Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

macpacheco Re: Fusion Confusion (304 comments)

Civilian BN-600 reactors have been in operation for 40 years !
BN-800 reactor is operational for a few months:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

It's funny those anti nuclear types that must ignore any reactors that are operating well, and focus on the ones that had any trouble.

> Riiiight. Like the Gen III reactors were going to be so much better than Gen II. Look how that turned out.
Nuclear power killed as many people in 60 years as natural gas kills every year.
Nuclear power killed as many people in 60 years as coal kills every few days.

How about a retraction ?

yesterday
top

If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

macpacheco Re: Fusion Confusion (304 comments)

Coal kills without a coal power plant blowing up.
Nuclear kills only on extreme case accidents where the reactor is destroyed and there's no serious secondary containment structure. (Chernobyl)
Sodium cooled and Molten Salt cooled reactors can be walk away safe.
Your question is 99.9999% FUD. If Nuclear were unsafe, we'd already had at least an order of magnitude more nuclear accidents.
Stop trying to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. We need lots of nuclear to avoid the worst of climate change.
1 - Solar+Wind is a limited solution
2 - We need to get away from coal in a few decades. Just now the largest solar PV manufacturer in the world (Yingly) finally achieved shipping of 10GW worth of panels. That's less than the largest hydro dams in the world, less effective power production than a single 4 large reactor nuclear site. Since solar doesn't produce at night, have winter and daily fluctuations, it takes over 5GW worth of panels to effectively produce as much electricity as a full size nuke (1333MWe). And depending on the latitude, solar is useless in the winter. The anti nuclear pundits ignore we don't need only a solution for electricity, we need a solution for heating too, solar+wind is extremely lousy for a full energetic solution (electricity+transportation+heating). Nuclear on the other hand can directly fuel EVs and/or produce hydrogen economically (using high temperature reactors) for FCVs. Nuclear can also produce district heating steam (used in fairly large scale in baltic countries).

2 days ago
top

If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

macpacheco Re: Fusion Confusion (304 comments)

Yeah, the LHC was funded because it's not a threat to coal and natural gas consumption.
Nuclear OTH is a kiss of death threat to fossil fuels. No wonder the NRC is being politically driven to make as hard as possible for nuclear to advance.
Nuclear can actually save us from climate change. Solar and Wind can get us a third of the way, but not much more than that.

2 days ago
top

If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

macpacheco Re: Fusion Confusion (304 comments)

The russians have been operating sodium / lead fast reactors for decades. The first commercial operational fast reactor has been operational in Russia for 40 years.
After 40 years they deployed the second model (BN-800), achieved criticality a few months ago. The next step BN-1200 promises better economics and a scale similar to current large nuclear reactors (1200 MWe vs typical 1333 MWe of LWR/BWR/CANDU reactors).
The story around fast reactors in the USA = Clinton/Al Gore/John Kerry killed them in the 90s for strictly political reasons.
There were minor fast reactor incidents in France and Japan, the anti nuclear activits love to increase the magnitude of those events one thousand fold, the fact is sodium cooled IFR reactors are the closest we are to a nuclear renaissance. I would much rather have Thorium LFR reactors, but the first generation of more basic Thorium/Molten Salt reactors are a decade away from operation outside the USA. The NRC isn't even interested in producing a certification framework for Molten Salt reactors until the first company tries to certify them.

2 days ago
top

Is Storage Necessary For Renewable Energy?

macpacheco Re:Expert?? (436 comments)

