Slashdot Mirror


"Ballooning" Spiders Use Electrostatic Forces To Generate Lift

KentuckyFC writes "Many types of small spider release threads into the air which then lift and carry them significant distances. Biologists have found them at altitudes of up to 4 km. The conventional thinking is that the threads catch thermal air currents which then carry them away but this does not explain how spiders perform their trick even when there is little or no wind. Now one physicist says the explanation is the atmosphere's natural electric field which has an average downward-pointing magnitude of 120 Volts per metre. He calculates that a strand of silk need only gain a negative charge of around 30 nanoCoulombs to lift a spider. That explains how the spiders take off on windless days, how they reach such great heights and how several strands can lift heavier spiders of up to 100 milligrams."

213 comments

  1. Yes, But... by Atmosphereum · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this explain how Spider-Man can shoot and then swing on webs that are attached to... what? Clouds? The International Space Station?

    1. Re:Yes, But... by deusmetallum · · Score: 4, Informative

      He lives in New York, he's always swung from the multitude of high rises.

    2. Re:Yes, But... by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a shame that they ruin it with that - the rest of the story is totally plausible.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Yes, But... by ciderbrew · · Score: 0

      It doesn't explain why another film that added nothing was made so soon after the last batch. The amination was slightly better only looking like Woody getting cross with Buzz screaming "You, Are, A, Toyyyyy!" in half the cgi shots.

    4. Re:Yes, But... by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sigh! Spiderman's webs attach to skyscrapers, streetlights, bridges and the like. That's why you never see him swinging around in the suburbs. Spiderman only fights crimes downtown.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Yes, But... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He lives in New York, he's always swung from the multitude of high rises.

      I'm guessing you're a little younger than I am, because I still remember the original 1960's Spider-man cartoon. He managed to swing across the Hudson River frequently. I recall one episode where he managed to "swing" to Mexico, or Central America even. Even so, not every area in all five boroughs of NY are covered in skyscrapers you know. He lived in a single family house with his aunt.

    6. Re:Yes, But... by meerling · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're trying to work out continuity issues from an old and poorly made no budget ancient cartoon?
      You might as well complain that dropping an anvil on sombody's head will not result in a bump but will crush their freaking skull and kill them.
      Besides, Spiderman doesn't do web flight. He must not have been bit by a gossamer spider. :)

    7. Re:Yes, But... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You might as well complain that dropping an anvil on sombody's head will not result in a bump but will crush their freaking skull and kill them.

      Yea, WTF is up with that???

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:Yes, But... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Spiderman doesn't do web flight.

      Don't be so sure. http://flickr.com/photos/giantsizegeek/7368940948/lightbox/ And since he's a "Science!" superhero, you can bet he'll use this in a fight against Electro soon.

    9. Re:Yes, But... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      dropping an anvil on sombody's head will not result in a bump but will crush their freaking skull and kill them

      Pics, or it didn't happen. ;-)

    10. Re:Yes, But... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    11. Re: Yes, But... by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      I get my anvils from ACME Corp. When dropped on someones head it does result in a large bump but does not fracture skulls or cause death.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    12. Re:Yes, But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:Yes, But... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      He's used a web hang-glider before (image above). He also had Captain Universe abilities for a while.

    14. Re:Yes, But... by fuzzywig · · Score: 1
      Well, reading around, it seems that spiders of up to 100mg can be lifted by a mass of threads forming a fan about 1m long.

      Assuming Spiderman is a skinny kid, he might weigh as little as 50kg, so he should be easily able to lift himself by producing a fan shaped mass of silk with a length of as little as 500km.

    15. Re:Yes, But... by doccus · · Score: 1

      A spider response! I only had to scroll down ten responses this time to find an on-topic comment. Those ADD drugs must be working on some of the /. members ;-)

    16. Re:Yes, But... by doccus · · Score: 1

      You might as well complain that dropping an anvil on sombody's head will not result in a bump but will crush their freaking skull and kill them.

