 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Updated Schedule- 12:30: Doors Open
- 1:00: Introduction to Bitcoin, by Joshua Harvey
- 1:30: Currency of the Revolution, by Danny Panzella
- 2:00: The Block Market - Free Trade in the Era of Bitcoin, by Zach Harvey
- 2:30: Expanding the Bitcoin Business Community, by Tony Gallippi, CEO of Bitpay
- 3:00: BitInstant Panel: Erik Voorhees & Charles Shrem
- 3:30: Elliptic Curve Cryptography, the Foundation of Bitcoin, by Matt Whitlock
- 4:00: The Bitcoin Exchange Ecosystem, Lessons from the UK, by Mark Lamb
- 4:30: Round Table Discussion
- 6:00: After Party: Interstate Draft House
More details & updates to come, RSVP for now and come learn how to reduce your Federal Reserve Note footprint! For anyone who can't make it to the event, we will be livestreaming it. As the event gets closer, we'll post the livestream link. Updated Flyer: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152342177885402&set=oa.412893292112937&type=1&theater
|
|
|
|
When: Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:00PM to 5:00PM Where: Underground Arts https://www.facebook.com/pages/Underground-Arts/108590882538053 1200 Callowhill St. Philadelphia, Pa. 19123 RSVP: https://www.facebook.com/events/293544877431147/ Join us for the East Coast Bitcoin Summit at Underground Arts! We will feature local businesses, speakers, and alternative currency advocates. This is a chance to learn more about Bitcoin, have your questions answered, and to meet other like-minded individuals. • Introduction to Bitcoin, by Joshua Harvey • Currency of the Revolution, by Danny Panzella • Advancing Your Business by Accepting Bitcoin, by Zach Harvey • Elliptic Curve Cryptography, the Foundation of Bitcoin, by Matt Whitlock • Plus: Round Table Discussion, How-to Demonstrations, a Surprise Guest via Skype and high quality adult beverages. More details & updates to come, RSVP for now and come learn how to reduce your Federal Reserve Note footprint! http://www.Bitcoin.org/Bitcoin is an experimental new digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority: managing transactions and issuing money are carried out collectively by the network. Bitcoin is also the name of theopen source software which enables the use of this currency. The software is a community-driven open source project, released under the MIT license. |
|
|
|
Well, here's wikipedia right back at you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multijunction_solar_cellThis type of cells have a theoretical maximum efficiency around 90%.. So the only real limit now is economics. Thing is, even with your calculated lower yield you still have enough roofspace on a house to cover a family. But with time these high yield PVs will be widely available for a low enough price. And like with bitcoin people will be 'mining' electricity. Theoretical is not actual, and unlikely ever to be. The maximum theoretical efficiency of an internal combustion engine is about 39%. In actuality the most efficient have trouble breaking 20%. Further the efficiency of the panels isn't the end of the story. Now you have to do something with it because the sun does not shine 24/7/365. It can be sold back to the power company and credited for later, but there are line losses and other losses involved. You can store it locally through any number of means, but every time its form is changed there are additional losses. However that is all beside the point, the real point is that solar could be 100% efficient end to end and it still would be 9-10 orders of magnitude less dense than either fission or fusion. Which, as I said back in post 58, isn't to say that solar is of no use, only that without subsidies its applications will be very limited and that no level of subsidies can overcome a 9 order of magnitude disadvantage in the long run. |
|
|
|
I know what Carnot efficiency is an that only applies to thermal processes. A antenna is not.
I guess you could do a tongue in cheek estimation with the color temperature of the sunlight (6500K) and the temperature of the solar cell lets say 300K for gods sake. Now you do the math...
The nantenna efficiency is both theoretical and specious in its calculation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna#Advantages_of_nantennasR. L. Bailey claims that nantennas are not limited by Carnot efficiency, whereas photovoltaics are. However, he does not provide any argument for this claim. Furthermore, when the same assumptions used to obtain the 85% theoretical efficiency for nantennas are applied to single junction solar cells, the theoretical efficiency of single junction solar cells is also greater than 85%.
