firestallion

禁絕虛幻世界的實驗報告

2010-10-03T04:52:00.000-07:00

轉自明報:

你的心不是公廁

——禁絕虛幻世界的實驗報告

【明報專訊】這次我所挑戰實驗的，是一個由facebook、msn和手提電話構成，半實半虛的國度。

兩個多星期來，我一直嘗試堅持，沒瞥過facebook一眼，也沒在msn露面過一秒，手機也徹底關掉。

我將其視為一種實驗，以自身的感受、思想作記，刻畫這三件「物件」，以至於虛幻世界與我的關係。

過程、結果

兩星期之初，我先把iPod Touch裏面facebook的app刪去，因為這通道的存在標誌那facebook世界的觸手可及。呃，我必須以認罪悔疚的口吻來承認自己的心癮﹕我以往每天讀news feed不下數十次——未必是真的在讀，但不瞥一下心裏總是有所缺欠，這，為之癮。瀏覽facebook已經變成比喝水更為牢不可破的習慣，或心癮。

沒有facebook，我開始收不到好些約會的通知，也無法得知其他人（容我偏執地以「人」來代替「朋友」）的近況；沒有facebook和 msn，我失去跟好些人——其實是大部分人——的聯絡。嘿，不妨想像一下，如果下一秒鐘，你的facebook、msn、手機的contact都完全蒸發，你可怎樣做？還有誰的電話、email地址能夠一直留於腦海？你的男女朋友呢？你家的電話呢？）

沒有facebook，最多是把自己的群體性散失，但沒有手機，帶來的不便卻讓我在往後不斷猜想，究竟手機未興起時，日子是怎樣過的？當我出門時決定把手機獨留家中時，也許出於褲袋裏空無一物，心頭不期然顫動，即使把紙巾等形狀與手機相近的物件塞進褲袋，鬱悶仍揮之不去。這是缺乏安全感的證明。

原來沒有手機，你會被迫準時，再沒有「唔好意思我要遲五至十分鐘」的權利。你要早早跟友人約定集合的具體位置，愈詳盡，愈好。原來是手機，把我們的決斷力，以及準時美德，一同抹殺，但我們責無旁貸。

這兩星期，不用每天誠惶誠恐不停翻看facebook讓我的工作變得順利，回家後不必亮覑電腦讓我有更多時間跟家人相處傾談，路途中不必提起手機讓我的腦袋放空，仔細思考從前不會觸及的事情。

限期屆滿，重回facebook世界，我頗有剛去完長旅行回港的錯亂感覺。無法跟上別人的話題，反而輕鬆自在。起初我以為別人定會知道自己消失了一段長時間，facebook會擠滿notifications； msn會滿是offline message；電話會盡是未覆短訊。但原來不﹕facebook的notifications只有區區幾個；msn的offline msg全是病毒留言；手機短訊倒是有幾個，但錯過了又彷彿無足輕重。原來這些存在感的證明，從來都不能依賴別人賦予，只是自己加諸自己身上。比方說，當你活躍於facebook世界，不斷在別人相片、note留言，notifications自然就多，你也自然有種濃厚的存在感。

於是我開始對這些事物產生太膩的感覺。我不會從此脫離這個世界，只會任性地維持抽離。同時也逐漸抽離地檢視身邊依舊沉迷虛幻世界的你們。

討論﹕

上下班的路途上你反覆按覑簇新的iPhone4屏幕，咀嚼facebook的每一個字；你跟不相干的路人在msn漫無目的聊天。在公司、學校、餐廳、客廳、房間，你都嘗試用這些「物件」搪塞生命的每一寸空白。你討厭空白，討厭游手好閒，討厭孤獨，於是裝作色彩斑斕，裝作忙得不可開交，裝作了解身邊人的一切。

但你忽略了空白的意義。就在你在家用msn跟人搭訕時，你父母的華髮稍稍冒出長成；就在你在餐廳用sms跟別人展開漫漫對話時，你忽略了坐對面那人的感受。你以為facebook拉近人與人之間的距離，但原來它不過拉近你與某些原來不相干的人之間的距離，並與此同時讓你跟其他原來親密的人漸行漸遠。你用facebook令自己結交了一百個所謂朋友的同時，你用facebook背棄了好些以前熟悉的舊人。

你在facebook竭力去裝出一個形象，或交遊廣闊，或與眾不同，然後你的一舉一動就是往那終極目標進發。於是你開始為有多少人跟自己說聲生日快樂而惴惴不安；你開始在網上搜羅文章來突顯自己的形象；你把自己所做的每一件事都在上面跟他人匯報；你以為facebook不過是一個由日常生活延伸的舞台，但它已然成為你生活舞台的全部。

也許一切都是條件交換。你把自己的一切事情裸裎人前，來換取別人也如此赤裸地展示身體。但為何你要向這些不相干的人赤身露體，而對更多真正關心你的朋友、家人封閉自己呢？

你的心明明只想充當你的私人廁所，讓你閒時走進去發泄情緒、寧靜獨處，或是汲取靈感，為何你偏偏要犯賤地把它改裝成藍色的流動公廁，中門大開地歡迎別人侵佔，並放下糞土濃痰呢？他們不過將你的心單純地當作公廁，用作排泄，用作交換是非，完成後便拔足遠離。你卻因應這些公廁旅客的要求而裝修這座私人廁所，為它塗上你最討厭的顏色，放置最讓你反胃的皂液，以求讓最多的人擠進來，把廁所弄得傷痕累累。

借用卓韻芝的新書書名，你‧的‧心‧不‧是‧公‧廁。

文阿果

http://news.mingpao.com/20101003/vzb2.htm

========================

好,也讓我來做實驗.

在別人FB上,留下空白的留言,會有甚麼反應?

我們會曉得"留白"嗎????.........

Where is the solution to Global Warming? Science? Are you serious?

2010-01-15T04:08:00.000-08:00

Here's the link to my netfriend's blog about Is science the key to global warming?

(I have contacted him and he is OK for me to cut and paste his work.)

Where is the solution to Global Warming? Is Science the key to Global Warming? Or should we ask "Is Global Warming the only issue we are facing?"

Do you think we can sit there, do nothing, (actually complaining the "lack" of air conditioning), and "business as usual"?

Get real!

The world is changing, unfortunately, for worse.

Here are a few points from the linked blog (and my thoughts):

Scientific proof is not the key point to the existence or non-existence of Global Warming. By the time we have good understandings of what's happening, the circumstances may have changed to some thing yet different again. And the proposition that we can (completely) understand the science of Global Warming is merely wishful thinking. The nature (or environment, or ecological system (implying a living and ever changing system), or God's creation, whichever way you say it) is beyond science's domain. Science is only part of the nature.
We can't see the big picture. But that doesn't mean we only look at ourselves, or worse, nothing. We need to have a variable focus. Look at the big picture and ourselves. But then, this leads to ...
What value do we put on oneself and one's surroundings? Do the surroundings exist merely to serve us? This goes particularly to women. I know so many women saying something like "Air conditioning is the greatest invention", "I can't live without air conditioning", "Why is the air conditioning not on?", or merely stare (and grudge) at me when I suggest turning the fan instead of the A/C on. Is human comfort so much more important than the varnishing of the world?
"Does human lose connection with the environment?" Actually, this is a variant of the point above. I heard of this when I was in a training course of "Building Thermal Performance". For example, when people come home from work and find that the indoor is "warm", first thing most people do is to flip on the air conditioning switch. -- Coming back to the connection with nature, can human win over nature? Can human ignore nature? ...... We should know the answer but are we doing what we should be doing?
Do we know we are doing harm (or good?!) to the environment and ourselves, sooner or later? This may or may not be Global Warming. Things can range from intoxication from chemicals, fertilisers and insecticides used in agricultural and other cases, (e.g. Australia talks about BPA in baby bottles now. BPA had been banned in some other countries.), light pollution (e.g. bird are somehow confused with the night sky during their migration), GM genetically modified food, ..... etc. The list goes on and on.

Oh! Almost half a year from my last blog!

2009-05-04T15:50:00.000-07:00

I didn't write blog for almost half a year!

What's wrong with me?

Anyway, I haven't put effort in writing blog. As simple as that.

Why? Maybe I haven't found something I want to write about for blog.

In fact, GFC has its effects on me. I am not a 4-day week roster.

That should mean more time for me. But then, if I am at home, I wouldn't bother to write blog.

And because of GFC, it's not good to spend time to write blog in the office. Otherwise, I may be in a real crisis.

Anyway, the office becomes a bit quieter. My workload fluctuates. But for April, I actually didn't take my day-offs as I've got work to do.

Some businesses and the governments are still spending.

The key is how you position yourself in the right place when opportunities comes along.

And I have the abilities and the tools to service clients with NABERS, Green Star, BCA Section J, etc.

So, it appears I am still surviving.

When will I write my next blog?

Any one have any idea they want to share?

Or any one want me to write in Chinese?

P.S. Gundam 00 is over! So, I am on Japdorama now.

Cape No. 7 and memoirs.....

2008-11-20T16:59:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Alex L. Malthus' recommendation of Cape No. 7 (http://sustainology.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_16.html), I watched that movie.

It stirred up some of my memories..... esp. with that catchphrase "Stay! Or I'll go with you!"

I also had some discussions in the guhk forum.

So, I decided to put this memories into memoirs.

I'll start with the persons' names first. Over time, I will fill in the details.

1. Ms Cheung - Girl on Bus Route 102

2. Mrs. B. L. (nee W.) - The summer class girl I still have contact with.

3. Ms. TAP Receptionist - Material girl.

4. Ms. Mdy - A real possibility but we were "ordinary people!"

5. Ms. F-a T. - The little sister in the whole company.

6. Ms. Apple - The girl that approached me.

7. Ms. D.K. - Have any girl asked you, "Fire, marry me!" She did!

8. Mrs. M.T. N. (nee K.) - A story not started.

9. Mrs. W.W.Y. W. (nee C.) - We've gone so far, but .... the one that I might say "Stay or I'll go with you!"

10. Ms. P. H. - She didn't ask me, "Marry me!" But the way she acted was saying so.

11. Ms. J.C. - An elder sister like girl that shutted the door.

12. Mrs. E.N. (nee C.) - I still have feelings for her. The other girl that I should ask myself "Stay or I'll go with you!"

13. Mrs. J. (nee T.) - A misunderstanding?....

14. Ms. L. - Yet another girl that implicitly invited me to approach her. But ....

15. Mrs. K. C. (nee L.) - Who else but my wife now!

P.S. Tomoko M. - The Japanese pen friend I have never met face to face.

Some new ideas

2008-10-16T23:12:00.000-07:00

Instead of staying quiet for a while, I just think of an idea.

This is about posting the links that I read for the day.

So I can keep track of what info and blogs I've gone through.

Today, I skip through the following info:

Magnetic train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation_train
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A3%81%E6%87%B8%E6%B5%AE%E5%88%97%E8%BB%8A

Lunar space elevator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator

Other house energy rating software - Sustainability Victoria

ZTC Ltd. Tether-Sling Prototype - Page 10 - Orbiter-Forum

What is a well ventilated fridge space?

What is indoor or sheltered clothes drying line?

Energy Labelling - Selecting an efficient appliance Clothes dryer

Energy Labelling - Selecting an efficient appliance dish washer

Here are the url's I've read through yesterday or before, as from my firefox's browsing history:

Raining goals as Cahill and Co make statement - Football - Sport - smh.com.au

We were a circus: Rio praises new England order - Football - Sport - smh.com.au

Australian Building Codes Board: BCA 2008 Volume Two - List of Amendments

[轉貼][科技探討]MK82的衝擊——解析MK82核彈的原理 - 高達專區 - 動畫/漫畫 - 香港討論區 discuss.com.hk - 一個香港只得一個香港討論區

Which Linux makes the best business Windows replacement desktop? | Computerworld Blogs

Shorelink Library Network

Nabers Performance Rating Calculator

Windows Energy Ratings Scheme - WERS

MSI Announces Wind 2, Says Customers Hate Linux | Gadget Lab from Wired.com

Why smart people uses Linux « TransLXP - By Infrasound

Canonical Confirms MSI's Linux Return Rate Statement

Why so stupid?: how the human race has never really learned to think - Google Search

Edward de Bono - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1/144 HG GN-X III A-Laws Type

Sale Items www.hlj.com

Main Page - DramaWiki

Linux Mint 5 "Elyssa" - XFCE Community Edition - Linux Mint

Solar power satellite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gundam 00 technology - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Artificial intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pagetable.com » Blog Archive » Bill Gates’ Personal Easter Eggs in 8 Bit BASIC

Asustek launches new Eee PC laptop - Articles - Laptops - Digital Life

VF-25F Messiah Valkyrie Aruto Type (Plastic model) Bandai Macross Frontier 1/72

Space tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spaceflight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Real Cost of Space Exploration - a knol by Edward Isarevich

Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earth Statistics

What is the diameter of the Sun?

Bureau - New South Wales Observations

Australian Water Availability - Solar Exposure

The Gardens of Babylon: Preliminary ideas about my PhD project

HVAC Systems

Hydrogen, H2, Physical properties, safety, MSDS, enthalpy, material compatibility, gas liquid equilibrium, density, viscosity, flammability, transport properties

Hydrogen - Specific Heat Capacity

SE_Ideal_App_for_FEL.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Space Elevator GEO Station on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Music of the Spheres: Popular Space Elevator View

Space maths & physics forum - Orbiter Forums

AttitudeMFD - OrbiterWiki

What is Earth's mean radius? - a definition from Whatis.com

Toshiba takes wraps off netbook | Register Hardware

Berbatov nets twice in United romp - Football - Sport - smh.com.au

The ROI of PC power management |Sustainable IT | Ted Samson | InfoWorld

Chinese Proverbs quotes

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) Scheme home page

Where Windows is #2 to Linux | Computerworld Blogs

Full Circle Magazine | Issue 17

ABSA

2008 Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards & Trade Show - Courses & Events - Green Building Council Australia (GBCA)

Leading Green Thinkers Sydney - Courses & Events - Green Building Council Australia (GBCA)

Five Ways To Cut Energy Bills - Forbes.com

Wow, I have been through quite some webpages.

I believe this will be an asset which allows me to trace back information on another day!

Happy Birthday to me!

2008-10-09T15:46:00.000-07:00

Another busy month!

Another not so productive month within the blogosphere!

Just to say "Happy Birthday to me!"

Hey, Lo Paul (chinese way of saying "wife"), I haven't received anything yet!

Unproductive August blogger

2008-09-03T11:26:00.000-07:00

Wow, I didn't write blog in August?!

I was busy, I am busy, and I am going to be busy with real energy efficiency and "green(wash)" work.

What I've done in August:

Several BCA Section J DTS (Deemed-to-satisfy) assessment reports.
Completion inspection for the first Section J Report I've done. The building is at The Entrance (90 km from where I work)
A few JV3 Performance Assessments for some proposed buildings. One of them is a big retail chain with specific alternative solution using PMV/PPD and HSI (Heat Stress Index).
A number of NatHERS/BASIX assessments orf residential apartments and houses.
I've moved house.
I had a friend's family visiting me from HK. (Dr. Square Fong) We are both from the same B.Eng. course. We speak the same "green" language. And it might be alien language to our wives and other people (LOL)!
Manage issues with the building of my family's new house. Yet more are still to come!

There are signs that the Australian economy is slowing down. When it appeared I might have a little break in my busy work schedule, suddenly some EE and ESD projects rushed in. The clients just liked to have the job done "Yesterday". (Yes, this is the trend. All jobs are already overdue?!!)

Some reasons (excuses) for the silence in the blogosphere!

Now, need to get on with the JV3 energy simulation which will due tomorrow! I will be late! OH, dun!

Update to "Unofficial ABGR Assessment"

2008-07-30T11:50:00.000-07:00

I have an entry about Unofficial ABGR Assessment back in February.

I actually finished the report around June/July.

So, here are the updates from the assessment:

The base building ABGR (now it is NABERS Energy) could achieve 5 stars. The tenancy ratings ranged from 0 star to 2 stars. So there was some disparity here.

To fairly compare this building with other buildings, the whole building rating should be used.

The whole building rating was assessed to be 3 stars. This means "Best Practice" according to the ABGR official definition. This should be considered fair or even good for a building around 20 years of age.

However, in the Australian building market place, knowledgeable tenants will demand 4 or 4.5 stars.

To bring the building to 4 or 4.5 stars, the energy consumption has to be cut down by about 40%!!

For an existing building, this is not easy to achieve this. Some major renovations will be required to cut 40% energy use.

Well, when I talked to the property manager, "cost effectiveness" came before "sustainability"!

You know what that means?

June's Update

2008-06-24T16:50:00.000-07:00

This month (June) seems not like a good month for me (and my family).

So that's why I have been silent for a while.

I had been quite busy at work.

Just when I had a little bit of breathing space, I fell sick. I (and my wife) contracted flu from my young boy as he got flu from the child care centre. We had two days of sick leave from that.

Just when I return to work (and still a little bit sick), work is pouring ......