      Yea, WTF is up with that???

      Oh rubbish.. the old educational road runner cartoons make it clear that if you drop an anvil on their head you get a sound suspiciously like a flute ccompanied by a 9 inch bump with stars circling it that looks suspiciously like a certain non cartoon body part

    17. Re:Yes, But... by doccus · · Score: 1

      Does this explain how Spider-Man can shoot and then swing on webs that are attached to... what? Clouds? The International Space Station?

      The moon, silly...

  2. eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new electromagnetic surfing spider overlords.

    1. Re:eh? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

      The sky webs read "crispy bacon". Poor Wilbur.

  3. Next step is testing by schneidafunk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Of course, Gorham’s ideas will need to be tested by actually measuring the charge on gossamer spider silk as it is generated. That’s an experiment for an enterprising biologist to take on."

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Next step is testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Measuring it without touching it with a sensor, a bit like traveling without moving. A job for a physicist. Some nature film showed spiders at Everest heights, so 4 km sounds quite low.

  4. Yes by Flipstylee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stories like this are the reason i frequent /.

  5. Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Funny

    This really bugs me.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Imagine a surveillance drone that's levitated by its own antenna :)

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Now all you have to do is figure out how to fit a usable amount of sensors, communications gear, and power generation in something that weighs on the order of a few hundred milligrams.

    3. Re:Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 2

      Am still shocked at this part... "Biologists have found them at altitudes of up to 4 km"
      Do you realize what this implies? One day a spider got bored and he decided to see how high he could fly... and he went 4 fucking kilometers in the sky...

    4. Re:Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by Plunky · · Score: 1

      Am still shocked at this part... "Biologists have found them at altitudes of up to 4 km"

      Well, life gets around it seems. Perhaps you would be interested to hear that I have seen small flying insects several hundred miles out at sea (that didn't seem desperate to land, on my small yacht).. also crabs out there, swimming on the surface, and the water was 2-3 miles deep. I don't know how they get there; presumably they don't swim up from the bottom.

    5. Re:Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the antenna were sticky?

    6. Re:Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by cusco · · Score: 1

      When Krakatoa blew up and humans were finally able to visit the shattered remains of the island the only living thing they saw was a spider in a web, apparently newly arrived.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    7. Re:Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 2

      Do YOU realize what this means? Apparently there are biologists at 4 km altitude!

    8. Re:Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by xQx · · Score: 1

      Am still shocked at this part... "Biologists have found them at altitudes of up to 4 km"

      Do you realize what this implies? One day a spider got bored and he decided to see how high he could fly... and he went 4 fucking kilometers in the sky...

      Not only that, but a biologist got bored and followed it!!

      How do they even do that?

    9. Re:Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by fuzzywig · · Score: 2

      No, all you have to do is work out how to get the spiders to file reports!

  6. Nature is amazing by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To me stuff like this is what proves evolution. There is no one in their right mind who could sit there and convince me that such an obtuse solution to move from point A to point B is "by design", vs. random evolution.

    1. Re:Nature is amazing by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I sometimes tend to think the opposite: some of the evolution's achievements seem so precisely engineered that it feels more like a designer's product than test of time. Not that I would actually believe in intelligent design and all that stuff.

    2. Re:Nature is amazing by MadKeithV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I sometimes tend to think the opposite: some of the evolution's achievements seem so precisely engineered that it feels more like a designer's product than test of time. Not that I would actually believe in intelligent design and all that stuff.

      Most "precisely engineered" stuff that's actually engineered is still the product of large quantities of trial and error, at some level :)

    3. Re:Nature is amazing by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Very good point.

    4. Re:Nature is amazing by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      To me stuff like this is what proves evolution. There is no one in their right mind who could sit there and convince me that such an obtuse solution to move from point A to point B is "by design", vs. random evolution.

      I fail to see how this is an "obtuse solution". I find it very elegant.

