for someone to attack it but as stated before there is no reason the data on its own would be executed as a program. Pretty dumb overall. Is this from a spoof type show, I didn't recognize it at all.

Interesting. I've heard of batteries combusting, and CPU packaging melting, but never heard of combustion of a CPU or its packaging. How would this happen? What material in the packaging would be susceptible to becoming inflamed?

Also, I know some CPUs have thermal sensors built in to "lock up" at a particular temperature (at least some Intel CPUs). Why wouldn't these kick in? >> ^swedishfriend:

CPUs do combust. It happens all the time. Don't know why there would be more than some smoke though as it wouldn't be surrounded by many materials that would fuel a fire like that. Reading malformed data may cause a system to malfunction which may leave it open for someone to attack it but as stated before there is no reason the data on its own would be executed as a program. Pretty dumb overall. Is this from a spoof type show, I didn't recognize it at all.