Thursday, December 31, 2009

that was the decade that was...the second worst...


Republicans presided over the next worse dow decade ever...lets look to the next with hope and believe that worst is behind us... 
now take a moment and visit the Jimbozone.com 

Monday, May 11, 2009

Your Age by Chocolate....Amazing!!!!!!

Your Age by Chocolate....Amazing!!!!!!
 Don't tell me your age; you probably would tell a falsehood anyway
-but the Hershey Man will know!YOUR AGE BY CHOCOLATE MATH
This is pretty neat.
It takes less than a minute ..
Work this out as you read .
Be sure you don't read the bottom until you've worked it out!
This is not one of those waste of time things, it's fun.
1. First of all, pick the number of times a week that you would like to have chocolate (more than once but less than 10)
2. Multiply this number by 2 (just to be bold)
3. Add 5
4. Multiply it by 50 -- I'll wait while you get the calculator
5. If you have already had your birthday this year add 1759 ...
    If you haven't, add 1758.
6. Now subtract the four digit year that you were born.
    You should have a three digit number
    The first digit of this was your original number
    (I.e., how many times you want to have chocolate each week).
    The next two numbers are
YOUR AGE! (Oh YES, it is!!!!!)
THIS IS THE ONLY YEAR (2009) IT WILL EVER WORK, SO SPREAD IT AROUND WHILE IT LASTS.
Chocolate Calculator.

 
now take a moment and visit the Jimbozone.com 

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Technology seen slashing battery recharge time, weight

March 11, 2009
World Science staff

En­gi­neers say they’ve found a way to move en­er­gy faster through a well-known bat­tery ma­te­ri­al, pos­sibly pav­ing the way for smaller, light­er bat­ter­ies that re­charge in sec­onds rath­er than hours.

En­gi­neers say they’ve found a way to move en­er­gy faster through a well-known bat­tery ma­te­ri­al, pos­sibly pav­ing the way for smaller, light­er bat­ter­ies that re­charge in sec­onds rath­er than hours. The ad­vance could also ben­efit car batteries, which usu­ally take hours to charge, ac­cord­ing to en­gi­neers. (Im­age cour­tesy GM)


The work, led by Ger­brand Ced­er of the Mas­sa­chu­setts In­sti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy, is de­tailed in the March 12 is­sue of the re­search jour­nal Na­ture. Be­cause the ma­te­ri­al in­volved is­n’t new—it’s just made in a new way—Ced­er says the tech­nol­o­gy could reach the mar­ket with­in three years.

Modern lith­i­um re­chargeable bat­ter­ies can pack plen­ty of charge in­to a small space, but are slow to take up and dis­charge that en­er­gy. This draw­back means that, for ex­am­ple, an elec­tric car bat­tery can move the au­to at a mod­er­ate high­way speed for a long time, but ac­cel­er­ation is slug­gish, Ced­er noted.

Sci­en­tists tra­di­tion­ally thought such pokey per­for­mance was due to slow move­ment of the par­t­i­cles that car­ry elec­tric charge across the bat­ter­y—charged atoms and elec­trons. But through a se­ries of com­put­er cal­cula­t­ions, Ced­er and col­leagues found that this was­n’t ex­actly the prob­lem, at least not for a well-known bat­tery ma­te­ri­al, lith­i­um iron phos­phate.

The real dif­fi­cul­ty, the group found, is that the charged atoms can only cross through the ma­te­ri­al through tun­nels ac­cessed from the sur­face. If the par­t­i­cle lies di­rectly at a tun­nel en­trance, it slips right in, but oth­er­wise it gets stuck.

Ced­er and By­oung­woo Kang, a grad­u­ate stu­dent, de­vised a so­lu­tion: a new sur­face struc­ture that lets the par­t­i­cles, called ions, move quickly around the out­side of the ma­te­ri­al. Like a belt­way around a city, this di­verts ions right in­to the tun­nels. The re­sult was a small bat­tery that could be fully charged or dis­charged in 10 to 20 sec­onds. By com­par­i­son, it takes six min­utes to fully charge or dis­charge a cell phone made from the un­pro­cessed ma­te­ri­al.

Ced­er said fur­ther tests showed the new ma­te­ri­al de­grades less than do oth­er bat­tery ma­te­ri­als when re­peat­edly charged and re­charged. This could al­low smaller bat­ter­ies, as less ma­te­ri­al is needed for the same re­sult. The ad­vance “may open up new tech­no­log­i­cal ap­plica­t­ions and in­duce lifestyle changes,” Ced­er and Kang wrote.

time and again...

Martha Mccalum on fox news asked Rep. Boner and then Areola Flesher why didn't all the Bumblicans get together and take all their little earmarks out of the Omnibus bill and make a statement to the publice and each time she got nothing but political babble...and come to think about it, what with all the attention John Mccainiac is trying to muster he is not screaming at the Bums as well...Michael Steele and Rush Limpbutt can argue about minutia and enui but I don't hear them chiding their contemporaries on the right side of the aisle for their Pork and Beans gluttony either...
 
If the Bums were genuinely outraged by the size of this bill they should unilaterally withdraw all their earmarks instead of leaving them in and then voting against the bill so that their CONstituencies think they are being fiscally responsible...all the while feeding at the traugh with the best of them...


icon
now take a moment and visit the Jimbozone.com