    5. Re:Nature is amazing by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      It's obtuse because instead of giving this insect wings, it does this.

    6. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note to intelligent design advocates, and to many supposedly more "scientifically-minded" people: evolution is not "proven" or "disproven" by whatever subjective ideas one has about elegance.

    7. Re:Nature is amazing by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you're not thinking of all the dead spiders that ran into misfortune using this technique. it's great for the species, but a crap shoot for any individual spider. Just like fact that half of all birds on the planet die each year. flocks and migration good for species but not for individual bird

    8. Re:Nature is amazing by hort_wort · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What if the intelligent designer just wanted to use evolution? I've never understood why the two solutions have to be exclusive.

    9. Re: Nature is amazing by smaddox · · Score: 2

      Then he becomes a god of the gaps.

    10. Re:Nature is amazing by meerling · · Score: 2

      Spiders are arachnids, not insects. Scorpions are their relatives, not flies. Arachnids don't have wings, but they found a novel use for something they did have, that's a hallmark of evolution.

    11. Re:Nature is amazing by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      you're not thinking of all the dead spiders that ran into misfortune using this technique. it's great for the species, but a crap shoot for any individual spider. Just like fact that half of all birds on the planet die each year. flocks and migration good for species but not for individual bird

      You're correct, I'm not think about that. I think it's amazing that they are reaching heights of 13,000 feet with no wings at all.

    12. Re:Nature is amazing by meerling · · Score: 1

      Evolution is 'proven' to the same level as gravity. Yes, they are still arguing about the exact formula and still haven't been able to combine it with quantum physics either. Nothing in science is considered at 100%, just an increasing number of 9s after the decimal point. (Sometimes referred to as Sigmas. This includes our own existence.

    13. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no one in their right mind who could sit there and convince me that such an obtuse solution to move from point A to point B is "by design", vs. random evolution.

      Wow! I never thought there were people in Slashdot that had never had any contact with an IT project of any kind!

    14. Re:Nature is amazing by tobiasly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To me stuff like this is what proves evolution. There is no one in their right mind who could sit there and convince me that such an obtuse solution to move from point A to point B is "by design", vs. random evolution.

      As a scientist who happens to also believe in a creator, I don't understand why evolution and intelligent design have to be mutually exclusive. Why can't a creator have designed evolution?

      The fact that life on this planet has undergone -- and continues to undergo -- evolution is undeniable. That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. A system that is not only capable of propagating itself indefinitely but also continually updates itself over centuries and millennia.. now that's a pretty impressive hack if you ask me.

      A common refrain from those who want to disprove intelligent design is "this creature's adapted behavior isn't the most efficient way to accomplish this task, so therefore it was not designed by an all-knowing, all-powerful creator". Just because this spider's means of locomotion is an "obtuse solution" also doesn't mean it's not "by design".

      Who says God doesn't have a bit of Rube Goldberg in him? You're presuming that he's trying to create the perfect organism and he just can't quite get it right. Maybe he realizes that if he created the perfect spider it'll freak the hell out of his humans who will then wipe it off the planet.

    15. Re:Nature is amazing by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Then he isn't very intelligent, is he?

      That is like saying "why would you use math to figure out the area of that rectangle when you can just guess randomly until you find a fitting number". Both solutions work but one is intelligent.

    16. Re:Nature is amazing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It proves that nature is intelligent. No big whoop.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:Nature is amazing by mrt_2394871 · · Score: 1

      What if the intelligent designer just wanted to use evolution? I've never understood why the two solutions have to be exclusive.

      Well, Intelligent she might be (gives you the afternoon off, after all), but it's a bit more dispassionate than I'd want my Benevolent Omniscient Being to be. Have you read about all those parasites? The ones that eat their host from the inside out, the ones that affect the brain, so the host goes wandering out into wide open places and gets eaten, etc.

      It's almost Lovecraftian.

    18. Re:Nature is amazing by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are missing the point and arguing my own point.

