Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Your the engineer....you explain it......
In other words, you have no clue. As usual.
I get it.
You probably had to give up whittling for a year to set this up.....:)
Took me all of 10 minutes to get set up.
Still don't know the difference between WiFi and WiMAX, do you?
I am replying publicly because at least some of the discussion is relevant to the board. WiMAX and 4G are in the infancy of their deployment, so I seriously doubt that either is available in your area. Verizon cell uses 3G, which, for internet, is poor at best.
If you have line-of-sight to the resort, and they have an unrestricted WiFi network, you can probably use an antenna to pick up service. However, you don't need an expensive Yagi. I built a simple 2.4GHz biquad antenna (the frequency used by WiFi) out of an old satellite dish and some simple parts. I use the antenna to receive a wireless signal from a security camera at my gate, ~1/2 mile from my house. Works great, and 100% reliable.
Here is an example. This guy was able to pick up a WiFi access point over 8 miles away:
http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/15/how-to-build-a-wifi-biquad-dish-antenna/
Right after you show me how wirelss is 100% reliable.
Nothing is 100% reliable. However, WiMAX will likely be far more reliable than copper. There are no wires to break and no taps to bridge.
The fact that you base the reliability of WiMAX on your own poorly executed home WiFi network just means that you don't know how to set up a reliable WiFi network.
I use WiFi for my home network, and it is 100% reliable.
Spoke this is from your own link that you posted.
So, you're saying you don't know the difference between WiFi and WiMAX...
As I suspected.
I understand the difference.....
You obviously don't.
But since you said that you do, please explain the difference to us.
This should be good...
I used a WiFi network where I lived for 3 years....it worked maybe 50% of the time.....
As I said. You wouldn't even understand if I explained it to you.
WiFi != WiMAX
HTH, HAND
Do you really think I'm going to play your games?
That's good for one more ROFLMAO!
There's this new thing on the intarwebs. It's called googly, or something.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-49,SUNA:en&q=wimax
Look it up yourself. Not that it will mean anything to you...
Is it reliable 100% of the time?
ROFLMAO!
Keep 'em coming...
Would you not agree that at this point RSMI is the only one claiming to be able to handle the last mile?
WiMAX and 4G can both handle over 70 Mbps to the "last mile" without the need for copper. Given that Intel has put a large stake into WiMAX, it is a good bet that it will become the last mile standard. In fact, that's where my last mile money is...
So why would I doubt it?
LOL.
Literally.
I'm laughing out loud.
P.T. Barnum was right...
I've been looking for a good re-entry point. I'm in at $13.24.
Is there any stock, bond, commodity, real estate, or private investment, that you don't find disturbing in some aspect ? How about staying in cash ? Doesn't that have some disturbing aspect as well ?
With all due respect, Intel has a rather poor record of executing on non-core endeavors.
Perhaps as important, the TED spread is down to just over 1, down from nearly 5, indicating a dramatic increase in liquidity.
What do you think about the chances Polywell Fusion will deliver ?
It had started to gain some traction until Bussard died last year. Still has promise, but I can't see it becoming commercially viable anytime soon.
To give you an idea of how much of a geek I am, I built a Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor in my shop a couple of years ago.
"a few more breakthroughs and we could have the holy grail of a reliable and economic tokamak for fusion power generation."
We have a saying in the nuclear power business. Fusion is the power source of the future...and always will be.
The difference being that there has been very little advancement in fusion technology in 25 years. Battery technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. The hope and expectation is that will continue.
Why would anyone own a mutual fund any more?
Most 401(k) plans do not offer ETFs. So, most people don't have a choice but to own mutual funds.
Obviously, that doesn't power the entire grid for all areas, but some areas will benefit more than others, so why not take the best advantage of the natural resources first before turning to fuel based energy?
I think we agree in principle. I see nuclear power as necessarily carrying the largest load, mostly because it is very economical if done correctly, clean, highly reliable and virtually inexhaustable. However, I also think that alternative sources should be exploited where they make sense.
In fact, I thought I kept the sanctity of your context intact while I attempted to steer the conversation in a different direction.
My apologies if I mistook your intent.
Like my old college professor who told me I shouldn't bother looking for a job in the semiconductor industry because THE LAWS OF PHYSICS absolutely positively prevented making transistors smaller than 100nm, and so that industry would collapse by the end of the 20th century.
