I graduated 2020 and its been rough. I've just been programming and working stupid jobs. Lots of free time for creative projects, and I feel like an open source software God, so I won't say there is no upside to graduating 2020.
I hope this reaches mass internet consciousness, and people start consolidating their time and effort into projects that won't make them 1000x, but will bring society more efficiency and durability, instead of wasting times memeing shit coins in and out of existence.
Also, data like this gives educators a good opportunity to discuss the importance of trading volume and float. I keep having a hard time getting this concept into people's heads, the price of the stock doesn't matter at all if the float and volume are tiny.
I was just salty I got down voted or 'Flagged' or whatever. I completely believe the turbo's higher combustion efficiency means higher temp downstream of the >Turbine<
'hot' vs 'hotter'. Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding physics, when flowing gasses do work, they decrease in temperature. They might increase in velocity, but they decrease in temperature.
I tend to agree, but not acknowledging how others feel is a one way ticket to no progress. We have a human problem caused by fear, in my evaluation. The solution isn't fear, its something closer to "tricking fearful people into embracing a future that benefits everyone instead of holding onto fear". As opposed to "Changing peoples fear from war and scarcity to climate change and scarcity".
I acknowledged that this could still be true in my comment, but that I would have to actually do some analysis. However, what the parent comment said is wrong. Your gas is going to lose internal energy to shaft work as it moves through the turbine, which then compresses the inlet air.
Not saying its not hot or hotter, I'm saying the air is not moving through a compressor (which /would/ heat the gas as it does work on the gas to move it to higher pressure), it moving through a turbine, which is recapturing the internal energy of the exhaust gas to improve the efficiency of the engine.
>EGTs are usually measured close to the head. This provides a much quicker response time as well as a more accurate reading. In fact, the temperature of the exhaust gas following the turbocharger can be as much as 200 to 300 degrees lower than the temperature upstream of the turbo. Air resistance caused by the turbo itself can also cause increases in the temperature upstream that would not be detected past the turbo.
Exhaust gas runs through a turbine, hence 'Turbo'. Typically this cools exhaust. Whether or not the higher combustion temperature from the compressed inlet gas makes up for this is not known to me.
To be fair, we know it will be a problem, but we don't know if will actually be a big problem or a small problem. Will we have mass migrations? Total environmental collapse? Deserts everywhere? Or will something bigger than climate change roll around to wipe out civilization, like a mass psychosis or WW3?
So how do we go back? If our problem is human nature, perhaps we just have to survive long enough, and the human organism will self-correct.
I want to overtake small cities and make an escape rout for people who feel trapped in society, like me. The problem is that you need money in order to make jobs in those cities. Basically we are just stuck waiting for culture to change again.
I thought about this a lot while I was designing my own amateur liquid rocket. You would almost certainly save a lot of money across all launch programs from the payload, just by spending the effort upfront to qualify a new heavy lift system like a Saturn-VI or Starship.
I think its just such a difficult thing to justify huge upfront costs to congress, especially if you see how long it has taken SLS to get anywhere. IMO, ULA, Boeing (solo) and Northrop's cultures couldn't possibly cut it for developing another amazing vehicle at any appreciable speed without the Euphoria and meaning that the Space Race provided.
Who is going to host the actual content? This seems like a missed opportunity to create a decentralized music hosting platform, where artists get paid in proportion to bandwidth used. Something like file coin.
So why was google more effective before? Is this is product of the financial struggle of our society, or do you believe it is an inevitable consequence of a dominant search engine?
It does give me pause, but do you really think there is no way to have both open algorithm and good results? What is users assessed sites as they used a search engine, and then this was broadcast back to the engine?
I have a feeling there is a way to introduce randomness to this search engine in a way that smooths out the game theoretic arms race of gaming an algorithm. This goes against our natural urge to have a fully deterministic algorithm which always brings the most pertinent sites right at the top. However, because humans are trying to bring order to things for their own benefit, throwing in chaos could prevent people from even trying to game the algorithm
A lot of my comfort with the old way of growing crops comes from the time it took to grow the crop, and see it change slowly over time. The other part of it was that these new human prompted crops were open for people to use, and once you got the grain from the farmer, nothing stops you from planting it yourself.
Also, when we discuss food scarcity, why do we insist that technology will save us? It wont, the food scarcity problem is an socio-architectural and political problem more than a technological problem.
Nope. Only we can save us from ourselves. Technology is a non-specific amplifier of the energies and values of humans.