Why I can type this now? It's because I am working on BASIX. Takes me five minutes for a recalculation. So I use this time to update my blog.

Well, BASIX again!

Look at here for BASIX: http://www.basix.nsw.gov.au/information/index.jsp

ESD AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRALIA (4) - BCA SECTION J - ENERGY EFFICIENCY

2008-05-05T11:45:00.000-07:00

I think I may move on to BCA Section J.

Some time ago, I read an article in "Ecolibrium" (AIRAH professional journal) about "paradigm shift" in the Australian business sectors towards "Sustainabilty".

It was viewed as a "nice to have" features. But nowadys, the view is that sustainability is essential to the continuing development. And after all, sustainability really bear benefits for the building owners and building users.

And from my personal experience, large developers are really embracing sustainability whole heartly. Smaller ones are not so consistent but the trend is clear that sustainability has its place and is becoming more and more important!

Back to BCA (Building Code of Australia).

BCA is similar to “Building Ordinance” in HK. For some quick info on HK’s Building Ordinance, see this: http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/services/index_support3.html

However, BCA, starting from 2004, is updated annually.

In 2000, all State and Territory governments had agreed to introduce mandatory energy efficiency standards into the BCA in order to reduce GHG emissions attributable to the operation of buildings.

The first stage was to introduce energy efficiency measures into the BCA Volume Two on 1 January 2003. (BCA Volume Two relates to requirements and regulations for freestanding / detached houses and garages.)

The second stage was to introduce energy measures for multi-residential buildings into BCA Volume One on 1 May 2005.

The final (third) stage for introducing energy efficiency measures is to include energy efficiency measures for all other building classifications in BCA Volume One. (BCA Volume One includes requirements and regulations on all other buildings including commercial, retail, industrial, institutional, recreational, schools, hospitals, aged homes, etc.)

I’ve said it before – the inception of the plan dates back to 2000. The actual “full” implementation date is 2006!

For places that haven’t started, how long will they take to have some proper legislation in place?

You can have some good in-depth understanding on the rationale of Energy Efficiency in BCA by reading these "Handbooks". Mind you one of them is over 150 pages and the other is over 300 pages!

http://www.abcb.gov.au/documents/energy/Handbook_vol1.pdf

http://www.abcb.gov.au/documents/energy/Handbook_vol2.pdf

So how can a building comply with BCA Section J?

Basically, there are two approaches:
1.Deemed-to-satisfy (DTS) method (prescriptive method)
2.Verification method (JV3) (JV2 is superseded from 1 May 2008)

With the DTS method, it is like ticking a checklist to comply with ALL the requirements.

With the JV’s, the annual energy consumptions of the building under different scenarios are calculated. If they are under a certain benchmark, then they are compliant.

And I list some major categories in the DTS method.

There are eight categories to be checked for Energy Efficiency compliance:

Part J1 – Building Fabric
‧Roof and Ceiling Construction
‧Roof Lights
‧Walls
‧Floors
(In most cases, insulation, esp. roof insulation, is required to keep the temperature in a building less prone to outside temperature fluctuations.)

Part J2 – External Glazing
‧Two methods (spreadsheets) for checking compliance
‧Shading is also important
(Generally, large glass area without shading will fail.)

Part J3 – Building Sealing
‧Chimneys and flues
‧Roof lights
‧Windows and doors
‧Exhaust fans
‧Construction of roofs, walls and floors
(Basically, there should be some things to prevent unwanted air coming in or out of a building)

Part J4 – Air Movement
‧Only applicable for multi-residential buildings
(This part requires that the openable window area equals or exceed a certain % of floor area.)

Part J5 – Air-conditioning and Ventilation Systems
‧Air-conditioning and ventilation systems
‧Time switch
‧Heating and chilling systems
‧Miscellaneous exhaust systems
(Energy efficient air conditioning and ventilation systems with proper controls (like the inexpensive time switches) are required to pass the requirements.)

Part J6 – Artificial lighting and power
‧Interior artificial lighting
‧Interior artificial lighting and power control
‧Interior decorative and display lighting
‧Artificial lighting around the perimeter of a building
‧Boiling water and chilled water storage units
(Simply speaking, you need good energy efficient lightings and control switches to comply. Normal light bulb in most cases will fail.)

Part J7 – Hot water supply
(Need a proper design to comply, i.e. don’t just get a “no-body” to do it.)

Part J8 – Access for Maintenance
(Just allow access to repair and fix equipment and components.)

It may sound simple from the above descriptions. But there are many small details to check.

And I have some insiders' comments to the BCA Section J. .......

A little drama of windows

2008-03-25T15:20:00.000-07:00

Last week, I was working on NatHERS and BASIX for a residential building in Sydney City.

Well, a little drama with the architect happened.

Here are some emails between us.

I've seen a number of architects. Their most important concern is aesthetics, or in other words, the appearance of "their" building.

"Sustainability"? They don't care!

===============================

From: Dont Sustain
Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2008
To: FireStallion; Loss Energy
Cc: Sudden Jump; Minimum Spend; Go Froth
Subject: RE: BASIX certification on Site X

FS Comments in red

Regards

Dont Sustain

Associate Director | nom. Architect xxxx

0402 xxx xxx

From: FireStallion

Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2008

To: Dont Sustain; Loss Energy
Cc: 'Sudden Jump'; 'Minimum Spend'; 'Go Forth'
Subject: RE: BASIX certification on Site X

Dont and Loss

I’ve worked on some different options to get the north east corner apt of level 12-17 under the cooling allowance 64.7

Option A – Louvres to all glazings – 76.8 Failed
Option B – As option A but with window height of B2, B3 changed to 1.6m – 66.1 Failed
Option C – Double glazing to all glazings with external blinds to Terrace, B2 & B3 – 76.1 Failed
Option D – Different double glazing with B2 & B3 external blinds, type 1523 (6mm super grey/6mm air/4mm Energy advantage Low-E, U=2.552, SHGC=0.157) – 27.6 passed What double glazing is proposed for the northern windows….ie the main curtain wall? I would prefer not to commit to external blinds. As this is only morning sun to the east to B2 and B3 I am surprised it makes such a difference.
Option E – As option D but using double glazing type 657 (5mm SuperGrey/13mm air/4mm clear, U=4.112, SHGC 0.203) – 44.8 passed Is this just the glass to the B2 and B3 or to the full north?
Option F – As option E but with no external blind to B2 & B3 – 47.4 passed

And as a sensitivity comparison, residence 2 is also compared with different options, cooling allowance 64.8:

Option A – as SC layout with B1, B2 & B3 external blinds – 59.9 passed
Option B – as option A but with no external blinds – 80.1 failed
Option C – as option A but with blinds to all glazing – 45.8 passed If we pass without external blinds then that’s great news. Means at least the client does not need to commit as yet on this western terrace

From the above results, I have the following remarks:

The SHGC (Solar Heat Gain Coefficient) of the proposed glass is critical to keep the cooling load down other than shading devices. SHGC should be kept under 0.3 or lower. Double or single glazing, which affects the U-value, is not as critical. However, glazing with low SHGC tends to be dark and may not have good visual effects. Reflectivity and transmission data is not available at the moment to check if they comply with DCP or not. When you meet with Pilkington, check the SHGC’s (under 0.3) and the reflectivities (under 20%) to shortlist eligible glass types. Yes…dark glass is a problem. Will discuss at meeting
External blinds, or other forms of shading, have a very significant impact on the cooling. In many cases, the shading can make or break the BASIX allowances. [For comparison, direct solar radiation through reference glass can be up to 550 W/m2* where diffuse (shaded) solar radiation can get down to 40 W/m2*. That’s a 1275% difference. Even very good and sophisticated glazing can’t beat a simple overhang. * From p.43 of Carrier System Design Manual Part 1]

FS – I think you should come to the Pilkington meeting please. Will send the invite

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Regards

FireStallion

Accredited ABGR Assessor, GBCA (Green Star) Accredited Professional

Email: firestallion100@gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Dont Sustain

Sent: Monday, 10 March 2008

To: FireStallion; Loss Energy
Cc: Sudden Jump; Minimum Spend; Go Forth
Subject: RE: BASIX certification on Site X

FireStallion

Comments below.

For the moment, the typical 4 apt floors are modelled as per your proposed glazing allocation. It appears apt 1 has some issues to get pass BASIX as its cooling load is “very” significant. This is because the height of the windows are assumed to be as high as possible and for the Living and Family Rooms glazing, no shading is available.

Windows are typically at 2800 head. Yes there is a lot of glass….but this is the premium view so we will not be reducing extent of glass. The main glazing to the north is double glazed so this reducing cooling load significantly. The remaining glass to the east then is proposed as single glazed. We seek your advice on whether we need to extend extent of double glazing…but would prefer high performance single glass as first port of call.

One point to be bear in mind is that: although the remaining three apts pass the BASIX cooling and heating requirements, it is recommended that each apt should improve its thermal performance to around 5 stars to get better results towards achieving a 5 star Green Star Residential rating. Also note that the weighted average cooling requirement of all apts is 46.4. There is a (remote) possibility that all apts pass their required heating and cooling requirements but the weighted average requirements cannot be met.

Here are some suggestions to improve the apts’ thermal performances:

· Reduce glazing areas, esp. apt 1 will require some rationalising of the glazing areas to get pass BASIX. An empirical value for glazing to floor area ratio is 35% or below (with good shading available), esp. if 5 stars NatHERS is to be achieved. Apt 1 has a glazing to floor area ratio of 52%. Can’t reduce glazing…The amazing view is what is selling these apartments. Northern glass is double glazing. Do we need to extend extent of double glazing.

· Provide shading, set backs and /or light shelves to windows. This is mandatory to claim cross ventilation bonus in BASIX. (Note that the louvred screens are very effective in reducing the solar heat gain for the western façade glazing.) I am confused….how is shading mandatory for cross ventilation bonus…and with high glazing…why are light shelves required….when the higher glazing means more light ingress.

The main western window as per original markup is double glazed with no external shading. Same scenario as the DA.

Likewise the single glass to the terrace stacking is set back within the terrace zone and overhang. Same scenario again as the DA.

We can introduce some external glazed roller blinds or equal to the western windows that are set back from the terrace line if needed…but we are loath to add additional louvred screens. For memory we went through the same debate for the DA.

· Use alternative glazing types. Currently, the selected glazing types have very good thermal performances – single glazing with U = 3.855 and SHGC = 0.466 and double glazing with U=2.255 and SHGC = 0.407.

· We seek your advice here. At DA stage you provided us with a list of glass options with general performance.

I propose a meeting on Thursday afternoon at our office to discuss. Can you confirm your availability.

Sudden- would you be free – say Thurs 4pm on your way home???

Can you send us the proposed elevations for fine tuning the NatHERS calculations?

Loss will send through

Regards

Dont Sustain

Associate Director | nom. Architect xxxx

====================================================

My "philosophy" will be somehow different to the above.

If you have a magnificent view, why don't you be part of it?

It's the connection with the environment that I am speaking of.

Modern life separate us from our environment. If you have a good view, then go to the balcony and be part of it. Fell the breeze, smell the scent, hear the sound! Don't just look at the view!

Well, there is a fundamental difference in philosophy anyway.

With the client on the architects side, it looks like the unsustainable option of providing view with "better" glazing will prevail, rather than a simple sustainable alternative.

What cost is "Sustainability"?

ESD AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRALIA (3) - ABGR

2008-03-11T17:10:00.000-07:00

This is from ABGR's website:
http://www.abgr.com.au/About_ABGR/

QUOTE:

About ABGR

The Australian Building Greenhouse Rating (ABGR) Scheme is a 'world first initiative' to help building owners and tenants across Australia benchmark their greenhouse performance.
Benefits of ABGR:

* Provides market recognition and a competitive advantage for low greenhouse emitters and energy efficient buildings;
* Encourages best practice in the design, operation and maintenance of commercial buildings to minimise greenhouse emissions

Administered nationally by the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) and locally by leading state greenhouse agencies, the ABGR scheme rates buildings from one to five stars with five stars representing exceptional greenhouse performance. Current market best practice in Australia is three stars.

Key features of ABGR:

* It’s voluntary – a rating can be initiated by a building owner, manager or tenant;
* It rates a building according to its actual performance, using 12 months’ energy data;
* It can be used for the base building (central services), whole building or individual tenancies;
* It allows developers to “badge” the greenhouse performance of their new office development from the outset on the proviso that DECC will rate its actual operational performance and advise the tenants;
* It’s available now for all Australian office buildings.

Now, I would briefly talk about some practical situations of ABGR.

As I mentioned earlier, though officially ABGR is "voluntary", there are other forces that make ABGR "semi-regulation" or "psuedo regulation":

* The NSW state government have a policy that existing offices need an ABGR rating. If it is not 3 star ABGR or above, then it should be retrofit to 4 star or above. (see link below)
* When a state government authroity or office build or rent a new office building or space, the space should achieve 4.5 stars minimum. (See http://www.premiers.nsw.gov.au/pubs_dload_part4/prem_circs_memos/prem_memos/2004/m2004-04.htm )
* Development Control Plans (DCP's) of many local councils also require that new office buildings to have an "Energy Performance Report" (EPR) or simply have an ABGR committment of at least 4 stars. (Check the DCP link above for Green Star)
* It is also a requirement of Green Star buildings to have a minimum of 4 star ABGR to be eligible for the application of Green Star. (ENE-1 & ENE-2)

So you can see there are many things that require the use of ABGR. It is actually not "voluntary".

Oops! Sxxx happens! But ok now!

2008-03-05T23:25:00.000-08:00

After I installed the Advanced desktop last night, I brought the eeepc back to the office.

I intend to update the different packages from xepcś repo.

I did it.

It took more than an hour. It worthed more than 130MB.

But then when I got hold of it again and restart it, it prompts me for password.

I typed in the pwd once, twice, three times, ....... NOooooooooo .......

I didn´t know what happened.

I downloaded the xepc CD iso and went home.

I loaded the Eeexubuntu live session to see if I could retrieve any data in /home/user.

No, not successful. The SSD didn't come up.

I just pressed F9 straight afterwards. In less tha one minute, default system restores.

I then burned the xepc iso to a CD, loaded it to the ext. DVD.

Linux kernel not found!

I burnt another CD, but this time the burning s/w verified the CD bad.

Third time lucky(!!!), I put it to the DVD and tried.

OMG, thank you, thank you, thank you.

So, I am typing on the restored eeepc with xepc updated SSD restore partition.

So this xepc includes all I've done before except the Quick input method for TC.

I just cut and paste the command line in my previous blog entry!

Hula! No worries! All this happened within less than an hour.

Now, my wife asked me tonight if I had reinstalled windoze on the desktop ......

Possibly, a dayś time will be gone for nothing for windoze! Oh no!

ESD AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRALIA (2) - GREEN STAR

2008-02-28T13:52:00.000-08:00

Firstly, Green Star!

To clarify who are "Green Star Accredited Professionals" or "GBCA Accredited Professionals", here is the relevant description from the Green Star - Office Design Manual:

Green Star Accredited Professionals are experienced building industry practitioners who have demonstrated their understanding of the Green Star rating system and the benefits of integrated design.

To become a Green Star Accredited Professional, candidates must attend a GBCA Green Star Accredited Professional course and pass the associated exam.

Green Star is a voluntary scheme for developers to "market" their buildings.

So far, there are only 29 buildings have a formal Green Star certification. (As from GBCA;s website)

The Green Star scale is from one to six.

What is a one star building? And what is a six star building?

Here is a table for the meaning of the “Stars”:

Stars	Score (from eight categories after application of weighting factors)	Outcome / Represents
One star	10-19	Minimum practice
Two stars	20-29	Average practice
Three stars	30-44	Good practice
Four stars	45-59	Best practice; eligible for application of Four Star Green Star Rating certificate
Five stars	60-74	Australian excellence; eligible for application of Five Star Green Star Rating certificate
Six stars	75-100	World Leader; eligible for application of Six Star Green Star Rating certificate

The Green Star assesses eight aspects (categories) of a building. They are:

1. Management
2. IEQ (Indoor Environment Quality)
3. Energy
4. Transport
5. Water
6. Materials
7. Land Use & Ecology
8. Emissions

Plus a special 5 credits points of innovation that cannot be assessed under the 8 categories.

The first category in the rating tool is "Management":

There are 7 items under "Management":

Man-1

Green Star Accredited Professional

To encourage and recognise the adoption of environmentally sustainable principles from the earliest project stages throughout design and construction.

Man-2

Commissioning - Clauses

To encourage and recognise improved building services performance and energy efficiency due to adequate commissioning and hand-over to the building owner.

Man-3

Commissioning - Building Tuning

To encourage and recognise improved energy efficiency and comfort within the building in all seasons due to adequate commissioning.

Man-4

Commissioning - Commissioning Agent

To encourage and recognise the appointment of an independent commissioning agent from design through to handover.

Man-5

Building Users' Guide

To encourage and recognise the provision of guidance material to enable building users to achieve the environmental performance envisaged by the design team, and to manage future changes that promote efficiency and environmental quality.

Man-6

Environmental Management

To encourage and recognise the adoption of a formal environmental management system in line with established guidelines during construction.