Nuclear can be deployed a few dozen miles from urban centers, and sized to use 100% of its generation right into that urban center. Those that claim nuclear is too expensive almost always ignore that fact.
So, Solar PV rooftop with FIT arrangements = production and consumption within a mile of each other, great, but that model can't scale beyond even 10% of total grid production, need large solar plants in order to use large inverters that operate with extreme accuracy to avoid AC synchronization issues. Most anti nuclear pro solar nuts ignore this serious limitation.
The reality is solar + 2 hrs worth of local storage can greatly mitigate the AC sync issue, but even 2 hrs worth of local storage = solar solution total cost goes far more than 100% up. But it still ignores the needs of the whole grid. If 100% of households in sunny area go solar you are destroying the premise of baseload production, so you are forced to have like 4-6 hours worth of local storage, plus what are you going to do in the winter, when solar production drops hugely ?
It might be possible to have a fossil fuel grid with at least 40% baseload electricity (hydro+geothermal+nuclear+biomass).
But this study is hugely flawed, it ignores huge transmission losses.
My Brasil transmits much of its electricity demand for over a thousand miles distance, this works because that is cheap big hydro electricity.
If having a mostly solar+wind grid were practical, Hawaii would have already got rid of its very expensive oil based generators (many times more expensive even than modern peaking natural gas power plants), but the reality is you have the inverter problem threatening grid AC stability.
Germany's Energiewende is also fairly stuck, shutdown of 5 nuclear power plants offset about 50% of CO2 emission reductions, with lots of brown coal burning going up.
C'mon, look at the nuclear energy facts, instead of the environmentalists biased FUD. It's safe, it's clean, it expensive upfront, but a lot of transmission costs and losses are avoided, and people insist on comparing price/MWe generated without fully accounting for nuclear's advantage. Plus water cooler reactors is old technology that we much migrate away from, even a modern AP1000 is way more expensive to build and operate than a Russian BN800 IFR reactor. The NRC overregulation model makes GE's work on the S-PRISM walk at a snail's pace instead of at the brisk pace we need it to be.

5 days ago
top

Gas Cooled Reactors Shut Down In UK

macpacheco Re:Jaw dropping (120 comments)

> IFR fuel is still solid fuel rods
Are you sure ? How is the core fuel be reprocessed with the fuel in solid fuel rods ? Will have to destroy / recreate the cladding before/after each reprocessing event ?
Doesn't make much sense.
The only design with an integral reprocessing facility I studied at a deep enough level was the Thorium LFTR and that uses the fuel molten with the primary coolant... So I wrongly assumed, but still it doesn't make sense vis-a-vis reprocessing.

about a week ago
top

Gas Cooled Reactors Shut Down In UK

macpacheco Re:Jaw dropping (120 comments)

I'm very pro nuclear. But the problem isn't VVER-1200 vs EPR vs AP1000.
The problem is water cooled, solid fuel nukes. Plus the sum of all regulatory/political costs of building a nuclear reactor in an anti nuclear environment.
An IFR plant can cost less than a similarly sized water cooled reactor (BN800 reactor estimated at US$ 2 billion, so 2xBN800 is about 20% larger than your usual 1330MWe reactor), however an IFR reactor uses essentially free fuel (spent nuclear fuel aka nuclear waste + depleted uranium). Plus an IFR reactor fuel is molten in the core, so there is no fuel fabrication costs (aka making the solid fuel), just the cost of reprocessing the LWR/BWR/AGR spent fuel before loading it into the IFR reactor. The IFR low pressure, no water in the core, small secondary containment costs is offset by IFR being a relatively new technology plus the integral reprocessing feature cost.
Anyhow, you must compare a large (1333MWe) nuclear reactor to some 15GW worth of solar panels for england or germany. Sun doesn't shine at night, and summer to winter, solar produces 1/10th of power in the winter vs summer. In the meantime, a 1330MWe nuclear reactor is producing that same power day and night, except for about a month of maintenance every 18 months (scheduled). I know the critics can point out old trouble ridden reactors, but we're talking about a new reactor, otherwise the nuke's cost have already been incurred and the reactor is now racing towards being a cash cow.
I would actually prefer Thorium LFTR reactors, but those are still a decade away.

about a week ago
top

TEPCO: Nearly All Nuclear Fuel Melted At Fukushima No. 3 Reactor

macpacheco Re:So.. what? (255 comments)

No energy sources are perfect.
But when you compare all aspects of nuclear to all other energy sources (except for hydro and geothermal), nuclear wins. All countries should maximize usage of available hydro and geothermal energy, then resort to nuclear+wind+solar for the rest.
But nuclear It IS safer. It IS more reliable. It IS far less polluting than any fossil fuel powered sources.
That doesn't mean it's perfect. Current water cooled, solid fueled reactors using once through (no reprocessing) fuel are able to use just 0,65% of mined uranium, with reprocessing that goes up to just over 1%. Plus it's not the safest form of nuclear. They require lots of complex active safety systems (at least when the reactor is operating).
But still nuclear is the BEST energy source available for baseload electricity and when large volumes of heat in the form of steam is needed.
Hopefully we'll get lots of electric vehicles and hydrogen powered cars. High temperature reactors are the best solution to make hydrogen. EVs with large capacity batteries can be mostly charged at night, increasing baseload electricity need (decreasing peaking electricity demand). Nuclear makes huge sense in this future scenario.
Solar PV = combination of two of the ten most deadly professions in the world (roofing and electrician), double risk factor for its workers.
Wind turbines are maintenance hogs, specially considering how little each turbine actually produces on a yearly basis. A 10MW wind turbine will in average produce the equivalent of 1 to 3MW continuous production on a yearly basis, even on the best wind sites. That means it takes a thousand wind turbines spread over lots of excellent wind sites to average the power output of a single large nuclear reactor.

