"John LeBlanc" wrote in message ...
"BESTnewEnglandDJ" wrote in message
...
i saw this mind blowing program on PBS lastnight. about this power plant
being
built in the US . they are using lasers to make electricity. (as simple as
i
can put it) this whole project is soooooo cool. here is their link.

http://www.llnl.gov/nif/nif.html


I can't read about high power lasers without thinking of the motion picture
"Real Genius."

John

undoubtedly Val Kilmer's best film...no joke!

"your mom puts license plates in your underwear? how do you sit down?"

In article writes:

i saw this mind blowing program on PBS lastnight. about this power plant being
built in the US . they are using lasers to make electricity.

And what are they using to power the lasers?

I always thought that electric cars were rather silly. You have to use
energy to make electricity to charge the batteries, and surely that
can't be as efficient as converting chemical energy directly to
mechanical energy. But the quiet is nice.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

i saw this mind blowing program on PBS lastnight. about this power plant
being built in the US . they are using lasers to make electricity.

And what are they using to power the lasers?

It's the national ignition facility, a laser driven inertial fusion effort,
basically what you do is use *HUGE* lasers to ablate the outer layers of
a pellet of deterium/tritium mix. The compression wave compresses and heats
the hydrogen isotopes until fusion occurs and hopefully sufficient energy is
released to power the plant with some left over. This plant is a RESEARCH
machine, it is not a practical power generator. I hold out more hope for the
new Tokamak that is being discussed (Major sticking point is which country
it is going to be built in..... Grumble).

D/T fusion is not aneutronic and running this thing will make the
containment vessel and its surroundings rather radioactive in time as
the neutron flux activates things. Not a big problem from an engineering
perspective, but knowing the lunatic green fringe......

I always thought that electric cars were rather silly. You have to use
energy to make electricity to charge the batteries, and surely that
can't be as efficient as converting chemical energy directly to
mechanical energy. But the quiet is nice.

Agreed, Hybrids on the other hand make a great deal of sense.

Regards, Dan.
--
** The email address *IS* valid, do NOT remove the spamblock
And on the evening of the first day the lord said...........
..... LX 1, GO!; and there was light.

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On 11 Jul 2003 08:43:51 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

I always thought that electric cars were rather silly. You have to use
energy to make electricity to charge the batteries, and surely that
can't be as efficient as converting chemical energy directly to
mechanical energy. But the quiet is nice.

Another funny one is alcohol for auto fuel, where the amount
of petroleum used to grow the corn is greater than the
amount saved in the autos.

Isn't there a possibility, at least, of bootstrapping here
or is the petrol involved in corn to ethanol production all
about fertilization and pesticides?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:50:12 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Isn't there a possibility, at least, of bootstrapping here
or is the petrol involved in corn to ethanol production all
about fertilization and pesticides?

Both, probably.

Another modern craziness is hamburgers, which are made
from petroleum, fertilizer, and antibiotics. Corn and
cattle are in there somewhere in between, I think.

For the first decade or so, nuclear electricity generation
had a net loss energy output, counting uranium mining
and processing.

What's it all for, eh? What's it all for?


Chris Hornbeck,
guyville{at}aristotle{dot}net
question Authority

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Another modern craziness is hamburgers, which are made
from petroleum, fertilizer, and antibiotics. Corn and
cattle are in there somewhere in between, I think.


? I thought it was chopped up cow. Seems about the same to me as it has
for the last 40 + years I've been around. Except for the price, of course..

Bob Cain wrote:

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On 11 Jul 2003 08:43:51 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

I always thought that electric cars were rather silly. You have to use
energy to make electricity to charge the batteries, and surely that
can't be as efficient as converting chemical energy directly to
mechanical energy. But the quiet is nice.

Another funny one is alcohol for auto fuel, where the amount
of petroleum used to grow the corn is greater than the
amount saved in the autos.

Isn't there a possibility, at least, of bootstrapping here
or is the petrol involved in corn to ethanol production all
about fertilization and pesticides?


The oil used in agriculture is principally for
fertilization. The prairie in the US is marginally a big
clay sponge, and it's only good for growing buffalo without
significant fertilizer input.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein


--
Les Cargill

Chris Hornbeck wrote:


Modern cattle farming is an industrial process. Cattle
are fed corn to speed the assembly line, and antibiotics
to keep them alive with this horrible diet.

But does that change the end product? Still tastes good and people are
living longer than ever, so it seems to be ok for you.

Pigs and chickens have it much worse, though. Oh well.

One of lifes cruel realities. Sure glad I'm not a pig.

Rob Adelman wrote in message ...
Chris Hornbeck wrote:


Modern cattle farming is an industrial process. Cattle
are fed corn to speed the assembly line, and antibiotics
to keep them alive with this horrible diet.