Man-7

Waste Management

To encourage and recognise management systems that facilitate the reduction of construction waste going to landfill.

The second, arguably the most important category is the "Indoor Environmental Quality / IEQ":

This category has the most number of items. It is very important to achieve energy efficiency, material safety, etc. but at the same time not sacrificing the indoor environmental quality:

IEQ-1

Ventilation Rates

To encourage and recognise the provision of increased outside air rates, in order to promote a healthy indoor environment.

IEQ-2

Air Change Effectiveness

To encourage and recognise systems that provide for the effective delivery of clean air through reduced mixing with indoor pollutants in order to promote a healthy indoor environment.

IEQ-3

Carbon Dioxide Monitoring and Control

To encourage and recognise the provision of response monitoring of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to ensure delivery of minimum outside air requirements.

IEQ-4

Daylight

To encourage and recognise designs that provide good levels of daylight for building users.

IEQ-5

Daylight Glare Control

To encourage and recognise buildings that are designed to reduce the discomfort of glare from natural light.

IEQ-6

High Frequency Ballasts

To encourage and recognise the increase in workplace amenity by avoiding low frequency flicker that may be associated with fluorescent lighting.

IEQ-7

Electric Lighting Levels

To encourage and recognise base building provided office lighting that is not over-designed.

IEQ-8

External Views

To encourage and recognise reduced eyestrain for building occupants by allowing long distance views and the provision of visual connection to the outdoors.

IEQ-9

Thermal Comfort

To encourage and recognise the use of thermal comfort assessments to guide design options.

IEQ-10

Individual Comfort Control

To recognise the benefits of individual control to provide good thermal comfort.

IEQ -11

Asbestos

To encourage and recognise actions taken to reduce health risks to occupants from the presence of hazardous materials.

IEQ-12

Internal Noise Levels

To encourage and recognise buildings that are designed to maintain internal noise levels at an appropriate level.

IEQ-13

Volatile Organic Compounds

To encourage and recognise projects that reduce the detrimental impact on occupant health from finishes emitting internal air pollutants.

IEQ-14

Formaldehyde Minimisation

To encourage and recognise projects that reduce the use of formaldehyde composite wood products in order to promote a healthy indoor environment.

IEQ-15

Mould Prevention

To encourage and recognise the design of systems which reduce the risk of mould growth and its associated detrimental impact on occupant health.

IEQ-16

Tenant Exhaust Riser

To encourage and recognise the provision of buildings designed with a general exhaust riser that can be used by tenants to remove indoor pollutants from printing and photocopy areas.

So the third category (IMO, second most important category) is Energy:

Ene-1

Energy

To reduce base building operational energy and greenhouse gas emissions.

Ene-2

Energy Improvement

To encourage and recognise projects that contain design features that help to minimise operational energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of the base building over and above the Conditional Requirement in Ene-1.

Ene-3

Electrical Sub-metering

To encourage and recognise the provision of energy sub-metering to facilitate energy monitoring of base building services.

Ene-4

Tenancy Sub-metering

To encourage and recognise the provision of energy sub-metering to facilitate energy monitoring by tenants or end users.

Ene-5

Office Lighting Power Density

To encourage and recognise lighting design practices which lessen lighting energy consumption while maintaining appropriate lighting levels.

Ene-6

Office Lighting Zoning

To encourage and recognise lighting design practices that offer greater flexibility for light switching, making it easier to light only occupied areas.

Ene-7

Peak Energy Demand Reduction

To encourage and recognise projects that implement systems to reduce peak demand on energy supply infrastructure.

The fourth category is Transport:

Tra-1

Provision of Car Parking

To encourage and recognise building design that promotes the utilisation of alternative modes of transport by limiting available car park spaces.

Tra-2

Small Parking Spaces

To encourage and recognise building design that supports the use of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles for work commuting.

Tra-3

Cyclist Facilities

To encourage and recognise building design that promotes the use of bicycles by occupant and visitors by ensuring adequate cyclist facilities are provided.

Tra-4

Commuting Public Transport

To encourage and recognise developments with proximity and good access to public transport networks which have frequent services.

The fifth cateogry is Water:

Wat-1

Occupant Amenity Potable Water Efficiency

To encourage and recognise systems which have the potential to reduce the potable water consumption of building occupants.

Wat-2

Water Meters

To encourage and recognise the design of systems that monitor and manage water consumption.

Wat-3

Landscape Irrigation Water Efficiency

To encourage and recognise the design of systems that aim to reduce the consumption of potable water for landscape irrigation.

Wat-4

Cooling Tower Water Consumption

To encourage and recognise building design that reduces the potential demand on potable water supplies and infrastructure due to water-based building cooling systems.

Wat-5

Fire System Water Consumption

To encourage and recognise building design that reduces potable water consumption of the building's fire protection and essential water storage systems.

The sixth category is Materials:

Mat-1

Recycling Waste Storage

To encourage and recognise the inclusion of storage space that facilitates the recycling of resources used within offices to reduce waste going to landfill.

Mat-2

Re-use of Façade

To encourage and recognise the re-use of existing façades to reduce new material consumption.

Mat-3

Re-use of Structure

To encourage and recognise the re use of existing structures to reduce new material consumption.

Mat-4

Shell and Core or Integrated Fitout

To encourage and recognise the reduction of material wastage during tenancy fitouts.

Mat-5

Recycled Content of Concrete

To encourage and recognise the reduction of embodied energy and resource depletion due to the use of concrete.

Mat-6

Recycled Content of Steel

To encourage and recognise the reduction in embodied energy and resource depletion due to the use of recycled steel.

Mat-7

PVC Minimisation

To encourage and recognise the reduction of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) products in Australian buildings.

Mat-8

Sustainable Timber

To encourage and recognise the specification of re-used timber products or timber that has certified environmentally responsible forest management practices.

The seventh category is "Land Use & Ecology":

Eco-1

Ecological Value of Site

To encourage wherever possible development on land that already has a limited ecological value and discourage the development of ecologically valuable sites.

Eco-2

Re-use of Land

To encourage and recognise the re-use of land that has previously been developed.

Eco-3

Reclaimed Contaminated Land

To encourage and recognise positive actions to use contaminated land that otherwise would not have been developed.

Eco-4

Change of Ecological Value

To encourage and recognise the minimisation of ecological impact from a development and maximise the enhancement of a site for both new and existing buildings.

Eco-5

Topsoil and Fill Removal from Site

To encourage and recognise practices that reduce the amount of topsoil and fill removed from development sites.

The eight category is "Emissions":

Emi-1

Refrigerant ODP

To encourage and recognise the reduction of potential long-term damage to the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer through the accidental release of ozone depleting substances to the atmosphere.

Emi-2

Refrigerant GWP

To encourage and recognise the selection of refrigerants that reduce the potential for increased global warming arising from the emission of refrigerants to the Earth's atmosphere in the event of accidental release of intensive greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Emi-3

Refrigerant Leak Detection

To encourage and recognise systems which reduce the release of refrigerants to the atmosphere arising from leakages in a building's cooling plant.

Emi-4

Refrigerant Recovery

To encourage and recognise systems that reduce and prevent unnecessary loss of refrigerants in the event of a leak.

Emi-5

Watercourse Pollution

To encourage and recognise project design that reduces the potential of pollution in water running off from buildings and hard surfaces to natural watercourses.

Emi-6

Reduced Flow to Sewer

To encourage and recognise building design that reduces water flows to the municipal sewerage systems for treatment.

Emi-7

Light Pollution

To encourage and recognise lighting design that reduces pollution from the unnecessary dispersion of light into the night sky and onto neighbouring property.

Emi-8

Cooling Towers

To encourage and recognise building systems design which eliminates the risk of Legionnaire’s Disease from cooling towers.

Emi-9

Insulant ODP

To encourage and recognise designs which reduce the potential for long-term damage to the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer from ozone depleting substances used in the manufacture or composition of thermal insulation.

The last cateogory "Innovation" is not officially a category. But it give credits to innovative ideas that cannot be assessed under other categories or some ideas that exceed the stated requirements.

Inn-1

Innovative Strategies and Technologies

To encourage and recognise the spread of innovative initiatives for commercial building applications that improve a development's environmental impact.

Inn-2

Exceeding Green Star Benchmarks

To encourage and recognise design initiatives which demonstrate additional environmental benefit by exceeding the current benchmarks in Green Star - Office Design.

Inn-3

Environmental Design Initiatives

To encourage and recognise design initiatives which have a significant measurable environmental benefit and which are not awarded points by Green Star – Office Design.

Green Star is voluntary.

Some big developers, however, are using it as a marketing tool.

But if you spend that much to make a building "green", you are actually getting a very good building (supposedly).

Somehow, some councils adopt the Green Star approach to their "Development Control Plans". (DCP's)

DCP's are local requirements imposed by the specific councils (local government) in the area.

I have seen and used one DCP that uses "Score Cards" to make a building green. See the link:
http://202.148.138.211/downloaddocument.aspx?DocumentID=1157

The score cards are originated from the Green Star Rating Tool.

So, in some way, Green Star is becoming increasingly important. As What I said before for ABGR, Green Star is like a semi-regulation in some areas.

What I did to my eeepc

2008-02-28T13:40:00.000-08:00

Well, it's about a week after I've got my eeepc.

I have installed the following to it:

Install realmedia codec for SMplayer as per the instruction on http://blog.yam.com/tad0616/article/1230627
I need to check on synchronisation of video and audio streams. I follow instructions here: http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=11921&p=1
I install Quick input method for Chinese as from instructions here: http://www2.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=5332227

1.先下載兩個檔案Quick.bin及Quick.png到 user 資料夾裡面

2.開啟File Manager在My Home入面找到 Quick.bin 和 Quick.png 兩個檔案下按Ctrl+Alt+T開啟主控台視窗

3.在/home/user>下輸入兩句指令注意大小寫及空格)
sudo cp Quick.bin /usr/share/scim/tables 按enter
sudo cp Quick.png /usr/share/scim/icons 按enter
己完成可關閉主控台視窗

4.然後看看SCIM setup入面Generic Table->Table Management檢查是否已多了一行 Quick輸入法

5.最後需要重新啟動電腦一次後就可以正常使用速成輸入法了

I also looked at lazyeeepc but I decided not to go the easy way but the hard way. I like to learn the intricacies in Linux.

What I intent to do with the eeepc:

Install synaptic package manager
Update Firefox from default 2.0.0.9 to the latest (2.0.0.12 currently)
Apply security patch
Install wine and port some windows apps related to work

And can someone advise me if the anti-virus is actually of any use in a Linux system like Xandros in eeepc?
=============================================================
An update to the eeepc installation (as on 4 March):

* I install the "Advance Desktop" as per the instructions in http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=1083, so synaptic is already there with the Advanced Desktop.
* I add the xepc to the repo by adding
deb http://updates.xepc.org/debian stable main
to the file: /etc/apt/sources.list
So I should be able to apply the firefox update and security patches soon.

ESD AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRALIA (1) - INTRODUCTION (1 of 5)

2008-02-27T12:44:00.000-08:00

ESD AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRALIA

Well, firstly you may consider there are three levels of "energy rating" schemes.

1. Aspirational - Green Star (I am a GBCA Accredited Professional or more usually known as Green Star Professional)

2. Operational - ABGR (Australian Building Greenhouse Rating, in full) (I am also an "Accredited ABGR Assessor").

3. Mandatory - BCA (Building Code of Australia) Section J Energy Efficiency.

(1) & (2) are voluntary. (3) is mandatory which comes to force in May 2006 (for NSW including Sydney, it was November 2006)

Although ABGR seems like voluntary, it is like semi-mandatory particularly for large developers. More details coming.

Wow, I got myself an Asus Eeepc!

2008-02-19T14:35:00.000-08:00

I just got an Asus Eeepc today.

Haven't turn it on and run it yet.

So, looks like I will have more chance to horn up my Linux skills.

Btw, mine is a black one.

Unofficial ABGR Assessment

2008-02-12T15:50:00.000-08:00

Today I've been to a business park to carry out the preliminary assessment on energy use of one of the buildings.

I've talk to the Operations Manager of the premises. It's somehow "interesting" to talk to people with "hands on" experience to the services, etc. in buildings.

I can see his enthusiasm to help me out to do the energy assessment, maybe a little too "hot headed".

But in doing ABGR, the actual assessment is not the most difficult part.

The most difficult part is to gather the information necessary to get a proper rating as required by the ABGR protocol.

And for this one, it would be to gather the energy bills from ALL tenants and their cooperation to provide their occupancy hours when 20% of people is there in the morning and when only 20% of people is remaining in the office.

I've been through this with another project. Amazingly, it took weeks or even months to gather the info. And by the time the last info comes in, the first info could have been expired.

We'll see how good or bad this building is later.

Helping out on computer

2008-02-04T16:02:00.000-08:00

Last evening, I help a family to fix their computer.

They just got a new computer about a month ago.

They have M$ Windows Vista installed on that.

But that was "too" slow.

They asked some one to install XP over the Vista.

Then, I was asked if I can fix various issues with the computer. This included: "can't connect to internet"; "no sound"; "can't play mp3"; "can't open word file"; "cannot burn disks"; "screen too big"; .....

So the guy that installed XP didn't finish his job properly.

What was done was only installing XP.

Now, here's what I have done:

Install drivers (sound, display, network, etc.) There was some drama with the ethernet chip driver as the driver CD didn't have the driver (!!!!) I needed to use lateral thinking to get this done!
Install firewall, antispyware, anti-virus (all freeware)
Install disk burning software (Freeware again)
Install Firefox, PDFCreator, XPDF reader (Yes, freeware)
Install harddisk backup software (Free!)
Install windows optimiser (Free!)
Install OpenOffice (Free again!)
Prepare recover DVD; backup hardisk on DVD
Burn and show how an audio CD should be made from mp3 files to the tweenage (not a typo) girl in the family (She complain the CD she made couldn't play on her CD player.)

All these took me two visits, each around 3 hours.

Why am I writing this?

I wonder what a "usual" computer user is!

My first computer experience was in a classmate's home playing AP II (cloned Apple 2) back in high school days. We used normal cassette tape player to "load" program to the AP II. This was in the early '80s.

Then I had my first PC (8088) back in 1986. In those days I ran PCDOS/MSDOS of course. I vaguely remember I started with PCDOS 2.x then ended up running MSDOS 3.3. I still vaguely remember using dot commands in WordStar.

Then it was windows 3.1. WordPerfect 5.1 for windows was my favourite. Though that time, MS word was already there. (BTW, I had used the DOS version of MS Word)

A simple flowchart is:

DOS -> Windows 3.1 -> Windows 3.11 -> Windows 95 (4.0) -> Windows 98 -> Windows XP

Next is Linux, the Ubuntu favour, possibly with some dip on DSL (Damn Small Linux), Fedora or OpenSUSE! (I feel quite comfortable with command line interface.)

Now, for someone with their first computer experience from Windows 95, 98, etc., what do they think about Linux?

Now they left two (old) computers for me to rebuild them. Windows 95 and 98 will be out of the question. XP will be too hungry for the two computers to handle.

Here I go again! Need to learn how to install DSL on two OLD computers with floppy drive, malfunction CD drive and harddisk!

Wish me luck!

And for the helpful Linux users, enlighten me please on how to "resurrect" old computers!

I may comeback with more details on the computers' spec.

The many dimensions of sustainable development

2008-01-23T15:55:00.000-08:00

This is an article from the very informative sustainability magazine from CSIRO, Ecos.

It appears than the definition of "Sustainable Development" should be clarified.

There are many good points from the article, particularly, the causes and to a lesser extent the impacts of not "Going Green".

The article can be found at : http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EC139p13.pdf

The many dimensions of sustainable development

Abstract: These days, everyone seems to be talking about sustainability. But are we all on the same wavelength when we use the term? Steve Hatfield Dodds – senior CSIRO researcher and President of the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics – begins a series examining the meaning behind this often-invoked word.

Sustainable development is one of the most important ideas, and goals, of our time. It is defined as ‘development which meets the needs and aspirations of the current generation without impairing the ability of future generations to meet theirs’.

It is not the goal that makes this idea important, however, but the recognition that current patterns of human activity are unsustainable, and that our economic, social and political institutions seem to be losing the race towards sustainability.

The term ‘development’ implies that things are getting better over time. What this means in practice, however, will always be contested – just as most people agree that ‘fairness’ or ‘freedom’ are good in principle, but have different views of what fairness or freedom mean in a specific situation.

At its most basic, achieving sustainable development involves, first, improving the living standards and quality of life of the current generation – especially those who are currently least well-off – and, second, ensuring that current development patterns do not risk undermining the wellbeing or options of future generations.

Achieving sustainable development will thus involve a vigorous and urgent debate about how and why – even whether – current development patterns might undermine future wellbeing. Different viewpoints on the causes of unsustainability include the following:

Loss of natural capital or other critical capital

Deforestation, pollution and inappropriate natural resource management are all contributing to a loss of ‘natural capital’, which risks undermining the health and productivity of important ecosystem processes.