about two weeks ago
top

TEPCO: Nearly All Nuclear Fuel Melted At Fukushima No. 3 Reactor

macpacheco Re:So.. what? (255 comments)

Another anonymous coward hiding behind anonymacy making an extremely shallow statement.

Nuclear is cost effective in most cases.
Solar and wind look cheap in the surface, and can be cheap if you limit solar+wind to less than 25% of a grid's production. It's more like 20%.
Solar is extremely lousy at high lattitudes. For instance in Germany solar produces ten times more electricity in the summer vs the winter.
And don't get me started on wind extreme intermitency.
If you rule out fossil fuels for electricity production, unless you have lots of good big hydro sites, nuclear is your only choice to provide the base of a country's electricity baseload.
Wanna have a discussion, don't be a coward.

about two weeks ago
top

TEPCO: Nearly All Nuclear Fuel Melted At Fukushima No. 3 Reactor

macpacheco Re:So.. what? (255 comments)

Clueless nuclear fanboys ? I'm yet to find such people. Nuclear isn't sexy, so it doesn't tend to attract the clueless.
Most nuclear proponents have STEM background.
You probably mean the professional nuclear engineers that are tired of having to refute absurd anti nuclear accusations.
If you want to get just enough education to see the nuclear facts, enroll to this free online course:
  https://www.coursera.org/cours...
I'm not sure one can enroll and get the materials right now since there's no current class going on.

about two weeks ago
top

TEPCO: Nearly All Nuclear Fuel Melted At Fukushima No. 3 Reactor

macpacheco Re:So.. what? (255 comments)

anti-nuclear people saying the sky is falling is incompatible with the hard data.
pro-nuclear people saying the other side is irrational just needs basic hard data analysis.
all nuclear power accidents, incidents for both civil and military cases account to less than 2000 deaths worldwide for the 60 years we've been using nuclear power for electricity, heat and naval applications.
Coal kills 13000 people per YEAR in the USA alone.
A single hydro dam burst in China killed 200000 people in the 70s. Hydro kills those 2000 people every few years. Dams burst every year.
Natural gas kills about 100x more per TWh produced than nuclear.
Those are facts.
The only scenario that the anti nuclear pundits can make a case is entirely based on Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
I took an Intro to Nuclear technology course to form this conclusion. Anyone that has studied nuclear technology properly comes with the same conclusion.
Anti nuclear arguments are based on lies and absurd extrapolations.
Nuclear can be shown to be safer than solar PV and wind electricity. In all honesty I just consider all three energy sources similarly safe.

about two weeks ago
top

TEPCO: Nearly All Nuclear Fuel Melted At Fukushima No. 3 Reactor

macpacheco Re:So.. what? (255 comments)

You need to look no further than all predictions made within the first few months of the effects of TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
TMI = zero deaths, zero cancers (from the predicted China Syndrome catastrophe)
Chernobyl = predicted millions of deaths, currently at less than 200 deaths, 5000 long term cancer deaths
Fukushima = predicted millions of deaths, so far zero deaths, zero cancers
Get a grip. Nuclear is safe. The biggest impact of nuclear accidents except for Chernobyl is mass fear.
Nuclear safety standards are ridiculously exaggerated. Billions of USD are spent yearly on unnecessary safety precautions.
Specially the nuclear decommissioning costs are so high because they demand the land be returned to essentially zero residual radiation, which is nonsense.
It's because of people like you that nuclear is so expensive. In the meantime, Coal powerplants are allowed to emit soot with uranium, thorium and radium into the air. A coal powerplant emits about a thousand times more radiation than a nuclear power plant will ever be. But the coal evils are never put in evidence, while nuclear is attacked viciously.