I would be interested in what exactly the prof really said. Either he (she?) was a pompous idiot (not uncommon) or not a physics prof.
The "laws of physics" that I am citing are fairly simple: There is a finite amount of solar irradiance that reaches the earth, the sun only shines during the day, the wind sometimes blows and sometimes doesn't, and the tides only come twice a day.
I will be the first to admit that these aren't actually physical laws, but they seem rather immutable nonetheless.
When I try to segway into something I find important, you get all offended.
Not really. I just choose not to play the game.
I can name one. 3 mile island. The reporters who jumped on airplanes to go report on 3 mile island were exposed to more radiation at 40,000 feet than anyone on the ground. They were "victims" of a media generated nuclear "accident" spurred on by Hollywood's concurrent release of the China Syndrome.
hehe
TMI was a good example of how a good reactor design can result in zero impact to the population even after a series of events of unbelieveable and incomprehensible human stupidity.
Then you don't support research for other renewable energies. Seems your true colors have emerged.
Now I seem to remember why I quit posting to this board.
It would be nice to have a conversation that didn't involve parsing of words in futile attempts at one-upsmanship. I hate those kinds of games.
I made it clear in my post that I do support research into other energy sources. I stated that very clearly. I also stated that those other sources are of limited value for reasons that cannot be solved by development.
I can buy the ego explanation sooner than I'd buy this one.
Well, it seems to me that you are shooting from the hip without having the first clue what you are talking about. As someone who is closely plugged into the scientific community as well as the community of scientists who study climate change, I can say with authority that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
This might surprise you, but I'm inclined to side with those who see global warming as at least partly induced by man's activities. I have read numerous studies, much of it done at the lab where I work, but remain at least partly unconvinced by the evidence.
Instead, I take a more pragmatic approach. I look at the things that would need to be done to correct it, if it were so. We would need to stop burning coal for power. This is a good thing and should happen no matter what. Coal is dirty and bad for people. We would also need to eventually move from a petroleum-based transportation infrastructure to something else. This would eliminate our reliance on foreign oil, and is also a good thing. Finally, the US could be the world leader in a transition to a nuclear-based energy policy that would provide copious inexpensive electricity for domestic and transportation usage. This would be a very good thing for the US economy. The only real obstacle is battery technology, and I believe that can be solved with R&D.
So, global warming or not, the solution is a good thing all-around.
spoke, could you give a brief summary as to how Atomic compares to natural gas?
I know that we are getting pretty off-topic...but...
Natural gas is certainly a better alternative to coal from an ecological and public health perspective. It burns cleanly, and only requires a hole in the ground to retrieve it. Shoot, I have a natural gas well on my property (free gas for me) so I am partial to it.
However, as a source of electricity production, it is very expensive. Most of the gas-fired generating plants are surge plants, and only operate during peak times. This is one reason that peak power is expensive. Additionally, although natural gas burns cleanly (only H2O and CO2 as combustion products) it does still produce CO2. I won't get into the GW debate, but nuclear produces no greenhouse gases.
Sounds like you support my earlier claim that more research is needed.
To the uninformed reader who only read your quote from me without the associated context, I suppose it would seem that way.
However, for the rest of us who noticed that you simply cut out the words that suited your agenda and completely ignored the rest, it just means you're dishonest.
I'm done here.
I've seen more than a dozen articles (and TV segments, etc) in the past year or two about nuclear plants and security risks following 9-11. Many investigations have found security holes up the whazzu. This has to drastically change if nuclear is to become a major source of power in the U.S.
Of course you have. This is just the kind of sensationalist propaganda that our media loves to perpetuate. You cannot, I am quite sure, provide any details about these "security holes up the whazzu" but the media told you they were there and you believed it.
Have you ever seen a news segment on the security holes at an oil refinery or a chemical manufacturing plant? How about one about the lack of protected air space around dams near large populations?
No?
Ever wonder why?
As I said earlier, this is my field. I am very familiar with the details regarding the cases you refer to. You don't have to believe me, but I can assure you that the reports were pure crap with tiny bits of fact thrown in.
Anyway, I am not going to try to change your mind. You have clearly decided already, regardless of your ignorance of the facts. I can only encourage you to think for yourself, ask questions, and learn about something before you condemn it.
Or not.
Your choice.
And heck, I'm sure there are plenty of scientists in that 32k number who legitimately believe their data proves their case, but what do you think motivates them?