These natural assets are essential to human wellbeing – underpinning agriculture and food production, for example, or providing adequate supplies of clean water. Policies and institutions that treat these assets as free or limitless risk running them down, rather than conserving or protecting them for future use.

Power imbalances in political decision-making

A lack of transparency and accountability in government and business decision-making allows natural resources, such as forests and fisheries, to be destroyed for short-term gains.

Similar processes may undermine other shared assets, such as a fair and accessible legal system. This impoverishes local people and may undermine social and natural capital that could be used to generate improved living standards.

Wrong world views or values

Some argue that Western thinking is too materialist or human-centred, and that this contributes to unsustainable practices because nature is understood to exist entirely for human use. Achieving sustainability will require new ways of thinking, such as accepting that human activities can affect global environmental processes – as illustrated by global warming. It will also require recognition of the impact of unregulated selfish behaviour, and the introduction of ‘carrots and sticks’ to manage this. But this does not imply that sustainability can only be achieved through widespread changes in underlying values or ethics.

As you can see, the idea of sustainable development covers a lot of territory, encompassing ideas of the good life, how humans behave, multiple types of interactions between society and nature, and what we can do about all of this.

We at Ecos have therefore decided to produce a series on key concepts for achieving sustainable development – beginning with this article.

Consistent with the scope of sustainable development outlined above, these concepts can be divided into three:

· wellbeing and development, including capital-based approaches to sustainable development and the happiness– income paradox;

· the dynamics of human and environmental systems, including economic growth and environmental pressure and resilience thinking; and

· specific tools for promoting sustainable development, such as payments for ecosystem services, triple bottom line reporting and corporate social responsibility, and adaptive governance.

We hope that explaining these concepts will help Ecos readers to identify opportunities where they can make a difference in practicing and promoting sustainable development.

More information:

International Institute for Sustainable Development, www.iisd.org/sd/

International Society for Ecological Economics’ online encyclopaedia, www.ecoeco.org/education_encyclopedia.php

The definition of green

2008-01-17T17:25:00.000-08:00

The following is from a blog here: http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustainableit/archives/2008/01/green_products.html?source=rss

==============================================================

One of my blog readers, the author of the "Green" Supply Chain Analyst Weblog, posed an interesting question in one of my previous posts. Essentially he asked, What defines a green product or service?

Not only is it an interesting question, it's an important one. Vendors and their marketing departments are, of course, keenly aware that organizations have green in their sights and are thus cranking out products and unveiling services touted as being eco-friendly. But how do you know whether an offering is a victim of a vendor's green-washing scheme or if it really is "green"? And that goes back the original question: What defines a green product or service?

Well, I find it difficult to devise a simple and succinct definition on which everyone can agree. On the most extreme end of the spectrum, one might argue that any product or service you can buy off the shelf, via the Internet, or over the phone isn't technically green. The process of transforming a natural resource into something else requires the use of additional materials and energy and, even in a minute way, detracts from the environment. In that realm of thought, a soybean growing in the wild would be green whereas tofu wouldn't.

Now, if businesses were to exercise that level of discrimination in their ambition to invest only in green products, they wouldn't accomplish much. Hence, that definition is pretty useless in the context of commerce or generally going about one's day-to-day life, unless one happens to live in the forest naked, scrounging bark and berries fallen off of trees and bushes.

But here's what I consider a more practical definition that companies might employ to gauge a product or service's "greenness": A green product or service is one that delivers comparable or superior performance, utility, or other benefits to an alternative one while utilizing fewer resources, containing fewer toxic materials, and/or boasting a longer lifecycle.

So, for example: Suppose the fictitious company SustainoTech (not a registered trademark as far as I can tell, so snag it quick) were to roll out a blade server that used 25 percent less energy and produced 30 percent less heat than the average comparable blade server on the market. Moreover, it would be ROHS-compliant and designed such that individual components could easily be swapped in and out -- plus, the system as a whole could be efficiently dismantled for refurbishing or recycling. That, in my book, would be a mighty green server. (I expect to see at least one major vendor roll out a server that meet most of those criteria -- if not all -- within the next year, a prediction you may add to my list.)

No, SustainoTech's server wouldn't be made of a renewable resource such as bamboo. Yes, it would still use electricity and create heat. It would still require the usage and alteration of natural as well as hazardous resources. It would contribute to your company's carbon footprint. But it would deliver comparable performance to the competition with a lower drain on the environment. Hence, it's green. Or at least greener. The bar will inevitably rise as companies come up with new technologies.

There are other examples of products out there that I'd readily categorize as being green, such as telepresence. I haven't drilled down into the relative energy requirements of the various telepresence solutions on the market today, but I'd file the category under "G" for "green." My reasoning is, employing telepresence as an alternative to using planes, trains, and automobiles means less fuel consumption. Further, telepresence, unlike videoconferencing, delivers a meeting experience that is comparable to an in-person meeting. (Admittedly, that's based on plenty of secondhand accounts; I've not yet experienced telepresence.)

What about systems management software that lets admins ensure that a server is using just as much electricity as it needs to in order to run effectively? So long as it performs as well as other management software, yeah, that's green. Virtualization, which lets you wring the same amount of work out of fewer machines? Again, green. Electronic document management outgreens paper-based systems. Solar power beats coal power. And the list goes on.

A couple of final thoughts on this subject: First, if a vendor comes to your door hawking what it deems a green product, be sure to ask just what makes it so green.

Second, bear in mind that a product deemed green today will be considered wasteful and eco-unfriendly tomorrow. Technological advancement coupled with relativity is funny that way.

Finally -- and this is a point I'll keep making until my fingers ooze (the blogging equivalent to the expression "talking until I'm blue in the face"): Green products alone simply can't make your company green. A blueprint for long-term sustainability is a must, and the products you employ are but a piece of the puzzle. Deploying virtualization in your datacenter may very well help you make better use of your resources in the short- or midterm. It may also reduce your company's carbon footprint. But you most certainly need to plan beyond that for the sake of your organization's future prosperity -- as well as for the sake of the environment, if that is, indeed, a concern for your company.

How would you define a green product or service?

==============================================

It's good to see people reflect about what is "Green" technology.

And particualrly, we should be aware of what is "Greenwashing".

Everyone wants to be seen "Green".

And I believe there is no true "Green" product or building as yet.

So "Green" auditing should be put into place.

This is particularly important in the post "Kyoyo Protocol" era. Every country is working to a number. You can't stop someone cheating on numbers.

We need a clear guideline and procedure.

But back to the "Greeness" of a product or a building, we may use a comparative method.

Like that the ABGR and Green Star use stars to represent relative Greenness of buildings.

I believe the next logical move is to rate vehicles and, as the blog says, electronic products.

Now, tell me what on earth is carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative at this point of time?

A FireStallion Update

2008-01-09T16:52:00.000-08:00

Well, it's been a long time since I last wrote my blog.

December was crazy before the rush for holiday.

That "Greenwash" project had a little drama when it was about time to apply for DA (Development Application).

Kept me busy for a while (including some overtime).

Then I didn't have any idea to write in the blog during the Christmas break.

Now, after MS Gundam 00 episode 13 "Return of the Saint", I had some idea to write about.

And I actually put it on the discuss.com.hk forum. These include:

On 19 Jan 2008, I'll lead my fellowship group. Now I need to organise my ideas in ESD & GW and link to stewardship and using our gifts to a group of Christians.

Well, I need some divine intervention to help me get through this!

And let me say hi to mandy214tik & Smokes and a belated birthday to Square.

Also, congratulations and bon voyage to The.Darwinian and welcome to Australia.

Is this really a “Sustainable Development” or is it only a “Greenwash”?

2007-11-19T16:10:00.000-08:00

Is this really a “Sustainable Development” or is it only a “Greenwash”?

Well, “Sustainable Development” …..

Seems like everyone has their own idea of SD!

But when it comes to developing & constructing a building, I believe we should objectively use some rating tools to determine how “green” a building is.

And in the construction industry, seems like not everyone has a “proper” understand of sustainable development!

I refer to a project that I am involved in recently.

The client wants to build a “Green” building. I am the mechanical and ESD consultant of the project.

There are a few ESD initiatives proposed for the building, such as heat recovery, ABGR 4.5 stars, 4 Green Star, solar hot water system, etc.

However, I see some other things not going the right direction.

It was supposed to be “Energy Efficient”.

Enormous glazing area is not “energy-friendly”! This is because when comparing the heat conduction rates through glass and through normal wall are quite different.

If we use the U-value required by BCA Part J1.5, which has R-value of 1.8 or U-value of 0.56 compare to normal single clear glazing of 5.84, there is a factor of around 10, i.e. glass gains 10 times the heat through conduction compare to a BCA compliant wall!!!!! They want as much (cheap single clear) glass as possible, full width & full height!! Is this “Green”?

But then, they want to boast the building being very “sustainable” and “green”, first in this and first in that …..!!!

I don’t see it that way. I only see its performance as “approaching” the minimum standard. (Not exactly true green.)

And if you have a look at the respective authorities’ website, we can’t make a claim and reference to a rating scheme if we are not achieving to the required standard.

“We want you to make the report more COLORFUL!!”…..

Sorry, UNABLE TO COMPLY!!

Space Elevators

2007-11-04T22:36:00.000-08:00

Space elevator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Interested in contributing to Wikipedia? •

A space elevator would consist of a cable anchored to the Earth's surface, reaching into space. By attaching a counterweight at the end (or by further extending the cable for the same purpose), Inertia ensures that the cable remains stretched taut, countering the gravitational pull on the lower sections, thus allowing the elevator to remain in geostationary orbit. Once beyond the gravitational midpoint, carriage would be accelerated further by the planet's rotation. Diagram not to scale.

A space elevator is a proposed megastructure designed to transport material from a celestial body's surface into space, first conceived by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.^[1] Many different types of space elevators have been suggested. They all share the goal of replacing rocket propulsion with the traversal of a fixed structure via a mechanism not unlike an elevator in order to move material into or beyond orbit. Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to as beanstalks, space bridges, space lifts, space ladders, skyhooks or orbital towers.

The most common proposal is a tether, usually in the form of a cable or ribbon, spanning from the surface to a point beyond geosynchronous orbit. As the planet rotates, the inertia at the end of the tether counteracts gravity, and also keeps the cable taut. Vehicles can then climb the tether and get in orbit without the use of rocket propulsion. Such a structure could theoretically permit delivery of cargo and people to orbit at a fraction of the cost of launching a payload into orbit, and without the substantial environmental harm caused by some rocket fuels.^[2]

Recent proposals for a space elevator are notable in their plans to incorporate carbon nanotubes into the tether design, thus providing a link between space exploration and nanotechnology.

Non-tether space elevator concepts

As of 2004 orbital tethers are the only space elevator concept that is the subject of active research and commercial interest in space.^[3]

Nevertheless, two related non-tether concepts are: a space fountain and a very tall compressive structure - a structure that stands on its own.

The space fountain concept fires pellets, with a mass driver, up from the ground through the center of a tower. These pellets then impart their kinetic energy to the tower structure via electromagnetic drag as they travel up and again as their direction was reversed by a magnetic field at the top. Thus the structure would not be supported by the compressive strength of its materials, and could be hundreds of kilometers high. Unlike tethered space elevators (which have to be placed near the equator), a space fountain could be located at any latitude. Space fountains would require a continuous supply of power to remain aloft.

The compressive structure concept is similar to an aerial mast. While such structures might reach the agreed altitude for space (100 km), they are unlikely to reach geostationary orbit (35,786 km). Due to the difference between sub-orbital and orbital spaceflights, a means of propulsion (such as a rocket) would be necessary to achieve orbital speed. Arthur C. Clarke proposed a compressive space tower made of diamond in his novel 2061: Odyssey Three.

Orbital tethers

This concept, also called an orbital space elevator, geosynchronous orbital tether, or a beanstalk, is a subset of the skyhook concept. Construction would be a vast project: a tether would have to be built of a material that could endure tremendous stress while also being light-weight, cost-effective, and manufacturable in great quantities. Today's materials technology does not quite meet these requirements, although carbon nanotube technology shows promise. A considerable number of other novel engineering problems would also have to be solved to make a space elevator practical. Not all problems regarding feasibility have yet been addressed. Nevertheless, the LiftPort Group believes that the necessary technology might be developed as early as 2008^{[citation needed]}^[4] and that by developing the technology, the first space elevator could be operational by 2014.^[5]^[6]

Physics and structure

One concept for the space elevator has it tethered to a mobile seagoing platform.

There are a variety of tether designs. Almost every design includes a base station, a cable, climbers, and a counterweight.

Base station

The base station designs typically fall into two categories—mobile and stationary. Mobile stations are typically large oceangoing vessels,^[7] though airborne stations have been proposed as well.^{[citation needed]} Stationary platforms would generally be located in high-altitude locations, such as on top of high towers.

Mobile platforms have the advantage of being able to maneuver to avoid high winds, storms, and space debris. While stationary platforms don't have these advantages, they typically would have access to cheaper and more reliable power sources, and require a shorter cable. While the decrease in cable length may seem minimal (typically no more than a few kilometers), that can significantly reduce the minimal width of the cable at the center, and reduce the minimal length of cable reaching beyond geostationary orbit significantly.

Cable

The cable must be made of a material with a huge tensile strength/density ratio (the stress a material can be subjected to without breaking, divided by its density). A space elevator can be made relatively economically feasible if a cable with a density similar to graphite and a tensile strength of ~65–120 GPa can be mass-produced at a reasonable price.

Carbon Nanotubes would be a highly useful material for creating a space elevator

By comparison, most steel has a tensile strength of under 2 GPa, and the strongest steel resists no more than 5.5 GPa, but steel is dense. The much lighter material Kevlar has a tensile strength of 2.6–4.1 GPa, while quartz fiber^{[citation needed]} and carbon whiskers^[8] can reach upwards of 20 GPa; the tensile strength of diamond filaments would theoretically be minimally higher.

Carbon nanotubes' theoretical tensile strength has been estimated between 140 and 177 GPa (depending on plane shape),^[8] and its observed tensile strength has been variously measured from 63 to 150 GPa, close to the requirements for space elevator structures.^[8]^[9] Even the strongest fiber made of nanotubes is likely to have notably less strength than its components. Improving tensile strength depends on further research on purity and different types of nanotubes.

Designs call for single-walled carbon nanotubes. While multi-walled nanotubes are easier to produce and have similar tensile strengths, there is a concern that the interior tubes would not be sufficiently coupled to the outer tubes to help hold the tension. However, if the nanotubes are long enough, even weak Van der Waals forces will be sufficient to keep them from slipping, and the full strength of individual nanotubes (single or multiwalled) could be realized macroscopically by spinning them into a yarn. It has also been proposed to chemically interlink the nanotubes in some way, but it is likely that this would greatly compromise their strength. One such proposal is to take advantage of the high pressure interlinking properties of carbon nanotubes of a single variety.^[10] While this would cause the tubes to lose some tensile strength by the trading of sp² bond (graphite, nanotubes) for sp³ (diamond), it will enable them to be held together in a single fiber by more than the usual, weak Van der Waals force (VdW), and allow manufacturing of a fiber of any length.

A seagoing anchor station would incidentally act as a deep-water seaport.

The technology to spin regular VdW-bonded yarn from carbon nanotubes is just in its infancy: the first success in spinning a long yarn, as opposed to pieces of only a few centimeters, has been reported only very recently (March 2004); but the strength/weight ratio was not as good as Kevlar due to the inconsistent quality and short length of the tubes being held together by VdW.

Note that as of 2006, carbon nanotubes have an approximate price of $25/gram, and 20,000 kg - twenty million times that much - would be necessary to form even a seed elevator. This price is decreasing rapidly, and large-scale production would reduce it further, but the price of an economically viable carbon nanotube cable has not been estimated at this time.

Carbon nanotube fiber is an area of energetic worldwide research because the applications go much further than space elevators. Other suggested application areas include suspension bridges, new composite materials, lighter aircraft and rockets, armor technologies, and computer processor interconnects. This is good news for space elevator proponents because it is likely to push down the price of the cable material further.

Cable taper

Due to its enormous length a space elevator cable must be carefully designed to carry its own weight as well as the smaller weight of climbers. The required strength of the cable will vary along its length, since at various points it has to carry the weight of the cable below, or provide a centripetal force to retain the cable and counterweight above. In an ideal cable, the actual strength of the cable at any given point would be no greater than the required strength at that point (plus a safety margin). This implies a tapered design.

Using a model that takes into account the Earth's gravitational and "centrifugal" forces (and neglecting the smaller solar and lunar effects), it is possible to show^[11] that the optimal cross-sectional area of the cable as a function of height is given by:

Cable Taper Plot

Where $A (r)$ is the cross-sectional area as a function of distance $r$ from the Earth's center.

The constants in the equation are:

$A 0$ is the cross-sectional area of the cable on the earth's surface.
$ρ$ is the density of the material the cable is made out of.
$s$ is the tensile strength of the material.
$ω$ is the rotational frequency of the Earth about its axis, 7.292 × 10^-5 rad·s^-1.
$r 0$ is the distance between the Earth's center and the base of the cable. It is approximately the Earth's equatorial radius, 6378 km.
$g 0$ is the acceleration due to gravity at the cable's base, 9.780 m·s^-2.

