I was wondering, but "earthquakes" perhaps. It's much easier to fix a canal, even with some of the water flowing.
There's a cost to pipes, but at least part of that would be offset by the structural support for the solar panels and the fact that you need to pipe less waters. Also I assume that the canals are lined in some way. I don't know, maybe the canals are just prettier to look at?
A similar problem is plaguing the Aral sea. The Amu Darya river is being drained by ineffective and leaky canals.
Not living in the US but in the Netherlands. It's quite popular to do this, because the energy is really expensive, be it electricity, be it natural gas, be it petrol. If you are able to own a single family home, you are likely to have the means to invest 4k-10k euros solar installation costs (depending on how many panels) and benefit from reduced energy bill.
In short, cheap energy might be the culprit but I don't know for sure.
I'm not sure, as this paper is very confusing in its style, but I think they try to modulate the load resistance connected to an antenna on the TX side. Since the open has a large real resistance (25k in their case), it's poorly impedance matched to the antenna and most of the noise powwr cannot be transferred to the antenna at 1.4 GHz they are using. 50 ohm load is well matched, hence the max noise power transfer to the antenna. This is all at TX.
I don't see a thermodynamic problem here. Noise modulation with switching is well known in electronics. Switched resistors and their noise is already analyzed. It is often in the context of noise parr of SNR though. They are using this noise modulation to transmit signals, which isn't too novel. I guess the transmit power is very low but this would be horrible for Shannon spectral efficiency because of the need for noise power detection, which cannot be instantenous.
I suspect GP's question is answered by the fact the system is not in thermal equilibrium. The view the antenna has is approx half of the sky whose temperature is far lower than room temp. Even indoors, the roof of your house is sufficiently transparent in RF that you are still seeing the sky behind.
If the same experiment was done in metal box with everything of constant temperature, I don't think it would be possible to transmit any bits.
Nuclear power is expensive enough on land. At sea it’ll never compete with any other energy source. They’ll be pulling hydrocarbons from the air before they do nuclear ships in earnest. Yes I have heard of nuclear carriers and subs, the only two useful applications of nuclear power at sea.
Russia has been using nuclear icebreakers for civilian purposes since the 50s, and has also used nuclear propulsion for other vessel types, as has the US.
Thanks, I am pretty knowledgeable about nuclear ships and they’re only used in specific situations because they don’t care about cost for those situations. It’s too expensive for cargo and there is no training pipeline for civilian naval reactors so this idea is dead on arrival.
I’m pro nuclear tech but the economics and systems will not support nuclear for ships right now. We are barely making headway into nuclear on land these days, let’s focus on that for now.
I really hate the fossil fuel dependency of the current aircrafts. Time will tell if there will be a place for battery electric aircraft, and if there is, will the introduction be in the west where Boeing and Airbus duopoly is killing all the competition (i.e. Bombardier CS series saga). I won't say China will be more open as it's popular to do these days on HN. One hopes some other nations with less political power but enough industrial capabilities can do this for domestic flights (like Brazil, India, Indonesia..) in the future, if the global politics continues to go in its current trend.
reply