Group items tagged

from Andrés (don't ask my why he is not putting it directly on diigo ....) quite an old issue, though still of high actuality ... and a nice summary in my view ...

Biologists have long wondered how our organs all grow at the same rate. Now theoretical physicists think they've found a clue in the special way sandpiles grow

looks like the first "killer app" for 3D printers I am aware of ... highly useful and solving humanities most pressing problems as expected

We begin at the beginning, with the Fundamental Theorem: New systems mean new problems.

Interesting discussion is going about, on how work anxiety is spreading in academia, with possible mental consequences. And with robust links to the "Doing What You Love" motto of life/work. Could be proven an unsustainable model though. Recalling of Higgs' recent declaration, that today's Academia productivity demands would be hectic for him, could point to the direction of the problem and the solution...?

Redshift in this model is partially produced by a change in the masses of elementary particles (and atoms)

It should not be impossible to verify a change in mass(es) over time. For example the electron cyclotron frequency scales ~e/m while the Hydrogen emission frequencies scale with ~m*e^4. Using multiple relationships like that which can be easily and accurately measured an increase in the mass of fundamental particles should - in principle - be detectable (even if the mass of the earth increases at the same time changing the relativistic reference frame).

The Watt balance and a definition using the Planck's constant seems to do the trick and is currently being discussed. Would the electron charge not be problematic as it is related to Coulombs which depends on Amperes which is defined by Newtons which hence depends back on the mass again?

Another underestimated source of CO2, are turbulent waters. "The stronger the turbulences at the water's surface, the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The combination of maps and data revealed that, while the CO2 emissions from lakes and reservoirs are lower than assumed, those from rivers and streams are three times as high as previously believed." Alltogether the emitted CO2 equates to roughly one-fifth of the emissions caused by humans. Yet more stuff to model...

Nasia, I thought about your statement carefully - and I cannot agree with you. Water is not a greenhouse gas. It is instead a liquid. Also, I can't believe you keep feeding the troll! :-P But on a more topical note: I think it is an over-simplification to call water a greenhouse gas - water is one of the most important mechanisms in the way Earth handles heat input from the sun. The latent heat that you mention actually cools Earth: solar energy that would otherwise heat Earth's surface is ABSORBED as latent heat by water which consequently evaporates - the same water condenses into rain drops at high altitudes and releases this stored heat. In effect the water cycle is a mechanism of heat transport from low altitude to high altitude where the chance of infrared radiation escaping into space is much higher due to the much thinner layer of atmosphere above (including the smaller abundance of greenhouse gasses). Also, as I know you are well aware, the cloud cover that results from water condensation in the troposphere dramatically increases albedo which has a cooling effect on climate. Furthermore the heat capacity of wet air ("humid heat") is much larger than that of dry air - so any advective heat transfer due to air currents is more efficient in wet air - transporting heat from warm areas to a natural heat sink e.g. polar regions. Of course there are also climate heating effects of water like the absorption of IR radiation. But I stand by my statement (as defended in the above) that rain cools the atmosphere. Oh and also some nice reading material on the complexities related to climate feedback due to sea surface temperature: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006%3C2049%3ALSEOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2

I enjoy trolling conversations when there is a gain for both sides at the end :-) . I had to check upon some of the facts in order to explain my self properly. The IPCC report states the greenhouse gases here, and water vapour is included: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html Honestly, I read only the abstract of the article you posted, which is a very interesting hypothesis on the mechanism of regulating sea surface temperature, but it is very localized to the tropics (vivid convection, storms) a region of which I have very little expertise, and is difficult to study because it has non-hydrostatic dynamics. The only thing I can comment there is that the authors define constant relative humidity for the bottom layer, supplied by the oceanic surface, which limits the implementation of the concept on other earth regions. Also, we may confuse during the conversation the greenhouse gas with the Radiative Forcing of each greenhouse gas: I see your point of the latent heat trapped in the water vapour, and I agree, but the effect of the water is that it traps even as latent heat an amount of LR that would otherwise escape back to space. That is the greenhouse gas identity and an image to see the absorption bands in the atmosphere and how important the water is, without vain authority-based arguments that miss the explanation in the end: http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.solarchords.com/uploaded/82/87-33833-450015_44absorbspec.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.solarchords.com/agw-science/4/greenhouse--1-radiation/33784/&h=468&w=458&sz=28&tbnid=x2NtfKh5OPM7lM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=96&zoom=1&usg=__KldteWbV19nVPbbsC4jsOgzCK6E=&docid=cMRZ9f22jbtYPM&sa=X&ei=SwynUq2TMqiS0QXVq4C4Aw&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAw

birds in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl are adapting to -- and may even be benefiting from -- long-term exposure to radiation, ecologists have found. The study, published in the British Ecological Society's journal Functional Ecology, is the first evidence that wild animals adapt to ionizing radiation, and the first to show that birds which produce most pheomelanin, a pigment in feathers, have greatest problems coping with radiation exposure.