This equation gives a shape where the cable thickness initially increases rapidly in an exponential fashion, but slows at an altitude a few times the Earth's radius, and then gradually becomes parallel when it finally reaches maximum thickness at geostationary orbit. The cable thickness then decreases again out from geosynchronous orbit. The relative thickness at all points is determined by the strength density ratio. This is shown in the figure to the right.

Thus the taper of the cable from base to GEO (r = 42,164 km),

Using the density and tensile strength of steel, and assuming a diameter of 1 cm at ground level, yields a diameter of several hundred kilometers at geostationary orbit height, showing that steel, and indeed most materials used in present day engineering, are unsuitable for building a space elevator.

The equation shows us that there are four ways of achieving a more reasonable thickness at geostationary orbit:

Using a lower density material. Not much scope for improvement as the range of densities of most solids that come into question is rather narrow, somewhere between 1000 kg·m^-3 and 5000 kg·m^-3.
Using a higher strength material. This is the area where most of the research is focused. Carbon nanotubes are tens of times stronger than the strongest types of steel, hugely reducing the cable's cross-sectional area at geostationary orbit.
Increasing the height of a tip of the base station, where the base of cable is attached. If the cable is properly tapered, however (see next point) this will not make much difference unless a tower of the order of 1000 km is built.
Making the cable as thin as possible at its base. It still has to be thick enough to carry a payload however, so the minimum thickness at base level also depends on tensile strength. A cable made of carbon nanotubes (a type of fullerene), would typically be just a millimeter wide at the base.

Climbers

Most space elevator designs call for a climber to move autonomously along a stationary cable.

A space elevator cannot be an elevator in the typical sense (with moving cables) due to the need for the cable to be significantly wider at the center than the tips. While various designs employing moving cables have been proposed, most cable designs call for the "elevator" to climb up a stationary cable.

Climbers cover a wide range of designs. On elevator designs whose cables are planar ribbons, most propose to use pairs of rollers to hold the cable with friction. Usually, elevators are designed for climbers to move only upwards, because that is where most of the payload goes. For returning payloads, atmospheric reentry on a heat shield is a very competitive option, which also avoids the problem of docking to the elevator in space.

Climbers must be paced at optimal timings so as to minimize cable stress and oscillations and to maximize throughput. Lighter climbers can be sent up more often, with several going up at the same time. This increases throughput somewhat, but lowers the mass of each individual payload.

Powering climbers

Both power and energy are significant issues for climbers- the climbers need to gain a large amount of potential energy as quickly as possible to clear the cable for the next payload.

Chemical energy storage (batteries, fuel cells or internal combustion engines) will not work- hydrogen/Oxygen is the chemical fuel with the best energy/mass ratio, but will not lift its own weight all the way to GEO.

Nuclear energy and solar power have been proposed, but generating enough energy to reach the top of the elevator in any reasonable time without weighing too much is not feasible.^[12]

The current method of favour is laser power beaming, using megawatt powered free electron or solid state lasers in combination with adaptive mirrors approximately 10 m wide and a photovoltaic array on the climber tuned to the laser frequency for efficiency.^[7] A major obstacle for any climber design is the dissipation of the substantial amount of waste heat generated due to the less than perfect efficiency of any of the power methods.

It is often proposed that climbers be powered through the ribbon itself. Unless the cable material itself can be made superconducting at high temperature, the distances involved and low mass requirements make electrical transmission impractical. Fuel Pipelines are similarly not practical because of the enormous pressure that would build, as well as the low mass requirement. The most practical method for cable power transmission seems to be mechanical movement of the cable itself. The cable could be continuously let out from the bottom, or formed into a continuously revolving loop(s). Both methods would prohibit taper, and require stronger material than the fixed design. A pair of tapered cables could be made to oscillate up and down, with the climber switching from one to the other periodically. All of these mechanical methods have the advantage of unpowered climbers, but also have their own problems and none have been developed to nearly the same extent as the stationary design.

Counterweight

There have been several methods proposed for dealing with the counterweight need: a heavy object, such as a captured asteroid or a space station, positioned past geosynchronous orbit, or extending the cable itself well past geosynchronous orbit. The latter idea has gained more support in recent years due to the relative simplicity of the task and the fact that a payload that went to the end of the counterweight-cable would acquire considerable velocity relative to the Earth, allowing it to be launched into interplanetary space.

Additionally, Brad Edwards has proposed that initially elevators would be up-only, and that the elevator cars that are used to thicken up the cable could simply be parked at the top of the cable and act as a counterweight.

Angular momentum, speed and cable lean

As the car climbs, the elevator takes on a 1 degree lean, due to the top of the elevator traveling faster than the bottom around the Earth (Coriolis effect). This diagram is not to scale.

The horizontal speed of each part of the cable increases with altitude, proportional to distance from the center of the Earth, reaching orbital velocity at geosynchronous orbit. Therefore as a payload is lifted up a space elevator, it needs to gain not only altitude but angular momentum (horizontal speed) as well.

This angular momentum is taken from the Earth's own rotation. As the climber ascends it is initially moving slightly more slowly than the cable that it moves onto (Coriolis effect) and thus the climber "drags" on the cable, carrying the cable with it very slightly to the west (and necessarily pulling the counterweight slightly to the west, shown as an offset of the counterweight in the diagram to right, slightly changing the motion of the counterweight). At a 200 km/h climb speed this generates a 1 degree lean on the lower portion of the cable. The horizontal component of the tension in the non-vertical cable applies a sideways pull on the payload, accelerating it eastward (see diagram) and this is the source of the speed that the climber needs. Conversely, the cable pulls westward on Earth's surface, insignificantly slowing the Earth, from Newton's 3rd law.

Meanwhile, the overall effect of the centrifugal force acting on the cable causes it to constantly try to return to the energetically favourable vertical orientation, so after an object has been lifted on the cable the counterweight will swing back towards the vertical like an inverted pendulum. Provided that the Space Elevator is designed so that the center of mass always stays above geosynchronous orbit^[13] for the maximum climb speed of the climbers, the elevator cannot fall over. Lift and descent operations must be carefully planned so as to keep the pendulum-like motion of the counterweight around the tether point under control.

By the time the payload has reached GEO the angular momentum (horizontal speed) is enough that the payload is in orbit.

The opposite process would occur for payloads descending the elevator, tilting the cable eastwards and insignificantly increasing Earth's rotation speed.

Launching into outer space

The velocities that might be attained at the end of Pearson's 144,000 km cable can be determined. The tangential velocity is 10.93 kilometers per second which is more than enough to escape Earth's gravitational field and send probes as far out as Saturn. If an object were allowed to slide freely along the upper part of the tower, a velocity high enough to escape the solar system entirely would be attained. This is accomplished by trading off overall angular momentum of the tower for velocity of the launched object, in much the same way one snaps a towel or throws a lacrosse ball. After such an operation a cable would be left with less angular momentum than required to keep its geostationary position. The rotation of the Earth would then pull on the cable increasing its angular velocity, leaving the cable swinging backwards and forwards about its starting point.

For higher velocities, the cargo can be electromagnetically accelerated, or the cable could be extended, although that would require additional strength in the cable.

Extraterrestrial elevators

A space elevator could also be constructed on some of the other planets, asteroids and moons.

A Martian tether could be much shorter than one on Earth. Mars' surface gravity is 38% of Earth's, while it rotates around its axis in about the same time as Earth. Because of this, Martian areostationary orbit is much closer to the surface, and hence the elevator would be much shorter. Exotic materials might not be required to construct such an elevator. However, building a Martian elevator would be a unique challenge because the Martian moon Phobos is in a low orbit, and intersects the equator regularly (twice every orbital period of 11 h 6 min). A collision between the elevator and the 22.2 km diameter moon would have to be avoided through active steering of the elevator, or perhaps by moving the moon itself out of the area. One simpler way to resolve the problem of Phobos (1.1 degree orbital inclination) or Deimos (1.8 degree orbital inclination) interaction is to position the tether anchor perhaps five (5) degrees off the Martian equator. There would be a small payload penalty, but the tether would pass outside the orbital inclination of the two moons. Also, the tether would depart the Martian anchor at 5–10 degrees from vertical.

Conversely, a Venusian space elevator would need to be much longer. Although a tether placed at the stationary orbit of the slowly rotating Venus would intersect the Sun, one could be constructed that rotated with the fast-moving cloud decks of the planet which take only four Earth days to make a complete cycle. The cable would need to exceed 100,000 kilometers long but, counter-intuitively, would experience less stress due to the slightly smaller gravity exerted on the cable. Such an elevator could service aerostats or floating cities in the benign regions of the atmosphere.

Another Venusian design would require the anchor to be a mobile ground level platform that would circle Venus at the same rate that it rotates, 6.52 km/h. The counterweight on the other end would be hung toward the sun at all times, past the point where the Sun's and Venus's gravity cancel each other out, thereby keeping the tether balanced by the Sun's pull of gravity. This point is called a Lagrangian point, specifically L1. This is 1,000,000 km from Venus.

A lunar space elevator would need to be very long (more than twice the length of an Earth elevator) but due to the low gravity of the Moon, can be made of existing engineering materials. Alternatively, due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, a rotating tether could be used with its center of mass in orbit around the Moon with a counterweight (e.g. a space station) at the short end and a payload at the long end. The path of the payload would be an epicycloid around the Moon, touching down at some integer number of times per orbit. Thus, payloads are lifted off the surface of the Moon, and flung away at the high point of the orbit.

Rapidly spinning asteroids or moons could use cables to eject materials in order to move the materials to convenient points, such as Earth orbits; or conversely, to eject materials in order to send the bulk of the mass of the asteroid or moon to Earth orbit or a Lagrangian point. This was suggested by Russell Johnston in the 1980s. Freeman Dyson, a physicist and mathematician, has suggested using such smaller systems as power generators at points distant from the Sun where solar power is uneconomical. For the purpose of mass ejection, it is not necessary to rely on the asteroid or moon to be rapidly spinning. Instead of attaching the tether to the equator of a rotating body, it can be attached to a rotating hub on the surface. This was suggested in 1980 as a "Rotary Rocket" by Pearson^[14] and described very succinctly on the Island One website as a "Tapered Sling"^[15]

It may also be possible to construct space elevators at the three smaller gas giants, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. These would all involve tapering several times greater than those of the inner solar system, and would need to be approximately 50–60 thousand kilometers long, yet are still within the limits of advanced nano-tubes.^{[citation needed]} These outer space elevators could facilitate the exchange of supplies and helium-3 between floating mining colonies in the atmospheres and local moon settlements. However, difficulties such as the equatorially orbiting lower rings and moons of these giant planets would first need to be overcome.

Construction

The construction of a space elevator would be a vast project, requiring advances in engineering, manufacture and physical technology. David Smitherman of NASA has published a paper that identifies "Five Key Technologies for Future Space Elevator Development":^[16]

Material for cable (e.g. carbon nanotube and nanotechnology) and tower
Tether deployment and control
Tall tower construction
Electromagnetic propulsion (e.g. magnetic levitation)
Space infrastructure and the development of space-based industry and economy

Two different ways to deploy a space elevator have been proposed.

Traditional way

One early plan involved lifting the entire mass of the elevator into geosynchronous orbit, and simultaneously lowering one cable downwards towards the Earth's surface while another cable is deployed upwards directly away from the Earth's surface.

Tidal forces (gravity and centrifugal force) would naturally pull the cables directly towards and directly away from the Earth and keep the elevator balanced around geosynchronous orbit. As the cable is deployed, coriolis forces would pull the upper portion of the cable somewhat to the West and the lower portion of the cable somewhat to the East; this effect can be controlled by varying the deployment speed.

However, this approach requires lifting hundreds or even thousands of tons on conventional rockets, an expensive proposition. Hypothetically, such a plan could make extensive use of materials available in space to reduce costs, but this would require considerable space mining and space-based processing of materials, neither of which is currently practical using existing technology.

Brad Edwards' proposal

Bradley C. Edwards, former Director of Research for the Institute for Scientific Research (ISR), based in Fairmont, West Virginia has presented a plausible scheme showing how a space elevator could be built in little more than a decade, rather than the far future.

He proposes that a single hair-like 18 metric ton (20 short ton) 'seed' cable be deployed in the traditional way, giving a very lightweight elevator with very little lifting capacity.

Then, progressively heavier cables would be pulled up from the ground along it, repeatedly strengthening it until the elevator reaches the required mass and strength. This is much the same technique used to build suspension bridges.

Although 18 tonnes for a seed cable may sound like a lot, it would actually be very lightweight — the proposed average mass is about 200 gram per kilometer. In comparison, conventional copper telephone wires running to consumer homes weigh about 4 kg/km.

Loop elevator design

This is a less well developed design, but offers some other possibilities.

If the cable provides a useful tensile strength of about 62.5 GPa or above, then it turns out that a constant width cable can reach beyond geosynchronous orbit without breaking under its own weight. The far end can then be turned around and passed back down to the Earth forming a constant width loop. The two sides of the loop are naturally kept apart by coriolis forces due to the rotation of the Earth and the cable. By exponentially increasing the thickness of the cable from the ground a very quick buildup of a new elevator may be performed (it helps that no active climbers are needed, and power is applied mechanically.) However, because the loop runs at constant speed, joining and leaving the loop may be somewhat challenging, and the strength of the loop is lower than a conventional tapered design, reducing the maximum payload that can be carried without snapping the cable.^[17]

Failure modes, safety issues and construction difficulties

As with any structure, there are a number of ways in which things could go wrong. A space elevator would present a considerable navigational hazard, both to aircraft and spacecraft. Aircraft could be dealt with by means of simple air-traffic control restrictions, but impacts by space objects (in particular, by meteoroids and micrometeorites) pose a more difficult problem.

Satellites

If nothing were done, essentially all satellites with perigees below the top of the elevator would eventually collide with the elevator cable. Twice per day, each orbital plane intersects the elevator, as the rotation of the Earth swings the cable around the equator. Usually the satellite and the cable will not line up. However, except for synchronized orbits, the elevator and satellite will eventually occupy the same place at the same time, almost certainly leading to structural failure of the space elevator and destruction of the satellite.

Most active satellites are capable of some degree of orbital maneuvering and could avoid these predictable collisions, but inactive satellites and other orbiting debris would need to be either preemptively removed from orbit by "garbage collectors" or would need to be closely watched and nudged whenever their orbit approaches the elevator. The impulses required would be small, and need be applied only very infrequently; a laser broom system may be sufficient to this task. In addition, Brad Edward's design actually allows the elevator to move out of the way, because the fixing point is at sea and mobile. However, such movements would excite transverse oscillations of the cable. While Edwards claims that these oscillations could be controlled so as to ensure that the cable avoids satellites on known paths, that claim needs careful analysis because the oscillations could well be chaotic, and thus it might not be possible to predict the effect of moving the fixing point in which case satellites could not be so avoided.

Meteoroids and micrometeorites

Meteoroids present a more difficult problem, since they would not be predictable and much less time would be available to detect and track them as they approach Earth. It is likely that a space elevator would still suffer impacts of some kind, no matter how carefully it is guarded. However, most space elevator designs call for the use of multiple parallel cables separated from each other by struts, with sufficient margin of safety that severing just one or two strands still allows the surviving strands to hold the elevator's entire weight while repairs are performed. If the strands are properly arranged, no single impact would be able to sever enough of them to overwhelm the surviving strands.

Far worse than meteoroids are micrometeorites; tiny high-speed particles found in high concentrations at certain altitudes. Avoiding micrometeorites is essentially impossible, and they will ensure that strands of the elevator are continuously being cut. Most methods designed to deal with this involve a design similar to a hoytether or to a network of strands in a cylindrical or planar arrangement with two or more helical strands. Constructing the cable as a mesh instead of a ribbon helps prevent collateral damage from each micrometeorite impact.

Failure cascade

It is not enough that other fibers be able to take over the load of a failed strand — the system must also survive the immediate, dynamical effects of fiber failure, which generates projectiles aimed at the cable itself. For example, if the cable has a working stress of 50 GPa and a Young's modulus of 1000 GPa, its strain will be 0.05 and its stored elastic energy will be 1/2 × 0.05 × 50 GPa = 1.25×10⁹ joules per cubic meter. Breaking a fiber will result in a pair of de-tensioning waves moving apart at the speed of sound in the fiber, with the fiber segments behind each wave moving at over 1,000 m/s (more than the muzzle velocity of a standard .223 caliber (5.56 mm) round fired from an M16 rifle). Unless these fast-moving projectiles can be stopped safely, they will break yet other fibers, initiating a failure cascade capable of severing the cable. The challenge of preventing fiber breakage from initiating a catastrophic failure cascade seems to be unaddressed in the current (January, 2005) literature on terrestrial space elevators. Problems of this sort would be easier to solve in lower-tension applications (e.g., lunar elevators).