      IE if Intelligent Design was real, then this "designer" would have given arachnids that had to fly wings, and what you think of as an arachnid would be different.

      He wouldn't have made them make these strange parachutes because it is not as efficient. This is something evolution did to solve the problem of "I don't have wings how do I move around". If the designer was intelligent it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

    19. Re:Nature is amazing by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      You're now trying to twist things around to fit into your concept of a creator.

      Saying there is an intelligent designer who uses evolution makes no sense, because the whole point of evolution is that it is random. As such, it's actually very inefficient.

      As I posted in another thread... this is like saying "why would you use math to figure out the amount of weight this can hold, when you can just guess randomly until you find a really big amount that it can hold". Both solutions work but one is intelligent and finds the OPTIMAL solution, and one is based on randomness over time fining A SOLUTION that works, but is rarely if ever optimal.

      So, if you want to sit there and still believe in a creator who is so dumb that they use evolution, then fine... but I don't see why anyone would want to believe that.

    20. Re:Nature is amazing by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Because 'intelligent design' was never a real theory. It was a legal dodge. An attempt to say 'God poofed everything into existence' without actually sounding religious.

    21. Re:Nature is amazing by RKThoadan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "not as efficient?" These seem a whole lot more efficient than wings to me. A single one-time expenditure of energy and they go for miles. There are downsides to this method of course, most obviously that they don't have any control of where they go. But if you accept that limitation this seems to be a nearly optimal method of flight.

    22. Re:Nature is amazing by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      I feel that is a judgement call. Who is to say wings would be more efficient? With the spider's method the energy output is in just creating the thread, whilst wings would require much more energy output on a continuous basis. Like comparing a balloon to a fixed wing airplane. Both move you from point A to point B, but one does so with a lot less energy involved. Seems like a pretty good solution for the spider.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    23. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposing ID is real, why couldn't "the designer" have just done this in the first place thus never presenting a problem. Why do you think it would have had to have been an afterthought of "the designer?" I don't really understand where you're going with this.
       
      BTW, you're looking at evolution wrong. Evolution doesn't "do" anything let alone solve problems. This isn't a video game where you get some kind of ability for making it to the next level. Evolution isn't a conscious entity that decides to create a mutation based on some kind of perceived need of a life form. Mutations exist, more or less, as a random chance. If those mutations make it easier to a species to survive it will likely get handed down through future generations until the mutation is the norm. You and I have some level of mutation. If we were still cavemen running across grasslands trying to catch tonight's dinner our mutations may or may not help decide if the hunt is successful. If it does then we'd breed and the mutation would likely be handed down. If it made it harder we'd likely die from lack of food and thus we'd not breed or our offspring would starve like we would and the mutation would come to an end.
       
      This really isn't a hard concept.

    24. Re:Nature is amazing by hort_wort · · Score: 2

      That is like saying "why would you use math to figure out the area of that rectangle when you can just guess randomly until you find a fitting number". Both solutions work but one is intelligent.

      Scientists use the Monte Carlo method all the time. Depends on the experiment.

    25. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your deep insights into the mind of God, if there is a God. You must fancy yourself a very intelligent person because you have an idea of how the universe should work and if anyone or anything other than yourself sees it another way then it's not intelligent.
       
      If there is a God would you consider it a possibility that He/She/It designed it to be full of wonder and chance? That people can decide to embrace creation as their own little miracle or reject it for a life of dullness and misery?
       
      There likely isn't a God but you're making some pretty heavy handed statements on his behalf. I wonder what you would think of yourself if it was found that there is indeed a God and you've been wrong in every assumption about that God that you've ever thought.

    26. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the intelligent designer just wanted to use evolution? I've never understood why the two solutions have to be exclusive.

      What I find funny are people ascribing human emotions of "want" to a god.

    27. Re:Nature is amazing by Lithdren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm gonna preface this with the fact that I do not believe in a god or gods of any sort. But your disagreement with his opinion is sorta silly.

