SI
SI
discoversearch

   Technology StocksThe *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (46033)9/20/2017 10:56:43 PM
From: P2V
   of 46128
 
If these folks can get power and string up some wire, they can communicate

http://www.arrl.org/hurricane-irma-2017





The page, www.arrl.org/irma, includes information and news summarizing the response by Amateur Radio (ham radio) volunteers for Hurricane Irma in September 2017.



FEMA ARRL (Amateur Radio Relay League) on 5 / 60 Meters Ham Bands

http://www.arrl.org/news/fema-announces-regions-that-could-activate-on-60-meters-for-hurricane-irma

also:
arrl.org

arrl.org

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (46042)9/26/2017 12:53:56 PM
From: axial
   of 46128
 
Frank, your comments would be appreciated ...

Putting the internet on an energy diet

How RANOVUS plans to manage today’s data tsunami using less power

'The core of the company’s innovation is quantum-dot laser technology that can transmit more data at lower cost, using significantly less power. First conceived at Bell Northern Research (predecessor to Nortel Networks), quantum-dot lasers are designed using self-assembling nanomaterials that exhibit unique behaviours referred to as “quantum effects.”

“Usually, lasers can generate only one wavelength,” Arabzadeh explains. Quantum-dot lasers, on the other hand, are made up of millions of nanoparticles of different sizes, with like-sized dots emitting their own wavelength of laser light. “What you end up with is many wavelengths coming from a single laser source.”

[...]

“It’s gone through its next phase of evolution with RANOVUS,” Arabzadeh says. “The laser would not work if deployed today on its own. What we have had to include is all the other things around it to make it work.” '
______________________________________________

RANOVUS
______________________________________________

Information is sparse, especially WRT required next-stage implementation. Your take?

Jim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: axial9/26/2017 1:24:16 PM
   of 46128
 
2015 — 'Meanwhile, perceptions about alt energy and reliance on fossil fuels are distorted. Green energy -- the best of all alternatives -- continues to make welcome advances. But they pale when compared to energy currently derived from fossil fuels. When will the energy balance tip? When will global use of green energy exceed fossil fuel use? One day. But at the rate of current progress, not soon.'
____________________________________________

Fossil fuel expansion crushes renewables



'Focusing on just the positive renewable energy news feels to me like cherry-picking climate hope. It's tempting, for sure, but can distract from what actually determines our climate fate: how much fossil fuel we burn. And by that measure we are still heading ever further from safety while our time to turn around is running out.'

Jim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: axial who wrote (46046)9/26/2017 3:58:55 PM
From: aladin
   of 46128
 
Not soon

That is an understatement. Current 'green' religion prohibits new hydropower or nuclear development which would be the best way to displace hydrocarbons.

As you are aware, I am not fan of the religious hysteria on and around CO2. My beef is that this obscures the reality of pollution issues caused by hydrocarbon use. In any event the hysteria on our current 1950's Nuclear technology is delaying real progress and has enabled conversion from coal to natural gas. This is the only real choice our laws and litigious society has left Utilities to use.

Yes, Natural gas is cleaner than coal, but what could we do with current Nuclear technology? A lot - there are many solutions today that create much safer environments than those used in the Soviet Union, Japan or at 3 Mile Island. Imagine crippling the renewable industry by stating they had to use technology that was from the same era as our current nuclear fleet.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: aladin who wrote (46047)9/26/2017 6:27:08 PM
From: axial
1 Recommendation   of 46128
 
John, just heading out the door, so abbreviating ...

For years I've posted about a transitional energy shortfall, and the need, then, for nuclear power. Links, later — but I agree.

In fairness, at least part of nuclear's problems rise from the current glut of natural gas, with consequent low prices: at present nuclear can't compete. But the glut won't last: so what then?