Corrosion

Corrosion is a major risk to any thinly built tether (which most designs call for). In the upper atmosphere, atomic oxygen steadily eats away at most materials. A tether will consequently need to either be made from a corrosion-resistant material or have a corrosion-resistant coating, adding to weight. Gold and platinum have been shown to be practically immune to atomic oxygen; several far more common materials such as aluminum are damaged very slowly and could be repaired as needed.

Another potential solution to the corrosion problem is a continuous renewal of the tether surface (which could be done from standard, though possibly slower elevators). This process would depend on the tether composition and it could be done on the nanoscale (by replacing individual fibers) or in segments.

Radiation

The effectiveness of the magnetosphere to deflect radiation emanating from the sun decreases dramatically after rising several earth radii above the surface. This ionizing radiation may cause damage to materials within both the tether and climbers.

Material defects

Any structure as large as a space elevator will have massive numbers of tiny defects in the construction material. It has been suggested,^[18]^[19] that, because large structures have more defects than small structures, that large structures are inherently weaker than small, giving an estimated carbon nanotube strength of only 24 GPa down to only 1.7 GPa in millimetre-scale samples, the latter equivalent to many high-strength steels, which would be vastly less than that needed to build a space elevator for a reasonable cost.

Weather

In the atmosphere, the risk factors of wind and lightning come into play. The basic mitigation is location. As long as the tether's anchor remains within two degrees of the equator, it will remain in the quiet zone between the Earth's Hadley cells, where there is relatively little violent weather. Remaining storms could be avoided by moving a floating anchor platform. The lightning risk can be minimized by using a nonconductive fiber with a water-resistant coating to help prevent a conductive buildup from forming. The wind risk can be minimized by use of a fiber with a small cross-sectional area that can rotate with the wind to reduce resistance. Ice forming on the cable also presents a potential problem. It could add significantly to the cable's weight and affect the passage of elevator cars. Also, ice falling from the cable could damage elevator cars or the cable itself. To get rid of ice, special elevator cars could scrape the ice off.

Sabotage

Sabotage is a relatively unquantifiable problem. A space elevator might prove an attractive target for a terrorist or other politically motivated attack. Concern over sabotage may have an effect on location, adding the constraint of avoiding unstable territories to the existing requirement of an equatorial site.

Vibrational harmonics

A final risk of structural failure comes from the possibility of vibrational harmonics within the cable. Like the shorter and more familiar strings of stringed musical instruments, the cable of a space elevator has a natural resonant frequency. If the cable is excited at this frequency, for example by the travel of elevators up and down it, the vibrational energy could build up to dangerous levels and exceed the cable's tensile strength. This can be avoided by the use of suitable damping systems within the cable, and by scheduling travel up and down the cable keeping its resonant frequency in mind. It may be possible to dampen the resonant frequency against the Earth's magnetosphere.

In the event of failure

If despite all these precautions the elevator is severed anyway, the resulting scenario depends on where exactly the break occurred:

Cut near the anchor point

If the elevator is cut at its anchor point on Earth's surface, the outward force exerted by the counterweight would cause the entire elevator to rise upward into an unstable orbit.

The ultimate altitude of the severed lower end of the cable would depend on the details of the elevator's mass distribution. In theory, the loose end might be secured and fastened down again. This would be an extremely tricky operation, however, requiring careful adjustment of the cable's center of gravity to bring the cable back down to the surface again at just the right location. It may prove to be easier to build a new system in such a situation.

Cut up to about 25,000 km

If the break occurred at higher altitude, up to about 25,000 km, the lower portion of the elevator would descend to Earth and drape itself along the equator east of the anchor point, while the now unbalanced upper portion would rise to a higher orbit. Some authors (such as science fiction writers David Gerrold in Jumping off the Planet, Kim Stanley Robinson in Red Mars, and Ben Bova in Mercury) have suggested that such a failure would be catastrophic, with the thousands of kilometers of falling cable creating a swath of meteoric destruction along Earth's surface; however, in most cable designs, the upper portion of any cable that fell to Earth would burn up in the atmosphere. Additionally, because proposed initial cables (the only ones likely to be broken) have very low mass (roughly 1 kg per kilometer) and are flat, the bottom portion would likely settle to Earth with less force than a sheet of paper due to air resistance on the way down.

If the break occurred at the counterweight side of the elevator, the lower portion, now including the "central station" of the elevator, would entirely fall down if not prevented by an early self-destruct of the cable shortly below it. Depending on the size, however, it would burn up on re-entry anyway. Simulations have shown that as the descending portion of the space elevator "wraps around" Earth the stress on the remaining length of cable increases, resulting in its upper sections breaking off and being flung away. The details of how these pieces break and the trajectories they take are highly sensitive to initial conditions.^[20]

Elevator climbers

Any climbers on the falling section would also reenter Earth's atmosphere, but it is likely that the climbers will already have been designed to withstand such an event as an emergency measure. It is almost inevitable that some objects — climbers, structural members, repair crews, etc. — will accidentally fall off the elevator at some point. Their subsequent fate would depend upon their initial altitude. Except at geosynchronous altitude, an object on a space elevator is not in a stable orbit and so its trajectory will not remain parallel to it. The object will instead enter an elliptical orbit, the characteristics of which depend on where the object was on the elevator when it was released.

If the initial height of the object falling off of the elevator is less than 23,000 km, its orbit will have an apogee at the altitude where it was released from the elevator and a perigee within Earth's atmosphere — it will intersect the atmosphere within a few hours, and not complete an entire orbit. Above this critical altitude, the perigee is above the atmosphere and the object will be able to complete a full orbit to return to the altitude it started from. By then the elevator would be somewhere else, but a spacecraft could be dispatched to retrieve the object or otherwise remove it. The lower the altitude at which the object falls off, the greater the eccentricity of its orbit.

If the object falls off at the geostationary altitude itself, it will remain nearly motionless relative to the elevator just as in conventional orbital flight. At higher altitudes the object would again be in an elliptical orbit, this time with a perigee at the altitude the object was released from and an apogee somewhere higher than that. The eccentricity of the orbit would increase with the altitude from which the object is released.

Above 47,000 km, however, an object that falls off of the elevator would have a velocity greater than the local escape velocity of Earth. The object would head out into interplanetary space, and if there were any people present on board it might prove impossible to rescue them.

Van Allen Belts

Van Allen radiation belts

The space elevator would run through the Van Allen belts. This is not a problem for most freight, but the amount of time a climber spends in this region would cause radiation poisoning to any unshielded human or other living things.^[21]^[22] Some speculate that passengers would continue to travel by high-speed rocket, while space elevators haul bulk cargo. Research into lightweight shielding and techniques for clearing out the belts is underway.

More conventional and faster atmospheric reentry techniques such as aerobraking might be employed on the way down to minimize radiation exposure. De-orbit burns use relatively little fuel and are cheap.

An obvious option would be for the elevator to carry shielding to protect passengers, though this would reduce its overall capacity, of course. Alternatively, the shielding itself could in some cases consist of useful payload, for example food, water, fuel or construction/maintenance materials, and no additional shielding costs are then incurred on the way up.

To shield passengers from the radiation in the Van Allen belt, perhaps counter-intuitively, material composed of light elements should be used, as opposed to lead shielding. In fact, high energy electrons in the Van Allen belts produce dangerous X-rays when they strike atoms of heavy elements. This is known as bremsstrahlung, or braking radiation. Materials containing great amounts of hydrogen, such as water or (lightweight) plastics such as polyethylene and lighter metals such as aluminium are better than heavier ones such as lead for preventing this secondary radiation. Such light-element shielding, if it were strong enough to protect against the Van Allen particle radiation, would also provide adequate protection against X-ray radiation coming from the sun during solar flares and coronal mass ejection events.

Economics

Main article: Space elevator economics

With a space elevator, materials might be sent into orbit at a fraction of the current cost. Conventional rocket designs give prices on the order of thousands of U.S. dollars per kilogram for transfer to low earth orbit, and roughly twenty thousand dollars per kilogram for transfer to geosynchronous orbit. Even optimistic rocket proposals (such as the DH-1) only claim to bring prices down to $200 per kilo. For a space elevator, the price could be on the order of a few hundred dollars per kilogram, or possibly much less.

Space elevators have high capital cost but low operating expenses, so they make the most economic sense in a situation where it would be used over a long period of time to handle very large amounts of payload. The current launch market may not be large enough to make a compelling case for a space elevator, but a dramatic drop in the price of launching material to orbit would likely result in new types of space activities becoming economically feasible. In this regard they share similarities with other transportation infrastructure projects such as highways or railroads.^{[citation needed]}

Development costs might be roughly equivalent, in modern dollars, to the cost of developing the shuttle system. A question subject to speculation is whether a space elevator would return the investment, or if it would be more beneficial to instead spend the money on developing rocketry further. If the elevator did indeed cost roughly the same as the shuttle program, recovering the development costs would take less than about a hundred thousand tons launched to low earth orbit or five thousand tons launched to geosynchronous orbit.^{[citation needed]}

Political issues

One potential problem with a space elevator would be the issue of ownership and control. Such an elevator would require significant investment (estimates start at about US$5 billion for a very primitive tether), and it could take at least a decade to recoup such expenses. At present, few entities are able to spend in the space industry at that magnitude.

Assuming a multi-national governmental effort was able to produce a working space elevator, many political issues would remain to be solved. Which countries would use the elevator and how often? Who would be responsible for its defense from terrorists or enemy states? A space elevator could potentially cause rifts between states over the military applications of the elevator. Furthermore, establishment of a space elevator would require knowledge of the positions and paths of all existing satellites in Earth orbit and their removal if they cannot adequately avoid the elevator (unless the base station itself can move in order to make the elevator avoid satellites, as proposed by Edwards).

An initial elevator could be used in relatively short order to lift the materials to build more such elevators, but the owners of the first elevator might refuse to carry such materials in order to maintain their monopoly.

As space elevators (regardless of the design) are inherently fragile but militarily valuable structures, they would likely be targeted immediately in any major conflict with a state that controls one. Consequently, most militaries would elect to continue development of conventional rockets (or other similar launch technologies) to provide effective backup methods to access space.

The cost of the space elevator is not excessive compared to other projects and it is conceivable that several countries or an international consortium could pursue the space elevator. Indeed, there are companies and agencies in a number of countries that have expressed interest in the concept. Generally, projects on the scale of a space elevator need to be either joint public-private partnership ventures or government ventures, and they involve multiple partners.

The political motivation for a collaborative effort comes from the potential destabilizing nature of the space elevator. The space elevator clearly has military applications, but more critically it would give a strong economic advantage for the controlling entity. Information flowing through satellites, future energy from space, planets full of real estate and associated minerals, and basic military advantage could all potentially be controlled by the entity that controls access to space through the space elevator. An international collaboration could result in multiple elevators at various locations around the globe, since subsequent elevators would be significantly cheaper, thus allowing general access to space and consequently eliminating the instabilities a single system might cause.

Arthur C. Clarke compared the space elevator project to Cyrus West Field's efforts to build the first transatlantic telegraph cable, "the Apollo Project of its age".^[23]

History

Early concepts

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.

The concept of the space elevator appeared in 1895 when Russian scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was inspired by the Eiffel Tower in Paris to consider a tower that reached all the way into space. He imagined placing a "celestial castle" at the end of a spindle-shaped cable, with the "castle" orbiting Earth in a geosynchronous orbit (i.e. the castle would remain over the same spot on Earth's surface). The tower would be built from the ground up to an altitude of 35,790 kilometers above mean sea level (geostationary orbit). Comments from Nikola Tesla suggest that he may have also conceived such a tower. Tsiolkovsky's notes were sent behind the Iron Curtain after his death.

Tsiolkovsky's tower would be able to launch objects into orbit without a rocket. Since the elevator would attain orbital velocity as it rode up the cable, an object released at the tower's top would also have the orbital velocity necessary to remain in geosynchronous orbit.

Twentieth century

Building from the ground up, however, proved an impossible task; there was no material in existence with enough compressive strength to support its own weight under such conditions. It took until 1957 for another Russian scientist, Yuri N. Artsutanov, to conceive of a more feasible scheme for building a space tower. Artsutanov suggested using a geosynchronous satellite as the base from which to construct the tower. By using a counterweight, a cable would be lowered from geosynchronous orbit to the surface of Earth while the counterweight was extended from the satellite away from Earth, keeping the center of gravity of the cable motionless relative to Earth. Artsutanov published his idea in the Sunday supplement of Komsomolskaya Pravda in 1960. He also proposed tapering the cable thickness so that the tension in the cable was constant—this gives a thin cable at ground level, thickening up towards GEO.^[24]

Making a cable over 35,000 kilometers long is a difficult task. In 1966, four American engineers decided to determine what type of material would be required to build a space elevator, assuming it would be a straight cable with no variations in its cross section. They found that the strength required would be twice that of any existing material including graphite, quartz, and diamond.

In 1975 an American scientist, Jerome Pearson, designed^[11] a tapered cross section that would be better suited to building the elevator. The completed cable would be thickest at the geosynchronous orbit, where the tension was greatest, and would be narrowest at the tips to reduce the amount of weight per unit area of cross section that any point on the cable would have to bear. He suggested using a counterweight that would be slowly extended out to 144,000 kilometers (almost half the distance to the Moon) as the lower section of the elevator was built. Without a large counterweight, the upper portion of the cable would have to be longer than the lower due to the way gravitational and centrifugal forces change with distance from Earth. His analysis included disturbances such as the gravitation of the Moon, wind and moving payloads up and down the cable. The weight of the material needed to build the elevator would have required thousands of Space Shuttle trips, although part of the material could be transported up the elevator when a minimum strength strand reached the ground or be manufactured in space from asteroidal or lunar ore.

In 1977, Hans Moravec published an article called "A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook", in which he proposed a modification of the space elevator idea into a more feasible tether propulsion system. (Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 25, Oct.-December 1977)

Arthur C. Clarke introduced the concept of a space elevator to a broader audience in his 1979 novel, The Fountains of Paradise, in which engineers construct a space elevator on top of a mountain peak in the fictional island country of Taprobane, which was loosely based on Sri Lanka, albeit moved south to the equator.

In Robert A. Heinlein's 1982 novel Friday the principal character makes use of the "Nairobi Beanstalk" in the course of her travels.

In 1982 Paul Birch wrote a paper for the British Interplanetary Society discussing the possibility of building an Orbital Ring System. This system could be build with materials such as Aluminum and Kevlar.

In 1999, Larry Niven authored the book Rainbow Mars which contained a "Hanging Tree" - an organic 'Skyhook' which was capable of interstellar travel. The book skillfully discussed several merits/demerits of such an approach to the Beanstalk - the primary demerit being that the water necessary to sustain such an enormous 'tree' would require the drying up of all of its host planet's water bodies - which is used as a plot device to explain the drying up of Mars.

21st century

David Smitherman of NASA/Marshall's Advanced Projects Office has compiled plans for an elevator. His publication, "Space Elevators: An Advanced Earth-Space Infrastructure for the New Millennium",^[25] is based on findings from a space infrastructure conference held at the Marshall Space Flight Center in 1999.

Another American scientist, Bradley C. Edwards, suggests creating a 100,000 km long paper-thin ribbon, which would stand a greater chance of surviving impacts by meteors. The work of Edwards has expanded to cover: the deployment scenario, climber design, power delivery system, orbital debris avoidance, anchor system, surviving atomic oxygen, avoiding lightning and hurricanes by locating the anchor in the western equatorial pacific, construction costs, construction schedule, and environmental hazards. Plans are currently being made to complete engineering and material development, and begin construction of the first elevator. Funding to date has been through a grant from the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. Future funding is sought through NASA, the United States Department of Defense, private, and public sources. The largest holdup to Edwards' proposed design is the technological limits of the tether material. His calculations call for a fiber composed of epoxy-bonded carbon nanotubes with a minimal tensile strength of 130 GPa (including a safety factor of 2); however, tests in 2000 of individual single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), which should be notably stronger than an epoxy-bonded rope, indicated the strongest measured as 52 GPa.^[26] Multi-walled carbon nanotubes have been measured with tensile strengths up to 63 GPa.^[27]

In order to speed development of space elevators proponents are planning several competitions, similar to the Ansari X Prize, for relevant technologies.^[28]^[29] Among them are Elevator:2010 which will organize annual competitions for climbers, ribbons and power-beaming systems. The Robolympics Space Elevator Ribbon Climbing competition^[30]. As well as NASA's Centennial Challenges program which, in March 2005, announced a partnership with the Spaceward Foundation (the operator of Elevator:2010), raising the total value of prizes to US$400,000.^[31]^[32]

On April 27, 2005 "the LiftPort Group of space elevator companies has announced that it will be building a carbon nanotube manufacturing plant in Millville, New Jersey, to supply various glass, plastic and metal companies with these strong materials. Although LiftPort hopes to eventually use carbon nanotubes in the construction of a 100,000 km (62,000 mile) space elevator, this move will allow it to make money in the short term and conduct research and development into new production methods."^[33] On September 9 the group announced that they had obtained permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to use airspace to conduct preliminary tests of its high altitude robotic lifters.^[34] The experiment was successful.