      Look, Evolution is fact. The Theory of Evolution is still open to debate, how it works, what impacts it, etc.

      His opinion on it seems to be that a creator could design something like a self-serving system to improve over time. Your argument is "Thats not efficent". Who says it needs to be? If God really did exist, who says he cares how much time it takes? Who says they/it would even expierence 'time'?

      In the tend, religion and things like 'intelegant design' are little more that faith based beliefs trying to take what science has shown to be true and make sense within their own religious construct. There's nothing wrong with this, even if it's not right. You're doing it right now through your senses. You're not seeing white background and black text, you're interpreting what your eyes are sensing as those colors and shapes.

      When you get down to it all you're seeing are waves of photons and a weird mish-mash of quarks and glueons. Trying to talk to someone about why their belief is wrong is like trying to explain to someone why a red apple isn't red. It wont change their world view, so stop trying. Just accept that some people see the apple as Red, while other people dont. Trying to argue against their point only lets them decide how the argument is played out, in their own terms and on their own grounds. If you dont believe, great. If you do, great.

      In the end, we're all wrong anyway, that much im certin of.

    28. Re:Nature is amazing by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 1

      It's just the opposite for me. I see such elegant and ingenious solutions as this, the bacterial flagellum, geared insect legs, octopus cromatophores, etc., as evidence for a brilliant Creator God.

    29. Re:Nature is amazing by hippo · · Score: 1

      > but I don't see why anyone would want to believe that

      Maybe that's because you aren't as smart as the creator. Not saying that's the case but if I can't figure out why someone is doing something it's usually because I don't know as much as they do. I don't just assume it's because they're crazy.

    30. Re:Nature is amazing by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      Wow, reviewing that I have more spelling errors than I care to admit to. Between being sick and being short on sleep...it shows.

    31. Re:Nature is amazing by beschra · · Score: 1

      I find that when faced with something like this, people almost invariably see what they bring into it, as evidenced by some of the comments. If you expect evolution, you see evolution. If you expect a designer, you see a designer. These kind of things don't persuade me either way, but I do find it to be *really* cool regardless of how it came about.

      --
      It is unwise to ascribe motive
    32. Re:Nature is amazing by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      "Sigma" actually refers to the number of standard deviations away from nominal. Specifically, in a manufacturing process, it means how many deviations away from nominal you have to go before you produce an unusable product. It has nothing to do with how many "nines" you have. You use "nines" for measuring things like percentage uptime, and other values that cannot be plotted on a traditional variable bell curve.

    33. Re:Nature is amazing by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      What if the FSM just wanted to use gravity as an extension of his noodle-down-pushing-power?

      It's a meaningless statement. If god created all the multitude of animals through the use of evolution, how is that any different from just... evolution? Why add the extra assumptions in there if they don't contribute to the theory? I'm not saying the statement is wrong necessarily, just that it's meaningless; the two parts of the statement belong to two fundamentally different philosophies.

    34. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nature wastes nothing, so this solution is perfectly cromulent from the natural perspective. Growing wings takes energy and genome space.

    35. Re: Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God - dat gap!

    36. Re:Nature is amazing by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why the two solutions have to be exclusive.

      They don't have to be. It's just that evolution has an extensive and rigorous body of evidence, while intelligent design has nothing but wishful thinking and hand-waving.

      They don't have to be mutually exclusive. It's just that in practice, they are.

    37. Re: Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's actually not. You can be a deist who just believes god just wrote the laws of physics, in which case the deist doesn't have a series of advancing knowledge and retreating gaps. They're only alleging one gap, which really is a legitimate gap (what created physics).