"As you are aware, I am not fan of the religious hysteria on and around CO2"

— Discord around the issue is an irresolvable problem. It replicates smoking/cancer debates in the 60's, complete with ideological biases, corporate misdirection, and public failure to understand probabilistic decisions, as opposed to probative and linear yes/no binary decisions. Different national/cultural biases toward prudence and common (global) good also play a part. These are clearly visible in different country trajectories.

— In any case, even where we disagree, we both see trouble coming.

Jim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: axial who wrote (46048)9/26/2017 10:57:24 PM
From: aladin
1 Recommendation   of 46128
 
Jim,

Don't get me wrong - I know we disagree on some things, but we are on the same page on nuclear.

Thanks,

John

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: aladin who wrote (46049)9/27/2017 7:12:20 PM
From: axial
1 Recommendation   of 46128
 
Hi John — Frank's thread has always been open to differing views on technology. They're plentiful and global. Where technology intersects with society is important, but difficult to handle because the dialogue can veer off-course to political and social debates.

My comments were about societal reactions -- not yours. That is, there are technological issues with which different societies have varying degrees of difficulty. Examples would be privacy in the EU vs. privacy in the US. Global warming responses in Denmark compared those in the 'States. Telecom in Japan, S. Korea and Sweden vs telecom in the USA. And so on ...

In that context, what we think is non-influential. True, we may reflect one stream of thought vs. another, but there are no world leaders or constituencies waiting on words from SI. Plus, there's a world beyond US borders. SI (more often than not) speaks from a parochial American POV. In this changing world, the relative importance of that viewpoint is decreasing.

On the fraught subject of nuclear power -- and no other -- we agree. As you say. Thanks for the discussion.

Jim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: axial who wrote (46045)9/29/2017 5:30:46 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio
   of 46128
 
Hi Jim,

re: “Usually, lasers can generate only one wavelength,” Arabzadeh explains.”
--

This is not accurate, or at best, it's a dated notion. The statement leaves one to wonder if the author actually meant "generate", or through some other filtering means "extracted" multiple wavelengths. In any case, WDM PONs have been using broadband light sources for over a decade, employing various wavelength slicing techniques.

Incidentally, Nortel <R.I.P.>, or one of its surviving components, which is mentioned in the RANOVUS material, was among the first to take this approach, IIRC.

Now, whether quantum dot technology is more recently the enabler of a new approach to multi-wavelength lasers, is something I'd have to look at more closely. Thanks for the homework assignment ;)

As to the basic premise concerning energy savings, while very likely true, my thinking is that this would be consistent with the per-unit energy consumption curve of most newly introduced ICT technologies. And if it's not, it probably wouldn't doesn't pass muster, thus relegating it to non-starter status."

FAC

------

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (46051)9/29/2017 9:49:26 PM
From: axial
   of 46128
 
Thanks, Frank — The article stimulated interest, but left the reader unsatisfied.

Now, whether quantum dot technology is more recently the enabler of a new approach to multi-wavelength lasers, is something I'd have to look at more closely. Thanks for the homework assignment ;)

I'll research the question too. But on this subject, my work is an unguided missile. Far more likely that you will perceive whether there's anything of substance here. Should you find time to investigate (among your other priorities) any feedback will be appreciated.

... my thinking is that this would be consistent with the per-unit energy consumption curve of most newly introduced ICT technologies...

Odds are the reality doesn't match the headline. Probably I've been clickbaited :(

Jim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: axial who wrote (46052)9/29/2017 11:48:42 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio
   of 46128
 
Jim,

As you my have inferred from my many posts on a closely related topic in the past, my position is that no individual component or network element alone has as much influence on a system's overall energy efficiency as the supporting infrastructure immediately surrounding it. See my Twitter profile page, whose pinned tweet contains a pointer to one of my posts to another forum of almost ten years ago:

@fcoluccio 1 Apr 2016 "It's not the type of wire you install that determines energy efficiency. It's the supporting architecture, Stupid!"

cr4.globalspec.com

FAC

------

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2017 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.