On February 13, 2006 the LiftPort Group announced that, earlier the same month, they had tested a mile of 'space elevator tether' (sic) made of carbon-fibre composite strings and fibreglass tape measuring 5 centimetres wide and 1 mm (approx. 6 sheets of paper) thick, lifted with balloons.^[35]

The x-Tech Projects company has also been founded to pursue the prospect of a commercial Space Elevator.

In 2007, Elevator:2010 will be holding the 2007 Space Elevator games which will feature US$500,000 awards for each of the two competitions, (US$1,000,000 total) as well as an additional US$4,000,000 to be awarded over the next five years for space elevator related technologies.^[36]

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 - Episode 5 [Breakaway Limit Zone]

2007-11-04T21:56:00.000-08:00

I was wondering how I should look at this Gundam series: be it from a scientific angle, from a political angle, from a "classical" Gundam universe angle, or .......

After some thought, I think I better look at the series from a story telling angle.

There were some highly technical CGI movies but they were bad at story telling. They flopped!

I thought about this before the airing of episode 5.

Now, episode 5 is good at developing the characters, this episode esp. for Allelujah.

For the successful Gundam series, what make them success?

Good character design? Good mecha design? Good action scenes?

Well, they all are important!

But looking back at Gundam 0079, some artwork was really crappy!

I believe it's the flesh and blood of the characters!

Looking at episode 5 and also the previous episodes, Gundam 00 looks like heading in the right direction.

What makes Gundam Seed Destiny flopped? Storytelling and the inconsistencies of the characters!

Now we shall see if the momentum can keep going on!

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 Episode 3 [Changing World] & Episode 4 [Foreign Negotiations]

2007-10-30T22:58:00.001-07:00

Here are the excerpts from Wikipedia about the plots in Eps. 3 & 4:

03 "Changing World"
Tieria returns to space with Gundam Virtue. The Union Army creates the Anti-Gundam Investigative Squad with Graham and Billy transferred from the MSWAD as official members. Meanwhile, Celestial Being launches surprise attacks in South Africa, the South American continent over Taribian airspace, formerly in Venezuela and in Ceylon. Setsuna later faces off against Colonel Smirnov while conducting an attack against Human Reform League mobile suits. Later on, a JNN broadcast revealed that various militant factions in North Ireland signed a peace treaty, ending years of fighting between themselves, the British Army and the PSNI.

04 "Foreign Negotiation"
Colonel Sergei returns to the Reform League to head a new squad designated for capturing one of the Gundams, with Soma Peiris as his designated subordinate. Encouraged by Celestial Being's anti-conflict actions, the South American nation of Taribia declares its withdrawal from the Union and declares it independence over the control of energy resources, prompting a Union military response, forcing Celestial Being to intervene. In Azadistan, Shirin Bakhtiar explains to First Princess Marina Ismail that the conflict is not as simple as it may first seem. Meanwhile, the Anti-Gundam Investigative Squad, in Flag Customs, engage Exia in Taribian airspace. Later on, pro-Taribian separatist politicians led by its prime minister are forced to drop their bid for independence after their forces were defeated by the Gundam Meisters.

==================================================================

Well, I’ve seen various opinions on the episodes.

But I just have another thought as I reflect on someone else' opinion.

Maybe we don’t necessarily need to treat this series as a Gundam series.

This series is seemingly more and more divert from some paradigms of other Gundam universe.

The two episodes are quite political compared to other Gundam series. It seems like the series is targeting a wider age group, esp. when comparing to Gundam Seed Destiny (which is “chaotic” in its political treatment.)

The episodes are really progressing on a story line, rather than selling actions and music videos (you know what I mean, don’t you?).

In episodes 1 & 2, it appears Gundams are invincible. But eps. 3 & 4 show that the Gundams are actually vulnerable.

Now, I am interested in how they develop the story of the first season, pause it and then start the second season.

This treatment of splitting the series in separate seasons is also a first in Gundam series.

Now, will someone tell me or give their speculation on how Union, AEU & HRL make up the technological gap between their MS'es and the "invincible" Gundams?

Pentagon offers a ray of hope in energy debate

2007-10-17T14:05:00.000-07:00

Pentagon offers a ray of hope in energy debate

Out of this world … how the solar power station might look.

Richard Macey
October 17, 2007

THE debate over whether nuclear, solar, wind or clean coal is the energy of the future now has a new player. A report commissioned by an arm of the US Department of Defence has instead proposed lofting power generation into space.

Giant arrays of orbiting solar panels would collect sunlight, which would be beamed via low-power microwaves to massive receivers on the ground, or even directly to customers.

Published by the Pentagon's National Security Space Office, the report says the US should demonstrate the technology by building a pilot "space-based solar power" station, big enough to continuously beam up to 10 megawatts of power to the ground, in the next decade.

A more advanced station, "several kilometres across" and weighing more than 3000 tonnes, could deliver up to 10 gigawatts of electricity. While the report says the project would be a technological challenge, it "requires no fundamental scientific breakthroughs or new physics".

Sunlight's energy in space, where it is not diluted by the atmosphere, is enormous. A kilometre-wide band around Earth receives enough solar energy each year "to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth".

A basic technology demonstrator could be in orbit within six years, while a much bigger one could be operating by 2020, at a total cost of up to $US10 billion ($11.11 billion).

The report claimed the highly efficient microwaves would be significantly less dangerous than the noon-day sun. Microwave leakage at the edge of the rectangular ground antenna would be no more than that of a microwave oven.

In a malfunction "the likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and even if occurring would be extremely anti-climactic. If solar is considered 'green' energy, then [this] could be considered the ultimate green energy."

==================================

URL: clcik here http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/pentagon-offers-a-ray-of-hope-in-energy-debate/2007/10/16/1192300768027.html

Following my comments on Gundam 00 - Episode 2, could this be the prototype of the space orbit solar power generator?

Now, the proposed power transmission uses microwave?!

And using the extra-terrestrial solar irradiance data from ASHRAE, which is about 1400 W/m2, the article says the station will produce 10 GW of power. That means 10E9(W)/1400(W/m2) = 7.1 million m2/ (or 7.1 km2) of solar panels at 100% efficiency. That is a square of 2.7km x 2.7km!!! 1400 football pitch!!!

Now just what will be the cost, pay back period and the embodied energy of the power plant?

How much will you pay for this kind of electricity?

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 - Episode 2 [Gundam Meister]

2007-10-15T14:05:00.000-07:00

I am not too sure if I can give a good commentary to Gundam 00 Episode 2 - "Gundam Meister".

Episode 1, I believe, is well received. This may be because the last Gundam series, "Gundam Seed Destiny" was infamous for its plot and story pace, etc.

Now for episode 2, seems like some bad elements from GSD resurrect in Gundam 00!

In this, I refer to the superiority of the Gundams. Exia "dances" around the HRL's MS'es and chops them like vegetables. It is also hit by a direct shell without the slightest dent!

Also, the GN particles has so many superior features, like cooling agent when the MS'es enter the atmosphere.

I also discuss this with a friend. How can you propulse the Gundam with the GN particles? Classical physics or even quantum physics all seem useless in the Gundam universe. (I think we need a "Gundam physicist" to explain the science in GN particles uses!!)

And as an engineer, esp. in energy efficiencies and ESD, I really like to know how the energy generated by the "PV arrays" (I am assuming here.) transmit the energy to the earth's surface and distribute to every power demand locations. What will be the cross-sectional area(s) of the conductors / power lines? We are talking about roughly one-third of the Earth's energy need through one "Tin-Chu / Sky Column"! (Three Sky Columns only to provide the whole earth's energy use!)

And what is the area required to generate that much of energy? (On the earth surface, solar intensity is roughly 500W/m2. Possibly higher when the atmospheric scattering effect is eliminated, but the solar intensity in stationary orbit is still a finite number!) (PS. ASHRAE 1997 Fundamental page 29.14 Table 8 states that Extraterrestrial Solar Irradiance ranges between 1336-1417 W/m2.)

Well, maybe we better focus on the plot, not the science. But this episode seems muddying the plot. I may need to look at it again to see what it intends to do to the series, if not time filling.

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 - Episode 1 [Celestial Being]

2007-10-07T00:29:00.000-07:00

Well, I haven't looked at other people's review about this new Gundam Series. So here are some of my comments about Episode 1:

The overall - The overall feel is not bad. But the background of this alternate world is not revealed too much now. It is still early days. Past experience from Seed and Seed Destiny show that the pacing at the start can be slow; but then the pace goes berserk and hard to catch up! (Destiny pace near the end is really crazy! Recap, rush, recap, rush.....) Let's hope this one will have a good pace but not too fast that we can't follow.
Characters - The characters design appears fine for me. But one funny thing is that I see"Lynn Minmay's" look alike. Is that a joke on Macross?
Mecha - There are many criticisms to the mecha design saying that they divert from the "classical" Gundam design. Well, the Gundam's seem some little facelifts of previous Gundams. But I am not too sure about the "Enact"!!! It looks like the mech from Rahxephon to me. And about the heavy MS of HRL (Human Reform League 人類革新連盟) ....... can't see them before they becaome canon fodder. But from the designs, I think they are ... "soul-less".
Philosophy - "Stop war by war"...... Yes, as one of the characters say, this is ironic! Isn't this familar from Seed and Seed Destiny! But then I think, well, what is it behind the war? You stop the acts of war. But you can't stop the warring minds! And the issue before war whcih is energy and resource depletion cannot be resolved by suppressing the "acts of war". So what is Yōsuke Kuroda's idea behind the series? Anyway, this could be only a commercial vehicle for Bandai to sell their products! I may not help myself to get some Gunpla anyway!

So my score for this episode is 7.5!

Sustainability consultant discusses greenhouse issues

2007-10-05T23:43:00.000-07:00

Sustainability consultant discusses greenhouse issues

I was at home watching this while surfing. This clears up some misconceptions about "Sustainability" and "carbon neutral".

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 03/10/2007

Reporter: Andrew Robertson

Jonathan Justen from sustainability consultancy firm Energetics discusses carbon neutral businesses.

Transcript

ANDREW ROBERTSON: 'Carbon neutral' has become a catch phrase if the business world as companies scramble to adjust to the demands of global warming. But what does 'carbon neutral' really mean, and how can business meaningfully contribute to lowering the output of greenhouse gases? Jonathan Jutsen is a founder of Energetics, which for 23 years has been one of Australia's leading consultants on sustainability and greenhouse issues, and he joined me in the studio earlier this evening.

Jonathan Jutsen, welcome to Lateline Business.

JONATHAN JUTSEN: Thank you.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: Does being carbon neutral actually lead to less carbon being pumped into the air or just to offsets like planting trees?

JONATHAN JUTSEN: Well, ideally it does lead to reduction in production emissions. and what we are recommending very firmly to companies and I think this is starting to become accepted, is that the right way to go carbon neutral is to in fact reduce your own carbon footprint first, which means improving energy efficiency and doing other measures internally within your organisation which will reduce carbon emissions before you start looking outside the organisation. And even when you look outside the organisation - to start with green power, which comes from new renewable sources, before you go to buying other types of offsets.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: What are some of the simple things that companies can do to reduce their carbon output?

JONATHAN JUTSEN: Well, most of the carbon output from most companies is related to their own energy consumption. And so improving energy efficiency in their operations is the primary thing that most companies can do in the short-term. And it has another benefit of course, they actually save money as well. So we're recommending and most reputable people in this field do recommend that companies focus on improving energy efficiency as the first step.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: Every company in the world at the moment seems to be saying that they're green. Just how green is business?

JONATHAN JUTSEN: You know, they say green is the new black, but I think people are fair to be slightly cynical because I think there is a variability. I mean, some companies are taking this very seriously. They see it as a core part of their business and want to do the right thing by the community and by their own organisation. Other companies I think see it as a good opportunity to raise their profile, or maybe change their public positioning, and really don't understand the full nature of the obligations and the cost involved to become carbon neutral in a responsible way.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: But how do you get business to do even basic things like turn the lights off at night? I mean, anyone that drives past an office block or a big company headquarters at night sees all the lights on.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: Look, I think that is the way that most companies have been up until now. I don't think many companies in Australia have, until the last few years, taken improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions as a serious part of their business. It's been a relatively low cost for a lot of companies. Energy costs are relatively low in Australia. And there are very few companies that have seen that sort of resource efficiency and carbon management as a core part of their businesses, but it is starting to change quite rapidly.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: You say on your website that the challenge for all Australian companies, analysts and shareholders is to ensure that there's a common understanding of what it means to be carbon neutral as well as agreed standards for each of the settlements in achieving that. How do we get to that point?

JONATHAN JUTSEN: There are some real issues with carbon neutrality. And those are not just around what sort of offsets and how reliable they are and do they come from the right sorts of sources. It's also how you calculate your carbon footprint - the amount of carbon that you emit not only for your own organisation but through third party activities. So there is a need for common standards and they are starting to develop in Europe, and global standards are starting to come about.

But we have still got a problem that in Australia we have standards through the Australian Greenhouse Office, the greenhouse friendly program sets a local standard, but unfortunately not all carbon neutrality is done to any of those standards and there is no obligation in the way that companies report to ensure that they are reporting to those standards. So there is a need for a lot more rigour and I think probably some regulation around how companies can report this sort of information. I understand that the ACCC is starting to move in this direction at the moment.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: Just on the issue of regulation and the role of government - we don't have a carbon trading system in Australia and at the moment it's been foreshadowed that it won't start until 2012. How big an issue is that?

JONATHAN JUTSEN: I think it's a very big issue. For two reasons. Firstly, I don't believe carbon trading in itself is going to be enough to make the sort of carbon reductions that most scientists believe are necessary to stabilise the world's climate at some sort of reasonable level. And not only that, it will require, even when the carbon trading program is in place, will require other measure, including regulation, including regulation of energy efficiency performance metrics. There will be a whole range - education, public education, there will be a whole range of policy implements that are required other than just the carbon pricing. But as well as that, we can't wait three or four years with inefficient buildings going in, with inefficient factories going in, with people buying inefficient cars and houses, we can't wait three or four more years before we start to take action. We have to take action now, so there is a need for interim steps regardless how effective the carbon trading mechanism is.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: And what should those interim steps be?

JONATHAN JUTSEN: I think they should be very targeted regulations in terms of performance of appliances, efficiency of buildings, both commercial and residential buildings. I think there is a need for a regulatory approach. I think there should be financial incentives, substantial incentives for both businesses and householders to accelerate the implementation of energy efficiency measures in their facilities. I think these measures are absolutely essential.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: Carbon trading will lead to alternative, hopefully investment in alternative energy. But alternative energy will be much more expensive.

JONATHAN JUTSEN: Yes, and I think one of the things that I find rather frustrating being in the energy efficiency area - at least half the solution's going to come from energy efficiency to global warming, and yet our government, certainly at a federal level, hasn't put very much effort or investment into the energy efficiency area. There is a lot of focus on green supply, but energy efficiency actually reduces costs and will improve the economy and reduce costs not only for businesses but for householders. So there should be incentives and research and development and regulation going into that area and not just the into green energy.

We've seen new regulation just come out about green power requirements, but there's no increased regulation coming through on the energy efficiency side. And because it's the most cost effective way of getting to where we want to get to, it's amazing to me that there hasn't been a lot more focus in this area.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: What are the opportunities for being at the forefront in managing carbon output, and what are the costs for business in being left behind?

JONATHAN JUTSEN: Well, it's like any major change that impacts on business. There are the people who are going to be at the forefront of the activity and are going to be influencing and developing and creating markets and are going to be managing the risks very effectively in their business. And these people are going to be at the forefront of a business opportunity which is going to be huge globally.

To improve energy efficiency and to invest in green alternatives to reduce carbon emissions, the expectation is there's going to be $5 to $10 trillion invested globally in the next 40 years. So, I mean, this is a major opportunity, it's not just - we're not just talking about risks, and those companies who are at the forefront of that area will have the opportunity to take advantage of those new business changes. Whereas other companies are going to be just buffeted by changes. And we talk to executives quite often at senior levels of many companies, and I think many of them believe that the future is just going to be an extension of the past with a little carbon price tacked on the top. They don't recognise that this is potentially going to change not only pricing of products quite substantially, particularly energy intensive products, it's going to change the way we have to handle materials, it's going to change the way consumers look at their purchases, they're going to be much more sensitive about the perception of carbon-friendliness about products. It could have very substantial changes in the business environment and companies that don't take this into account now and just think the future is going to be pretty much the same as it was for the last 40 years are going to get caught out.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: So there's a revolution on the way?

JONATHAN JUTSEN: Absolutely.

ANDREW ROBERTSON: Jonathan Jutsen, thank you very much for your time.

JONATHAN JUTSEN: Thanks for having me.

Ubuntu 7.10 Countdown

2007-10-05T10:20:00.000-07:00

Waiting for the Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon!

New features since Ubuntu 7.04

GNOME 2.20

Gutsy Gibbon Beta brings you the latest and greatest GNOME 2.20 with lots of new features and improvements.