about two weeks ago
top

Transatomic Power Receives Seed Funding From Founders Fund Science

macpacheco Re:About time (143 comments)

Wrong. There are lots of MSR variants. Some are designed to need no reprocessing at all, example the DMSR.
A DMSR design is being worked on right now. Canada's Dr. David LeBlanc, Terrestrial Energy Inc.
You need reprocessing to achieve close to 100% burnup of nuclear fuel (water cooled reactors achieve less than 3% burnup).
DMSR can achieve around 20% burnup without reprocessing, a huge improvement.

about two weeks ago
top

Transatomic Power Receives Seed Funding From Founders Fund Science

macpacheco Re:About time (143 comments)

Wrong. MSRs could be used to power ships and subs.
The primary reason water cooled reactors were chosen was: The US NAVY was far more comfortable with water cooling than anything else. There was no reactors cooled by anything but water when the US Navy submarine reactor program started. The first MSR research reactor took another 15 years to come to be.
Gas cooled reactors were actually discarded because they weren't as compact as water cooled reactors.
But MSR reactors are about an order of magnitude more compact than a water cooled reactors considering their total secondary containment requirements.
Since the NAVY was willing to spend the equivalent of tens of billions in today's money to get the first reactor done, and by the time the first MSR test reactor showed results, politics killed MSR research, you should watch the youtube video from Kirk Sorensen on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

about two weeks ago
top

Transatomic Power Receives Seed Funding From Founders Fund Science

macpacheco Re:A Joke (143 comments)

Just enough to do their detailed due dilligence, finalize their base design, run detailed computer simulations.
Once they are ready to petition the NRC for a license to run a test reactor, they will in the order of US$ 200 million to build the test reactor and operate it for a few years. Assuming the NRC will actually allow it.

about two weeks ago
top

Transatomic Power Receives Seed Funding From Founders Fund Science

macpacheco Re:But... but nucular is bad! (143 comments)

That's exactly what they are doing. WAMSR = Waste Annialator Molten Salt Reactor. First mission destroy spent nuclear fuel, secondary mission produce electricity offseting the cost of the primary mission and turning a profit.

about two weeks ago
top

Transatomic Power Receives Seed Funding From Founders Fund Science

macpacheco Re:But... but nucular is bad! (143 comments)

All energy sources have some level of risk. Studies show that rooftop solar PV and wind farms kill more people per TWh of electricity produced than nuclear.
I'm pro everything that doesn't emit burn fossil fuels. Nuclear is actually the safest option.
The only problem with nuclear is the extreme ability of the paid anti nuclear lobby to attack nuclear. Some of those guys are right here on this forum.
Ignore nuclear fears, study nuclear FACTS. If nuclear was really that risky, nuclear safety deaths/cancers wouldn't show nuclear being the safest electricity form, winning over solar/wind by a small margin.

about two weeks ago
top

Transatomic Power Receives Seed Funding From Founders Fund Science

macpacheco Re:But... but nucular is bad! (143 comments)

There are 400 operational nuclear reactors in the world. How many were lost due to nuclear accidents ? Perhaps 10.
The real economics of properly built and maintained nuclear reactors are awesome over their full lifetime.
Nuclear reactors are the cash cows of electricity generating companies that own them. Once built they cost a fraction to fuel, maintain and staff than an equivalent natural gas powerplant AND generate next to zero CO2 emissions compared even to natural gas.
Currently operating nuclear reactors produce about 400GW worth of electricity. That's enough to power 100% of north america at peak load hours.
The reality is nuclear IS safe. The reality is that the coal / natural gas lobby is very effective at arm twisting big media to turn a blind eye to the vast majority of natural gas / coal little accidents that happen all the time and to make a big deal of all nuclear accidents. Coal kills 200,000 yearly worldwide, 13,000 yearly in the USA alone. So over its entire 60 years of operations all nuclear accidents killed less than 10% of what coal kills in the USA alone every year. And if you account for just the last 20 years of nuclear related deaths worldwide, nuclear is about ten thousand times safer than coal. Where are the picket lines in front of coal powerplants ? Natural gas is about 100 times more deadly than nuclear, where are the protest against opening any natural gas powerplants near liberal metro areas ?