    38. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're failing to grasp the magnitude of the idea, given the parent stated it so succinctly. It takes a fairly extreme level of intelligence / power to construct a human the way intelligent design advocates would say. You can imagine some deity saying "Ok, I'm going to create this human. I just need to assemble these quintillion atoms in this certain configuration and *bam* we've got some intelligent life". But it takes far, far more intelligence and power to say "I will dictate a simple* set of laws of physics and then explode a bunch of energy under the direction of those laws. Over the course of several billion years, thanks to the very careful design of my basic physics laws, the energy will unfold into galaxies, stars, planets, elements, and eventually complex organic matter. Then life will evolve on its own in select places, becoming intelligent and producing beings like humans."

      The first is mere rote construction; the latter is indistinguishable from magic.

    39. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh, great. Now I have to worry about spiders falling from the sky. I'll never go outside again.

    40. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both solutions work, but one is more optimal. Not necessarily more intelligent.

      (please note your mathematic solution is not optimal for computation vs guesswork given an oracular system with infinite time...)

      your assumption of intelligence is based upon core assumptions about efficiency and resource (generally speaking, time) utilization that do not apply at a cosmic level.

      I am not a theist, but this type of thought game sure is fun.
      sa

    41. Re:Nature is amazing by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I've always thought about it more like a Chemist or nanotechnologist. You don't get a really small pair of tweezers and put molecules next to each other to make them react, you just pour stuff into a beaker with the knowledge of what will happen on scales too small to really control. God put a bunch of matter into a void with the knowledge that it would expand and become a universe, and in that universe intelligent life would emerge.

    42. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones that eat their host from the inside out, the ones that affect the brain, so the host goes wandering out into wide open places and gets eaten, etc.

      It's almost Lovecraftian.

      And this is why I prefer a universe created by random chance to one made by a designer who deliberately comes up with that stuff.

    43. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends how lazy he is.

    44. Re: Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but what is the difference between "trial and error" and "trial and more trial?" Honest question here.

    45. Re:Nature is amazing by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Hasn't anyone considered te in-between theory? That of unintelligent design? As in these spiders were just the intern's first attempts at a design but then accidentally got loose onto creation?

    46. Re: Nature is amazing by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      I think trial-and-error is the wrong way to think about it. It implies that that the earlier failures are all thrown away until a working one emerges. But in evolution most of those "failures" stick around.

    47. Re:Nature is amazing by hort_wort · · Score: 1

      Why add the extra assumptions in there if they don't contribute to the theory?

      That's exactly what I'm thinking. Excluding possibilities adds assumptions to the theory as well. Evolution doesn't need a statement concerning the FSM either way.

    48. Re:Nature is amazing by Shompol · · Score: 1

      Sigma measures standard deviation of any process that has any randomness with close to normal distribution, which is pretty much everything around you, not just manufacturing. Sigma has _everything_ to do with "nines", as 95% confidence falls within two sigma confidence interval, while 3 sigma is 99.7% confidence interval.

    49. Re:Nature is amazing by radtea · · Score: 2

      Who says God doesn't have a bit of Rube Goldberg in him?

      Everyone who claims god both all-powerful is not an evil, sadistic, bastard.

      A god who could create this world without killing off the vast majority of every generation of every species of every living thing (except humans after we invented science and democracy and capitalism) yet did not do so is unequivocally evil by any sane standard of morality.

      A god who could not do so is not all-powerful.

      Evolution is the most vicious, inefficient, monstrously cruel mechanism for the creation of the diversity of life you could possibly imagine, and if you want to put that on your god, go right ahead. Just don't expect me or anyone with a gram of human decency to think that your god is anything but a monster, worthy only of our hatred and contempt, because god knows that's all he has shown us.

      And again: if you claim that your had no choice but to use this hideous, genocidal mechanism to create us, you are doing nothing but claiming your god is bound by a higher power that imposes that necessity. And what value is god that's merely a beefed up space-alien with superior technology, but still limited by the laws of physics, or logic, or some other greater power that governs the whole ordinary universe, god included.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    50. Re: Nature is amazing by Shompol · · Score: 1

      god just wrote the laws of physics

      I am sure Quantum Mechanics was an outcome of a drunken bet with Devil.