Desktop 3D effects

Compiz Fusion is enabled by default and will bring 3D desktop visual effects that improve the usability and visual appeal of the system. Ubuntu 7.10 automatically detects whether the hardware is capable of running compiz; if not, it falls back to normal desktop. Additional effects can be enabled in "System/Preferences/Appearance" under the "Visual Effects" tab. There you can also disable the effects entirely.

Desktop search

The deskbar applet is now included in the default configuration. It allows quick access to your common actions, including opening web bookmarks and searches, sending messages to your contacts, and more.

The Tracker indexer has been added to the desktop, making it easier and faster to search for your documents, photos, music, videos, chat logs, and all other files. You can use Tracker in the search dialog, the file selector, nautilus, or the deskbar applet.

Fast user switching

It is now possible to easily switch between user sessions without the inconvenience of entering your username or password numerous times, a time-saver on computers shared by multiple users.

Firefox plugins in Ubuntu

Firefox now comes with an improved plugin finder wizard that allows users to search and install packaged plugins easily, bringing users a richer web-browsing experience with the integrated security support of the rest of the Ubuntu system:

In addition, users can now open the Ubuntu application installer with a list of packaged Firefox extensions available by clicking on a link in the Firefox Addons dialog:

Dynamic screen configuration

Several drivers, including ones for ATI, nVidia, and Intel graphics chips now support the X Resize and Rotate Extension (xrandr). This enables dynamic monitor detection, and resizing and rotating of video output, for no-fuss support for projectors and external monitors.

If you have this hardware and used MergedFB / Xinerama previously, you may need to update your X configuration to use this new feature.

Graphical configuration tool for X

You can now configure what driver you want to use for your graphic card, change the default resolution for all users or change your monitor's refresh rate without having to turn to the terminal. A new GUI has been added making it easy to adjust your video and monitor settings. This tool can also set up dual screen capabilities for cards that use the Xinerama mode.

Fully automatic printer installation

Printers are now automatically configured by merely plugging them in and turning them on. Printer setup cannot get any easier!

Handling of non-free device drivers

Restricted-manager can now handle drivers which are free in themselves, but which require non-free firmware or other packages to operate. Only three clicks are needed to fetch and install firmware for wireless cards with Broadcom chipsets, and for a number of Winmodems commonly found in laptops, provided that you have an alternative Internet connection.

When restricted-manager detects hardware for which a restricted driver is available, a notification window pops up:

NTFS writing

While previous Ubuntu releases only supported read access to Windows (NTFS) partitions, Gutsy Gibbon now fully supports reading and writing to them, by integrating the NTFS-3g project. This significantly eases file and document sharing with Windows.

Power consumption

Ubuntu includes the latest Linux kernel, featuring dynticks. It allows the processor to use less power and produce less heat. For laptops this means more battery life and burn-free laps and for desktops and media center PCs, a quieter, cooler environment.

AppArmor security framework

This easy-to-deploy kernel technology limits the resources an application is allowed to access and can be used to provide an added layer of protection against undiscovered security vulnerabilities in applications. Head to the AppArmor user guide to learn about this new security feature.

Additional installation profiles for Ubuntu Server

New pre-configured installation options have been added to the Ubuntu Server CD. Mail Server, File Server, Print Server, and Database Server options join existing LAMP and DNS options for pre-configured installations, easing the deployment of common server configurations.

Profile-based Authentication Configuration

Deploying authentication configuration has become a lot easier with the addition of auth-client-config. Files may be added to the profiles database, allowing for an administrator to set up a single profile for site-wide network authentication roll-outs. Find out more about AuthClientConfig.

Improved thin-client support

The speed of LTSP thin clients has been greatly improved through the use of compressed images, and LDM, the thin-client login manager included in Edubuntu, also now has support for autologin, multiple servers, and unencrypted graphics transport as an additional speed boost.

How about using mini wind turbines?

2007-09-17T05:53:00.000-07:00

I briefly look at the economies of PV panels.

But how about wind turbines?

Look at the links below:
http://store.sundancesolar.com/airxwitu.html
This one is US$625 for 400W (at 12.5m/s)
(P.S. I've seen the real product in front of me. My boss ordered one from USA to look at feasibility.)

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/EnviroWin ... 64865QQcmdZViewItem
This one "may be" A$400 for 200W (RRP$589).

If I use the same methodology:
For the first one, US$625 = HK$4875

Assume electricity rate = $1.1/kWh for simplicity.

kWh required to payback the wind turbine = 4875 / 1.1 = 4432 kWh

Time required to generate = 4432 kWh / 0.4 kW = 11080 hours

Now I need to check the "wind flower" of HK. But just assume we can have 16 hours a day of wind for the wind turbine.

Then no. of days = 11080 / 16 = 692 days = 1.9 years

This seems quite attractive!

For case 2,
For the first one, A$400 = HK$2600 (for A$1=HK$6.5)

Assume electricity rate = $1.1/kWh for simplicity.

kWh required to payback the wind turbine = 2600 / 1.1 = 2364 kWh

Time required to generate = 2364 kWh / 0.2 kW = 11818 hours

Assume we can have 16 hours a day of wind for the wind turbine as before.

Then no. of days = 11818 / 16 = 739 days = 2.0 years

This also seems quite attractive!

But practically, do you have the space to install the wind turbine?

And also, some costs were not taken into account, like battery, regulator, installation, freight charge, etc.

But it worths a look.

But I better declare that I have no interest in the wind turbine manufacturing industry.

Maybe I should have some interest or investment in this!

Is solar panel cost effective?

2007-09-17T05:52:00.000-07:00

I hold the view that photovoltaic panels are not cost effective at this moment (solar energy to electric energy conversion efficiency is only up to 20%; to power a TV, you need over 1 sqm of panels and one 175W panel costs A$1925, see: http://www.solazone.com.au/PVpanels.htm ).

Now go to that link and look at some real numbers!

175W panel cost A$1925.

Now, look at the tariff rates here:
http://www.energy.com.au/energy/ ... _July_07_EA_Res.pdf

Now, if I assume the most expensive rates of : 27.61 cents/kWh

The solar panel needs to generate : $1925 / 0.2761 kWh of electricity to pay for itself. This is 6972 kWh.

For this panel to gnerate 6972 kWh of electricty, it takes 6972 / 0.175 = 39840 hours of full capacity generation.

If I have an average of 9 hours of sunshine each day, it takes 4426 days or 12.1 years of continuous full sunshine everyday.

So unless you are really keen to "show" your committment to ESD, solar panels (photovoltaic panels) are not cost effective if you already have connection to the power grid.

P.S. The story would be somehow different with remote areas where generators or power lines are required to supply electricty. By that time, the comparison will be the installation and running costs of generators and power lines. PV panels will be attractive for those applications.

Is CFL's more environmental friendly than light bulbs?

2007-09-06T09:38:00.000-07:00

To be Editted:

Accepted fact:
Running energy and running cost of CFL is lower than incandescent lamps (normal light bulbs)

For:
The efficacy of CFL is higher than incandescent lamps.

Look at the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

Efficacies of some common light sources:
For a 40W incandescent bulbs: 12.6 lm/W (base)
For a 100W incandescent bulbs: 17.5 lm/W (39% more)
For 5-24W CFL: 45-60 lm/W (257% - 376% more)
For fluoro tubes (光管) 32W (T8): 60 lm/W (376% more)
For fluoro tubes (光管) 28W (T5): 104 lm/W (725% more)
For white LED : 26-70 lm/W (106% - 456% more)
For white LED (prototype): up to 150 lm/W (up to 1090% more)

Note: Efficacy (not efficiency)is a term in lighting science to measure the power (Watts, W) required to produce the luminous flux (or simply speak the amount of light, units in lumens). In mathematical formula,

lighting efficacy = Luminous flux (i.e. amount of light, unit in lumens) / Power input (Watts, W)

So in simply words, to produce the same amount of light, CFL takes less energy than light bulbs.

Doubt (not yet against):

Look at this link: http://www.nvmdigital.com/photos/lelset.html

I have been to a technical seminar and I knew it before looking at this blog.

This may not be so relevant to HK. But the fact is in climate that requires heating, the use of CFL means that the demand in heating increases. More heating energy is required. This is because the “waste heat” produced by incandescent lamps is actually quite useful in colder climates.

So unless the impact of the “total energy” used for a household is calculated (mostly likely by energy simulation), CFL may not necessarily save your energy.

But generally speaking, on the operating energy side even for temperate climates, CFL should save energy when compared to incandescent lamps.

Yes, this is the concept I like to introduce.

Well, a more technical term would be "life cycle costs".

When considering energy use, the following should all be taken account into:

Phase 1: Manufacturing of materials and components, or embodied energy.
Phase 2: the energy used in the actual manufacturing of the product
Phase 3: the energy used to transport the product from production plants to the point of sale
Phase 4: energy is consumed at the operational phase (operation energy)
Phase 5: energy is consumed in the demolition/recycling process of products as well as in the recycling of their parts

So, it is not just the operational energy.

Apart from the embodied energy / life cycle energy issue (which I may still have some elaboration), the other big issue for CFL is the mercury.

You can see from this link that a LED light supplier is running a “scare campaign” for CFL to promote LED lights. (http://www.newstarget.com/z021907.html)

The damage of mercury is real.

But is it that bad and terrifying?

Well, handling of used CFL’s and normal fluoro tubes really need some extra care. We can’t let the mercury vapour escape to the atmosphere or contaminate the soil.

Some sources suggest that it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to “safely” contain all the mercury in a single CFL. That is about 3.3m high of soil over a whole football pitch for one single CFL!!!

So handle CFL with extreme care and not to break it. In case a CFL is broken, open all the windows and stay away from the room or house altogether.

This is from US EPA: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

QUOTE:

What to Do if a Fluorescent Light Bulb Breaks

Fluorescent light bulbs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:

1. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.

2. Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a sealed plastic bag.
‧ Use disposable rubber gloves, if available (i.e., do not use bare hands). Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the plastic bag.
‧ Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Place all cleanup materials in a second sealed plastic bag.
‧ Place the first bag in a second sealed plastic bag and put it in the outdoor trash container or in another outdoor protected area for the next normal trash disposal.

Note: Some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a local recycling center.
‧ Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.

4. If a fluorescent bulb breaks on a rug or carpet:
‧ First, remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner, following the steps above. Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
‧ If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag or vacuum debris in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

And thanks to super316, HK has CFL and fluoro tube recycling facilities. (See #1: http://www6.discuss.com.hk/viewt ... amp;extra=page%3D2 )

So the question comes back, does the use of CFL’s worth the risk?

One argument about the risk of CFL against incandescent bulb is that coal-fired power station will release mercury stored in the coal.

So when you compare the energy saved by using CFL and the mercury used in manufacturing CFL and compared that to the mercury released by burning coal, it is still “a little bit” more environmentally-friendly using CFL. See figure:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Mercury_emissions_by_light_source_%28en%29.svg/300px-Mercury_emissions_by_light_source_%28en%29.svg.png

But then the against-CFL arguments comes back and say this is valid only if the power used is from coal-fired power station. It is not applicable to renewable resources.

Well, this is valid.

But considering that the majority of electricity comes from coal-fired power station (and nearly 0% renewable electricity for HK), the savings from mercury released from coal is still valid.

Well, think, dig (i.e. research) and dig!

Don't take things for their face values!!

Thermal Comfort Science

2007-08-19T16:47:00.000-07:00

This is a post I made in about June on thermal comfort science basing on PMV calculations. I actually believe thermal comfort sensation in normal people has changed.

Somehow, an environemnt used to be bearable is now unbearable when people "experience" another environment and want to enjoy an "comfortable" environment at OPM. (other people's money)

=========================================

Thermal Comfort Science 熱環境舒適性

Recently, I completed a report related to thermal comfort.

So I think it is beneficial to raise the awareness and boarden the general public about thermal comfort.

Air temperature is related to thermal comfort but it is not the only factor.

ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers) has devised a thermal sensation scale as below:

+3 Hot
+2 Warm
+1 Slightly warm
0 Neutral
-1 Slightly cool
-2 Cool
-3 Cold

Extensive research was done in Kansas University by Ole Fanger. His team has found out that there are gerneally six factors that will affect the sensation of thermal comfort in human.

The six factors are:
1. Air temperature
2. Mean radiant tempersture (this is related to the surface temperature of the surrounding environment. It can't be measured but can be calculated by some mathematical formulae)
3. Humidity
4. Air speed
5. Clothing
6. Human activity

A computer software to estimate the PMV can be downloaded from this link:

http://www.freedownloadscenter.c ... fort_Estimator.html

The ASHRAE standard recommends that a PMV range of -0.5 to +0.5 is good for an indoor office environment.

For the project that I work on, currently a PMV range of -1.0 to +1.0 is thought acceptable.

Basing on this, I found that even an air temperature of 30 degree is still acceptable if other factors can compensate for that:

0.3 clo which is equivalent to T-shirt and shorts
1.3 met which is standing or shopping leisurely
1.3 m/s air speed, this is somehow breezy but acceptable in that environment
60% relative humidity
31 deg C mean radiant temperature, that building does not have any large window and radiation is very little.

So if you experience a hot environment, try the following method rather than just turning on the air conditioner:
1. Lower the curtain
2. Take off your clothes, just leave T-shirt and shorts on
3. Turn on you fan(s)
4. Switch off large appliances
5. Keep yourself calm and don't move about
6. You may spray some water over yourself, probably over the arms and legs to cool yourself down by evaporation.

The sky this morning

2007-08-15T18:23:00.000-07:00

It was quite cloudy even with a little bit of drizzles.

So I took a picture and like to share it.

Well, another busy day ahead!

Linux Advocate

2007-08-15T06:56:00.000-07:00

I just like to talk about Linux.

I was quite amazed and happy when I found Linux and gave it a try.

I read a newspaper article about "windoze" gave way and the hard disk was dead. Then someone took a Ubuntu Live CD and reboot the system. Miraculously, Linux recognised the hard disk and the data could be retrieved.

The best thing is Ubuntu is free. They send you one CD when you request one and they pay for the post. Have a look at www.ubuntu.com

Now my computerS are both dualboot with Ubuntu.

And recently I read an article about the Greenliness of linux here

So, have a go with Linux!

The Birth of FireStallion's Blog

2007-08-15T06:10:00.000-07:00

This is the birth of my first blog.

I have just finished work at home for a project.

The following weeks will be stuffed with workload!!

Anyway, some thing else.

Today, I met Dr Richard Aynsley in person. He is the expert in mechanical ventilation, esp. ceiling fan.

He is quite a nice guy.

Now, just see if my other report on mechanical ventilation for a retail space is sound or not.
========================
Apart from work, my other interests are Japanese dorama, models, Japanimation particularly Gundam.

Now, I participate quite actively in a discussion forum discuss.com.hk

You can see me there.

歡迎使用中文!

firestallion

禁絕虛幻世界的實驗報告

轉自明報:

你的心不是公廁——禁絕虛幻世界的實驗報告

Where is the solution to Global Warming? Science? Are you serious?

Oh! Almost half a year from my last blog!

Cape No. 7 and memoirs.....

Some new ideas

Happy Birthday to me!

Unproductive August blogger

Update to "Unofficial ABGR Assessment"

June's Update

ESD AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRALIA (4) - BCA SECTION J - ENERGY EFFICIENCY

A little drama of windows

ESD AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRALIA (3) - ABGR

Oops! Sxxx happens! But ok now!

ESD AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRALIA (2) - GREEN STAR

What I did to my eeepc

ESD AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRALIA (1) - INTRODUCTION (1 of 5)

Wow, I got myself an Asus Eeepc!

Unofficial ABGR Assessment

Helping out on computer

The many dimensions of sustainable development

The definition of green

A FireStallion Update

Is this really a “Sustainable Development” or is it only a “Greenwash”?

Space Elevators

Space elevator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Non-tether space elevator concepts

Orbital tethers

Physics and structure

Base station

Cable

Cable taper

Climbers

Powering climbers

Counterweight

Angular momentum, speed and cable lean

Launching into outer space

Extraterrestrial elevators

Construction

Traditional way

Brad Edwards' proposal

Loop elevator design

Failure modes, safety issues and construction difficulties

Satellites

Meteoroids and micrometeorites

Failure cascade

Corrosion

Radiation

Material defects

Weather

Sabotage

Vibrational harmonics

In the event of failure

Cut near the anchor point

Cut up to about 25,000 km

Elevator climbers

Van Allen Belts

Economics

Political issues

History

Early concepts

Twentieth century

21st century

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 - Episode 5 [Breakaway Limit Zone]

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 Episode 3 [Changing World] & Episode 4 [Foreign Negotiations]

Pentagon offers a ray of hope in energy debate

Pentagon offers a ray of hope in energy debate

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 - Episode 2 [Gundam Meister]

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 - Episode 1 [Celestial Being]

Sustainability consultant discusses greenhouse issues

Sustainability consultant discusses greenhouse issues

Transcript

Ubuntu 7.10 Countdown

New features since Ubuntu 7.04

GNOME 2.20

Desktop 3D effects

你的心不是公廁

——禁絕虛幻世界的實驗報告