about two weeks ago
top

Transatomic Power Receives Seed Funding From Founders Fund Science

macpacheco Re:Getting permission... (143 comments)

Another inconsistent argument.
Tritium production can be minimized by avoiding Lithium-6 in the reactor. That's IF the salts used by this reactor will have Lithium at all.
Using no water in the reactor (molten salt primary and secondary loop plus CO2 or Helium loop turbine) allows collection of the Tritium in a few fairly economical ways.
Once again, the paid anti nuclear agitators try to do their worst against nuclear power and resort to creating factoids where they simply don't have technical information to do so.
Anyhow, making WAMSR a reality in today's NRC context is probably a billion dollar project. Just getting scaled down demonstrator reactor licensed and built will cost a few hundred million USD. It's not like they are a threat to coal yet.
But coal is the real enemy. Even natural gas is a much bigger enemy to the earth and human kind than nuclear.
And all anti nuclear agitators ignore that inconvenient fact.
Coal kills. Nuclear saves lives (by preventing coal power plants in the first place).
If mankind didn't stop building nuclear in the 70s, close to 20 million lives would have been saved by the coal power stations not built.

about two weeks ago
top

San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant Dismantling Will Cost $4.4 Billion, Take 20 Years

macpacheco Re:Fusion is your FUTURE corporate boondoggle (343 comments)

You know a new nuclear energy source is serious when the anti nuclear people start going to the trouble of producing hatchet job materials.

1 - Thorium is about 3-4x more common than Uranium on the Earth's crust. But a lot of that Uranium is disolved on Sea Water, which means expensive to obtain. Thorium is available worldwide, both as monazite beach sands and rare earth mines (all fairly easy to mine). Thorium is kind of FREE actually, since it's already extracted in huge scales from the earth for rare earth mining and current has zero actual usage. Thorium is actually a problem for rare earth mining. There is enough Thorium already mined that could power the whole earth for a decade using LFTR reactors.

2 - 100% of the Thorium is Th-232, 0,7% of Uranium is U-235. Thorium reactors can be designed to use at least 90% of the Th-232, with designs that promise over 99% Th-232 utilization. Current, water cooled, solid fuel uranium reactors are limited to using less than 0,7% of mined uranium since they burn most of the U-235 and a little of the U-238 (99,3% of Uranium), with reprocessing like the French, that's doubled. Uranium/Plutonium IFR reactors are able to use 99%+ of mined uranium. Actually an IFR reactor can be started and operated solely on the waste from regular uranium reactors (startup with spent nuclear fuel, topped of with depleted uranium), existing spent nuclear fuel is enough to startup enough reactors to increase USA nuclear electricity share from 20% to 50%, and depleted uranium stockpiles enough to power those reactors for hundreds of years.

about three weeks ago

Submissions

top

GPS L2C/L5 pre operational signal available

macpacheco macpacheco writes  |  about 4 months ago

macpacheco (1764378) writes "For ages, high accuracy GPS meant using a mix of civilian and military signals.
In order to obtain high accuracy GPS positioning (better than 2 meters) receiver must know local ionosphere corrections. This requires two GPS signals at a minimum, the difference between both is used to calculate ionospheric corrections which is then applied to either one.
However since GPS doesn't offer two usable civilian signals, a technique known as semi-codeless was devised, that calculates ionosphere corrections by using the two military encrypted signals L1P(Y)+L2P(Y), then applies the iono corrections to the civilian L1 C/A signal, however the military was never to fond of that usage, since it limits what changes they can do with the military signals. Specially changes in power levels.
Since September 26, 2005 GPS satellites capable of broadcasting the L2C (2nd civilian signal) and since May 2010 GPS satellites capable of broadcasting the L5 (3rd civilian signal, usable for aviation) have been launched, however those signals are still not fully usable.
Today those signals were enabled in a pre operational format meaning:
  1 — All messages required for full L2C and L5 utilization are broadcast
  2 — L5 signals are broadcast with an alert flag (not usable), L2C is broadcast without an alert flag
  3 — L2C/L5 almanac and ephemeris will be updated about twice a week, while regular L1 C/A updates happen typically twice a day, so L2C and L5 signals will be less accurate in this phase

However this means there is no technical excuse for GPS equipment manufacturers to finalize their L2C and L5 offerings, since they now have a complete signal to test against, and right after GPS satellites have received an upload they should have similar accuracy as L1 C/A.
This should continue for the next few years, until the new GPS control segment, OCX comes online, OCX block 1 is needed for full L2C capabilities and OCX block 2 is needed for full L5 capabilities.
Notice that it will take at least another 12 GPS launches for L2C to reach a state known as FOC (full operational capability), meaning that are enough satellites with L2C capability for L2C to be usable for standalone positioning and it will take another 19 GPS launches for L5 to reach FOC as well."