However the efficiency of energy conversion is not the problem, the problem is the energy density one starts with. That amount is a maximum of about 100 watts per square foot. No matter what you do with it, you will not get any more due to an even more basic law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, otherwise known as the no free lunch law. Averaged out to 24 hours per day, 365 days per year actual yield would be no better than 25 watts per sq. ft. Cloud cover knocks it down even more. Every time its form is changed conversion inefficiencies knock it down still more. In the end it will be energy density and convenience which determine the winners and losers, and solar in most cases performs poorly by both measures. |
|
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I fully support forms of micro energy production utilizing conventional sources including solar and wind, and less conventional sources such as motion, vibration, etc. There are even a few people claiming to have successfully harnessed energy from the Tesla effect (Earth's magnetic field). But those forms will be used largely for mobile devices where the most important feature is decoupling from the cord, not efficient energy production.
For residential use your numbers are way high for a number of reasons. First even single homes are not all conducive to the use of solar panels. They may be too far north, too much cloud cover, too much shade from trees and other foliage, etc. For example, many people are already getting energy benefits from trees and other foliage because they provide shade in the warmest times of year but let the sun in during the colder times. All of that would have to be cut down in order to use solar panels, and not to mention the negative aesthetics in doing so.
Secondly, even where these problems do not occur the homes are not self sufficient unless they can sell excess energy back to the power company to balance out times when they are not producing enough energy to be self sufficient. The conversion losses are still too great to balance production with demand on an individual basis. The only reason people can do this is because the energy companies are both required to by law and because it is subsidized. It would never exist in a free market and simply evil to impose it by force, not that governments won't try.
|
|
|
|
You have no idea of what you are talking about. There is simply no need for higher energy density than the sun already provides. The amount of energy received on the roof of the typical family home is enough to power it. And yes they will become almost 100% efficient. Lookup nantennas and weep.
The energy density of the sun is irrelevant, what matters is how much of it reaches the Earth's surface. The day time peak is roughly 1000 watts per square meter at the average latitude of the US, or approximately 100 watts per square foot in old currency. The best solar panels currently are only about 20% efficient and it will be very difficult to get past 30% or so. For the reason why, you need to understand the Carnot limit, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot's_theorem_(thermodynamics) These numbers adjust downwards for time of day, time of year, percentage of cloud cover, etc., not to mention the problem of storing the energy when the sun does not shine. Every time energy is converted to another form there are conversion losses which do not occur in forms of energy production which can dynamically adjust to the immediate demand as is the case with nuclear and fossil fuels. Solar energy is so inefficient it would take covering an area the size of Texas to supply the energy needs of the US even discounting the storage and conversion losses mentioned above. Thus, because fossil and nuclear power generation has relatively small foot prints they can easily be put near where the power is needed. Solar would have to be put significantly farther away (assuming the land is available at all), which means greater line losses to transport it, at least until someone manages room temperature super conductivity. |
|
|
|
The US is not going to spend billions developing Thorium reactors. All the research money has gone into solar and it has paid off now that the price of solar has dropped 75% in the last 3 years. Global energy production from solar went up 193% last year. Solar is the future. Here's a relevant post I made in the gas prices thread:
The price of solar panels could drop to zero and they still will not generate energy competitive, short of through subsidies, with chemical much less nuclear forms of energy. The cost of the panels is irrelevant, what matters is energy density. Nuclear fission is 1-2 million times more energy dense than any chemical reaction, fusion is about 8 million times more dense, and chemical reactions are several orders of magnitude more dense than solar. I seem to recall someone calculating that it would take covering an area the size of Connecticut with solar panels just to meet the energy needs of NY City. So even if the panels were both free and 100% efficient, the amount of land required makes it prohibitively inefficient up against an 8+ order of magnitude disadvantage in energy density. |
|
|
|
If this will have the usual pace of a snail pulling the tortoise, is anyone up for a KickStarter project? With crowdsourcing as well, we could outpace their efforts.