But does that change the end product? Still tastes good and people are
living longer than ever, so it seems to be ok for you.

according to a lot of scientists it does. apparently the amount of
growth hormones they pump into these cows is doesn't just disappear
from the meat when we consume it. the big one with this is that
supposedly it's causing young girls (primarily in america) to mature
physically more quickly than in even the recent past (think mere
decades).

i think the principle here is to imagine what it would do to you to if
you were to make hamburgers out of Mark McGuire.

it is a pretty important thing to consider what is being done to and
fed to these animals. not just for the sake of being humanitarian, but
for selfish health reasons...i mean, farmers figured that feeding cow
to other cows didn't affect the taste and life expectancies were
higher than ever! unless you got mad cow disease...

i think that our longer lifespans are mostly attributed to improved
medical technology. although i could be wrong. certainly the chemicals
that they pump our food with are 'good' to an extent. generally keeps
it from containg deadly bacteria and tapeworms and what not, but i
think when i die my body is going to be like a Twinkie in a
landfill...preserved for all time from all the...well, preservatives
i've ingested.

Bob Cain wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

The oil used in agriculture is principally for
fertilization.

Isn't that primarily for energy though rather than raw
materials? Fertilizers are inorganic.

I'm not sure of the details, but I've been told often
that petroleum is used in the production of
fertilizers.

Ammonia is pseudo organic - it's highly related to
natural processes, and I beleive that's the main
sort of root molecule in a lot of fertilizers.

If so then the
ethanol produced could replace the oil. I've often heard
that ethanol production and usage doesn't really displace
much oil consumption but have always wondered how much of
the oil used could be replaced by the ethanol itself (or if
it was, whether there would be any net ethanol coming out of
the spigot.)


You still have to heat the mash during distilling to
get ethanol concentrated enough to burn.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein


--
Les Cargill

Rob Adelman wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Modern cattle farming is an industrial process. Cattle
are fed corn to speed the assembly line, and antibiotics
to keep them alive with this horrible diet.

But does that change the end product? Still tastes good and people are
living longer than ever, so it seems to be ok for you.

I don't know if it is any better or worse for you, but it sure tastes
radically different than free range beef.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bob Cain wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The oil used in agriculture is principally for
fertilization.

Isn't that primarily for energy though rather than raw
materials? Fertilizers are inorganic. If so then the
ethanol produced could replace the oil. I've often heard
that ethanol production and usage doesn't really displace
much oil consumption but have always wondered how much of
the oil used could be replaced by the ethanol itself (or if
it was, whether there would be any net ethanol coming out of
the spigot.)

An awful lot of that petroleum is used in fixing nitrogen from
the air to produce nitrogen and ammonia fertilizers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The oil used in agriculture is principally for
fertilization.

Isn't that primarily for energy though rather than raw
materials? Fertilizers are inorganic. If so then the
ethanol produced could replace the oil. I've often heard
that ethanol production and usage doesn't really displace
much oil consumption but have always wondered how much of
the oil used could be replaced by the ethanol itself (or if
it was, whether there would be any net ethanol coming out of
the spigot.)

An awful lot of that petroleum is used in fixing nitrogen from
the air to produce nitrogen and ammonia fertilizers.

But again, isn't that from the energy it provides rather
than the raw materials? If so, you could potentially
bootstrap to where the ethanol was providing the energy for
it's own production. If the oil is actually providing the H
in NH3 and ethanol (or corn) can't without negative yield
then that's another story.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:53:23 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

But again, isn't that from the energy it provides rather
than the raw materials? If so, you could potentially
bootstrap to where the ethanol was providing the energy for
it's own production. If the oil is actually providing the H
in NH3 and ethanol (or corn) can't without negative yield
then that's another story.

The energy input to the system *can* be limited to just
solar power, nitrogen can be fixed by bacteria at the
roots of legumes, etc. After all, we did it that way for
10,000 years.

The total lack of forward-looking energy policy is
*also* a choice. And we consistently vote for that
choice. We have met the enemy and he is us (Pogo).


Chris Hornbeck,
guyville{at}aristotle{dot}net
question Authority

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

The oil used in agriculture is principally for
fertilization. The prairie in the US is marginally a big
clay sponge, and it's only good for growing buffalo without
significant fertilizer input.

Buffalo meat is mighty tasty.


It is, it is.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"


--
Les Cargill

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:


The oil used in agriculture is principally for
fertilization. The prairie in the US is marginally a big
clay sponge, and it's only good for growing buffalo without
significant fertilizer input.


Buffalo meat is mighty tasty.


And cheqap right now, due to a production surplus (or more properly a
demand shortage.)

"
Buffalo meat is mighty tasty.

How would you characterize the flavor? And, how about in the "tenderness"
department? I'm wondering if a buffalo steak would be a good thing to add
to my cooking repertoire. Uh, does it come in "steak" cuts, or just ground?

Kendall

Kendall wrote:

Buffalo meat is mighty tasty.

How would you characterize the flavor? And, how about in the "tenderness"
department? I'm wondering if a buffalo steak would be a good thing to add
to my cooking repertoire. Uh, does it come in "steak" cuts, or just ground?

Uhhhh, it tastes like... well... _meat_!

It's not totally unlike bovine flesh, but closer to range fed in that
it's very low fat by evolution and requires a somewhat different cooking
time to get the same degree of doneness. I've not cooked it personally,
but do partake of buffalo burgers at the legendary Crescent Hotel in
Crescent Mills, California.

I'll ask the guy who used to cook there who is now in the SF Bay area
about cooking details, and yes, it comes in slices other than ground.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"