Link to Original Source
top

Forbes tries to smear Tesla and gets burned !

macpacheco macpacheco writes  |  about a year ago

macpacheco (1764378) writes "Very interesting to read a clearly Big Oil sponsored article, and then read all comments, not a single comment supporting the writer's stupid, short sighted views.

Forbes needs to first write articles scathing the trillions of dollars the Oil + Coal industry got in subsidies over the last 50yrs before they be allowed to try to criticize the solutions to our pollution problems !"

Link to Original Source
top

USA Election. It's the productivity dummy !

macpacheco macpacheco writes  |  about 2 years ago

macpacheco (1764378) writes "Another critical fact neither the GOP nor the Dems address which is critical to economical recovery:
In 1970, a business needed as many as 10x more employees to accomplish the same administrative tasks (invoicing, payroll, accounting, IT, production planning, inventory), as today.
After the PC revolution, businesses needed less people to do the same, they got fired, but the services sector re-used them for other jobs, many started businesses of their own. However their a limit to how many people large businesses can fire until the economy can't re cycle them. The current economy is getting too productive. B2B and B2C processes are further reducing the number of employees needed to get the job done.
Eventually there will be next to none clerical employees, forklift jobs get automated, robots take over production. How can the economy re accomodate that labor force ? The services sector need customers ! Eventually unemployment will rise. Don't we need to have some limits to automation to ensure that manufacturing actually hires ?
If the whole economy hires 10% of what it did in the pre PC age, how is full employment possible ?
That's a difficult question no sides are willing to answer."
top

Mitt Romney, conservative/moderate or just plain liar ?

macpacheco macpacheco writes  |  about 2 years ago

macpacheco (1764378) writes "After listening to the 47% tape, following the Republican primaries and the first month of all out electoral campaign, I'm puzzled.

Is Romney just a flip flopper, or is he a pathological liar ?
People that tell you what they want you to hear, just because they can get away with it, no matter how untrue, are the worse type of politician and human beings on the planet.

I'm not from the US (I'm from Brazil), if I was a US citizen, I'd be an independent, I would vote for Obama not because I like him, but instead because I think the current generation of Republicans are just 10 times worse !

I do have an agenda, I'm a pragmatic environmentalist, and I'm against all kinds of corporative inefficiency, specially the government type of corporative inefficiency. The Dems have their faults, but the GOP fails to show any way that they actually mean to do the positive side of their agenda."
top

Smaller, cheaper lighter atomic clocks are here

macpacheco macpacheco writes  |  more than 3 years ago

macpacheco (1764378) writes "Atomic clocks for a long time have been a research lab item, used in production environments only in high budget, ultra performance demanding environments. Their high power consumption, 4U size and weight also didn't help.
Chip scale atomic clocks (CSAC) have been a promise for a long time. They're finally here. Typical atomic clocks cost tens of thousands of dollars each, this first generation CSAC costs US$ 1400 in small quantities. 1 cu inch volume (16 cc), 115mW power consumption (down about 1000 fold), and just 35 grams weight, will make them more interesting than current GPS based frequency standard.
They're called frequency standard, because 99% of the time someone needs an atomic clock, it's not to actually track time (day, hour, minutes, seconds, milliseconds), its used instead a replacement for quartz crystal oscillators, mainly transmitting and receiving radio signals, synchronizing telecommunications equipment. This atomic clock claims to be about 10000 times more accurate than typical quartz based oscillators.
This is very exciting, as it will enable better 4g/WiMax/... base stations, better ultra high speed networking equipment, and will help tremendously in GPS augmentation solutions like WAAS, EGNOS, DGPS. Having an atomic clock on a GPS receiver works like an extra GPS satellite."

Link to Original Source

Journals

macpacheco has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>