I can only speak for myself, but I believe that there are a large number of scientists who are motivated by scientific integrity - on both sides of the issue.
I'm not concerned with having nuclear generators in theory, but I think there are better ways to deliver energy needs without having to rely on a technology with serious health and national security risks.
Name one.
Seriously.
Nuclear power is by far the safest available power option at present for the US. There are no health risks with modern reactor designs. There have been exactly -zero- deaths related to nuclear power production in this country. Just a few months ago, I heard a report about the 14 deaths that occurred in coal mining accidents in 2007 and how that was a "good year".
There are no national security risks with domestic plants that are any different from other industrial installations.
Rather than treating solar, wind, and tidal energy as supplemental, I think these should be pursued first, to the extent that the natural landscape can provide them...
I am not opposed to wind, tidal energy and even solar. However, there are substantial drawbacks to each that cannot be engineered away. Solar irradiance at ground level averages about 1 KW per square meter. You will never get more than that. The best solar technology is still less than 30% efficient. It takes a huge amount of area to generate appreciable solar energy even with 100% efficiency, and the sun only shines during the day.
Similarly, the wind blows with far less predictability than the sun shines, and tides only come twice a day. All of these sources have environmental impacts as well. Most informed sources say that these alternative sources could only provide about 20% of our energy needs. That's good, but it's not enough. We need a primary source of energy that is inexpensive, reliable and clean. The alternative sources you cited only meet the latter.
I think using France as the poster child for nuclear power has made some people over-enthusiastic to convert the U.S. without scrutinizing the impacts enough.
The nuclear industry has been scrutinized far more than any other industry. With all due respect, our conversation has demonstrated to me that you have already made up your mind about nuclear energy while being demonstrably ignorant of how it works and its risks and benefits. That's the real problem.
There are leftover fears from the 60s & 70s that someone will steal it and make bombs.
Exactly. Throw in a bit of ignorance and that's where we are now...
You seem quite knowledgeable on the subject.
It's my field. I work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oh, and we have a new computer... ;)
If true, then this solves the fuel problem, and I can see why this is so attractive. Still doesn't explain how they deal with waste, however.
There are three primary ways to deal with the waste, but it helps to understand what the waste consists of. There are two primary components - fission products and heavy elements. The fission products are just what the name implies. They are the products of the fission process and consist of radioactive elements much lighter than the fissile parent (U or Pu).
The heavy elements are either uranium, or heavier elements created by activation of uranium. All of these elements are "fertile" meaning that they can be turned into fuel. That's part of reprocessing.
Fission products have short half-lives (on the order of seconds to decades) and heavy elements have long half-lives on the order of thousands to millions of years (both categories have their rare exceptions). So, the goal of reprocessing is to separate the long-lived fertile elements, and then deal with the shorter-lived fission products. This is done by three methods:
1) Let them decay. The vast majority of fission products can be dealt with this way. This is why spent fuel is stored cooling pools. After a couple of years, the vast majority of the short-lived isotopes are decayed to stable species.
2) Commercial use. There are a large number of fission products that have tremendous commercial applications in medical, industrial and petroleum industries. A goal of reprocessing is to separate these valuable isotopes.
3) Burnup. For those fission products that either have limited or no commercial value, yet have half-lives of years or decades, the easiest thing to do is put them back in the reactor. Through neutron activation, they transmute to the far more common short half-life species.
In practice, virtually all of the radioactive waste from commercial power could be removed from the waste stream. What little that remains would be of very small volume and it becomes a relatively simple engineering problem to dispose of. To put this into perspective, with reprocessing, the nation could be entirely nuclear and still produce far less radioactive waste in manageable solid form than the current coal plants discharge to the air.
The term “fuel” is not mass. It was meant to cover “fissionable elements”.
More correctly, it is meant to cover "fissile" elements.
How is that? Where does the energy come from? Even E=mc2 has to obey the law of conservation.
Most reactor fuel is less than 4% U-235 which is the "fuel". The remainder is U-238. Since it takes a great deal of energy to enrich uranium in U-235 (i.e. to separate the two isotopes) the bulk of reactor "fuel" is not fuel at all. It's just along for the ride. However, if a reactor is designed correctly, the non-fissile U-238 can be transmuted into Pu-239, which is fissile and makes great "fuel". The amount of Pu-239 created can be significantly greater than the amount of U-235 initially loaded.