Rather than trying to use kickstarter for what is probably a multi-billion dollar effort, one might consider looking into what is happening with LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction). While it is really a renaming of the much maligned "Cold Fusion", it is becoming increasingly evident that it is real. Three companies have announced the immanent release of products or licenses, Leonardo Corporation (Italian / US), Defkalion (Greek) and Brillouin (US). The most promising work appears to be with fusing Nickel and light Hydrogen to produce copper. Its advantages include the ability to do it inexpensively on a very small scale (table top), results in a very small amount of radiation which is easily shielded, and is fail safe because if it overheats it apparently disturbs the Nickel lattice to the extent that the reaction cannot continue. Leonardo corporation has announced three products, a 1MW unit which fits in a shipping container of which at least one has been delivered, a 10KW E-Cat (400 C) and the most recently "leaked" Hot Cat which can generate heat in the 1000C to 1200C range, i.e. hot enough for fairly efficient generation of electricity. Early indications on the pricing for the 10KW E-Cat is that it will be under $1000 US. Additionally, there are several open source efforts already under way, including a high school in Italy which has published a laboratory design which claims a COP (Coefficient of Power, or power in to power out) of 4. There is also an open source project at: http://www.fusioncatalyst.orgAnd lots of information on LENR in general at these blogs: http://www.ecatnews.nethttp://www.e-catworld.com |
|
|
|
His name comes from joined names of Japanese corporations who created him, Samsung-Toshiba-Nakamichi-Motorola. This man speaks heresy. Samsung is a multinational corporation based in South Korea, not Japan. Yup, that rumor is getting propogated, this time by Eric Johnson in his presentation that included Bitcoin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TexNr_5J5AU#t=1031sWell at least some people have actually seen that presentation.  I guess I got suckered, I will be sure to correct it for the next presentation. That one was done on very short notice. You can read the thread which lead to that presentation here: http://forum.agora.io/discussion/5/using-technology-to-advance-liberty/We have much more ambitious plans for the next Agorist Unconference in September where we are hoping to fill and entire channel with presentations under the general category of "Tools for the Counter Evolution". The preliminary outline can be found here: http://forum.agora.io/discussion/12/laozi-tools-for-the-counter-evolution-channel/#Item_3I would appreciate any help in fact checking or for that matter anyone more qualified than me to do a presentation on Bitcoin or any of the other subjects being addressed. Regards, Eric |
|
|
|
Per the discussion thread here: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4734.msg69043#msg69043I will be giving a presentation on "Using Technology to Advance Liberty" at the Agorist Unconference ( http://agora.io) which includes a section on bitcoin. The live presentation will be on Sunday March 27 at 2:00PM EST. You can get a sneak peek at the presentation here: https://github.com/ehj666/AgoristSorry for how slowly the PDF loads, I am looking into it. I am trying to get the entire presentation to fit into 40-45 minutes, so the Bitcoin section will run 5 minutes plus or minus. Other topics include P2P-DNS, Osiris, Stealthnet, Tor, I2P, Freenet, TrueCrypt and Mesh networks. Any feedback, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Eric |
|
|
|
Do they really need to reinvent the wheel? Could they not set it up under something like the "Osiris Serverless Portal"? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_(Serverless_Portal_System) NB: I have never used it, I am just aware of its existance. ISTM the reason this does not already exist is not due to the absence of the necessary P2P and anonymizing technologies, but rather only needs that "killer" reason for wide spread adoption. |
|
|
|
|
Either no difference or even slightly slower.
Regards,
ehj
|
|
|
|
|
I did not see any other posts on this, but will apologize in advance if it has been addressed elsewhere. At any rate, I have found a significant drop in the hash rate when running Bitcoin on an Atom 330 processor after version 0.3.12. On a 1.6 Ghz Atom 330, 0.3.12 yields a hash rate of approximately 850 khash/s, while under 0.3.13 and 0.3.14 it drops to barely over 500 khash/s. I have two such machines and the results on both are virtually identical. They are both running Ubuntu 10.04, I have not tested under any other OS.
Several other 32 and 64 bit processors I have tested show no degradation since 0.3.12. Does anyone happen to know if there were any changes between 0.3.12 and 0.3.13 which might be adversely affecting the Atom 330 or perhaps SMP processors in general?
Thanks,
ehj
|
|
|
|
|