But is it random..?

How useful space technology can be for real scientific problems.

outcome of a brainstorming, or an example of thinking out of the box ... :)

should we try to help them :-) ?

we should propose fractionned servers with CubeSats ...

A nice blog post about a recent Nature paper highlighting the problems of scientific software.

Be careful, the article is written by the company who did the migration to Ubuntu. Here is a comment by a police guy from IT (in french...). In brief he says that tyhe migration was not a problem for most of the people; exepc for some probleme with access. But it did cost money ! and the saving was not the main argument. "Personnellement concerné par la news qui n'en est pas une, je peux vous assurer que le message de Canonical est surtout commercial... Le choix d'Ubuntu est dû à son hégémonie et le fait que ce soit basé sur du Debian qui est considéré comme très stable. La distrib est d'une maintenance plus aisée que la plupart de celles qui ont été testées. "4500 postes" veut dire "4500 unités de gendarmerie" donc dans les brigades que vous connaissez... Pour ce qui est d'OpenOffice, le passage s'est fait assez tranquillement sauf pour les applis Access qui ont eu un peu de mal à passer sur le module Base...La plupart ont été reprise au sein d'applis php/mysql ou d'applis centralisées... Aujourd'hui, les gendarmes qui je le rappelle ne sont pas informaticiens mais vivent pour vous (au sens le plus strict je vous l'assure) utilisent donc firefox/thunderbird et oppenoffice en clients lourds, le reste étant des applis sur l'intranet ou "invisibles" pour l'utilisateur. Le passage à Ubuntu ne gène en rien dans l'utilisation car le trio précédemment cité est déjà connu et maîtrisé par nombre de mes collègues. Je ne suis pas censé m'exprimer en lieu et place de mes supérieurs mais à titre personnel, le choix d'Ubuntu est un choix intelligent car c'est une distribution avec une prise en main très accessible et avec une maintenance vraiment aisée pour les spécialistes informatiques dont je fais partie...Il ne faut pas oublier qu'une distribution plus élitiste aurait été maîtrisée par moins de monde et donc la maintenance aurait été plus coûteuse... Donc aujourd'hui nous "maîtrisons" cette part de notre infrastructure et la trans

Lotus Notes doesn't run on Linux anyway...

Interesting... however to me it looks like they have only shifted the problem... instead of looking for WIMPS now we look for X and Y and Phi...

The usefulness of having a robust trajectory :) ... They have to wait 6 more years for another date with Venus ...

"optimised trajectory" of course not, robust definitely! It was the subject of my paper presented at the AAS (the one in San Diego) "Designing robust interplanetary trajectories subject to one temporary engine failure". The problem here is that they do not have enough fuel for a correction maneuver that would allow to come back to Venus earlier, and break for a VOI. A robust scenario could have alloted the best amount of fuel and time to be able to recover from almost all possible unplanned events. In the paper, I introduce some confidence regions such that I get the robust control for p% chance of mission success in case m% chance of problem with the propulsion system.

You should run your method on this scenario and see if you could get a trajectory with a shorter come back time using the same spacecraft.... would be a big selling point for a new trajectory design approach

"At a symposium at the Dutch Spinoza-instituut on 8 December, 2009, string theorist Erik Verlinde introduced a theory that derives Newton's classical mechanics. In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality. A relativistic extension of his argument leads directly to Einstein's equations."

Leo, do you mean you liked my comment on your question more than Pacome's? Well, the ACT has to evolve and fledge, so no bullshitting anymore, but serious and calculating answers... :-) Sorry Pacome, nothing against you!! I just LOVE this Diigo because it gives me the opportunity for a happy revival of my ACT mood.

haha, today would have been great to show your mood... we had a talk on the connection between mind and matter !!

another of those articles...

i guess when it says about the very best engineers tackling the problem as we speak, it refers to our brainstorms. How did they find out?

what a shame! ambition and innovation have not been fairly rewarded ...

I didn't have time yet. But formulating the failure with a MTBF or a FIT, you can easily imagine a more robust solution. Instead of one single burn, you would make several smaller burns - It will take more time and require more fuel though. Another "robust" approach is to consider weak stability boundary capture. Again it takes time, but chances of failure are lessen.

would be a pity indeed!