Of course, this in not a completely closed cycle. Eventually you need to add U-238 into the cycle, but we have enormous stockpiles of U-238 (depleted uranium) fom the cold war - enough to provide "fertile" fuel for the entire nation for millenia.
Like what?
Like burnup, for one. The great thing about reactors is you can place elements that you don't like into them, and they are miraculously transformed into elements that are more easily dealt with. For many fission products, it is a simple matter to transmute them into species that decay relatively quickly into harmless stable isotopes.
Ok, better than perpetual motion.
Yes. The only difference being that the laws of physics permit it.
Sorry, Professor, but how does one process things like polonium and strontium?
Polonium is not a fission product. It does not occur in power reactors unless you intend to produce it commercially (it has significant commercial value). Furthermore, it is a natural decay product of radon and is ubiquitous.
There are a number of techniques for dealing with the other fission products, and as someone else pointed out, there are numerous sources available for more information.
...I'm a bit skeptical that nuclear power will ever be without toxic materials that need to be "dealt with" after the reaction.
Here's what's odd. Nuclear power is often criticized because it creates wastes that are hazardous for many years. Those same critics seem to forget that the toxic effluents from coal-fired plants, such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc., remain toxic forever. Furthermore, the volumes of waste from nuclear power, even without reprocessing, is tiny compared to coal.
I'd prefer truly renewable sources of energy...
Nuclear power is truly a renewable energy source. With reprocessing, a reactor fuel cycle results in more fuel than the cycle began with.
Thanks, Brady. Good to see that you are still around.
Tim
Curiosity for many of us is to see how Ray does an official "the end" to the book. I can hardly wait to see how it is written explaining all the good and honorable intentions that just didn't work out in the end and thanking all the loyal supporters for their faith under stressful times and his strong desire that he could have financially rewarded them for their loyalty.
That's my point. There will be no "official end". There is no reason for Ray or Brad to ever communicate anything ever again. Any further communication would only expose them to more liability. They have milked this for all its worth. They have no more options or mechanisms for pepetuating the scam. On other words, you have already heard the "official end", unless there is successful litigation. But the company itself is done - never to be heard from again.
There is little doubt that Brad and Ray will release something in the future. They will attempt to play this scam till it's last gasp...
I think you're wrong. You have already heard the last gasp. Brad and Ray are totally and completely out of options. There are no more shares to sell, and there is no IP to parlay into more money. They are in far more debt that they could conceivably overcome even with a significant R/S and more shares authorized. Rim is dying a quiet death. You have heard the last of Brad and Ray.
Spoke, the new AMD chip is supposedly going to be better than the intel one.
I have to challenge your DD on that one. Intel is one process shrink ahead of AMD, and it looks like Nehalem will beat the pants off of Shanghai. Intel now has Atom in the low power segment too. AMD has lost their ability to compete with Intel on performance, they don't have a competitive product in the pipeline, and they are one price war away from being toast. I have traded in and out of AMD for years, but I wouldn't go long now on a bet.
Short-term, AMD may very well double, and I have been watching it pretty closely to look for an entry point myself, but I would never hold AMD longer than a few weeks at most.
My point is that those P/Es (except AMD which hasn't made any money in quite a while) are based on TTM. None of them reflect current earnings. Given the depth of the current recession, and as dismal earnings reports continue to come in, I expect those P/E ratios to rise significantly.
In this kind of market, a P/E ratio is meaningless. P/E is only useful if the past is likely to be representative of the future. In a deep recession, that is simply not the case. Any currently listed P/E is a truly meaningless indicator. Personally I am looking for balance sheet strength, large cash reserves, and recession-resistant products, though I am not buying anything except guns and gold right now. Like you, I am also expecting to see the 7000s again. Maybe even worse.
Oh, and AMD is history, IMO. Their only hope was a large cash infusion from Dubai, and with current oil prices, that's never gonna happen. They can't compete with Intel as a fabless producer, and they're losing half a billion a quarter. They'll either be gone soon, or hitting Congress up for a bailout.
However, I
think returns of 50-100% will be fairly common among high quality stocks that are so far down right now that they have
PE ratios of 2-4.
What "high quality" stocks have a P/E ratio of 2 to 4? You have some examples?
Hey Gold another decent volume day up over 6 million shares...
$600 is a decent volume day?
You guys are a riot.