    51. Re:Nature is amazing by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well wings aren't as good for getting into a random place and flying spiders would be too scary to handle.

      but as you say, if there was intelligent design, why the fuck would the spiders be spiders and why the spiders would need to go anywhere in the first place? intelligent designer likes to torment?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    52. Re: Nature is amazing by swillden · · Score: 1

      Then he becomes a god of the gaps.

      Only if you insist on asking religion to explain physical phenomena, which makes about as much sense as studying mechanics in order to understand atonement.

      There's nothing logically inconsistent or brittle about believing that God created the universe for the spiritual progression of his creations, and that what matters is the spiritual. No need to speculate about exact mechanisms of the creation, which are probably unknowable from the inside, anyway. There's also no problem with trying to understand as much as possible about the universe, either.

      Yes, many people throughout history have looked to religious beliefs in an attempt to understand the nature of the physical world, and their assumptions and interpretations have been turned on their head time and again as our understanding increases. You are trying to imply that that casts doubt upon God and religion. It actually just points out the fallacy of trying to learn physics, chemistry and biology from religious texts. You wouldn't use a math book to learn chemistry, nor a book on C programming to learn mathematics, even though you might actually find useful bits and pieces of information -- though you may also find some misleading information.

      Science and religion address entirely different spheres of human experience and needs. Trying use one where you should use the other will lead to trouble, but there is no fundamental conflict between them. Neither is there any way to prove one with the tools of the other.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    53. Re:Nature is amazing by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      The term "nines" is generally only used when you're tracking something that is measured only as pass/fail, and thus has no variation to produce a normal distribution.

    54. Re:Nature is amazing by hazah · · Score: 1

      "Design" would be the problem word overall, methinks.

    55. Re: Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if evolution was created at the moment the compression of space-time occurred, when the current iteration of space-time was initiated?

      This might equate to the compression of space-time that occurs during a supernova, when a black hole is formed. The compressed space-time might then be expanding again, with the interaction of individual electrons and photons providing the perceived time reference, perpendicular to the actual expansion.

      How would the actual details of the progression of that expansion be known? Would a mathematical expression show the expansion in full detail?
      It might look like evolution but you might be able to say that the initial moment of creation defined that...what defines the initiation of time?

    56. Re: Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we absolutely sure there are no gaps?

    57. Re:Nature is amazing by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's more like: why calculate the area of 1,000,000,000,000 rectangles when I can create a program that tries areas for each rectangle until one fits while I go drink beer. I'll correct along the way if required.
      Or of course: I don't exist and the program that tries the area's to the rectangles emerged by itself. This is bollocks on rectangles but extremely feasible on evolution.
      Which one is the truth depends on the unprovable existence of a god. Unless that god is GLR, cause then you can prove it.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    58. Re:Nature is amazing by Shompol · · Score: 1

      only used when you're tracking something that is measured only as pass/fail

      It seems like you are talking about the Null hypothesis:

      Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern practice of science...

      Sounds like pass/fail to me. FYI it is customary to count a theory as pass when there is a 95% confidence that we can reject the Null hypothesis (fail), which happens to be exactly 2 sigma.

    59. Re:Nature is amazing by Shompol · · Score: 1

      P.S.: replying to myself: In the link above Wikipedia yaps something about "medical treatment", which is utter BS, since Null Hypothesis is used in all areas of science/statistics, not just pharmaceutical research.

    60. Re:Nature is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "his humans"? Not a believer, but if I was I wouldn't use gender exclusive language for a deity. You're presuming quite alot yourself there.

  7. batman by schneidafunk · · Score: 0

    Similar to why batman only fights crime at night; How can he see the bat signal in the sky?

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:batman by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Informative

      The bat signal itself doesn't fit with physics.

      My parents have owned a searchlight rental business for 30 years now. For the first Batman movie they were asked to put a bat signal cutout on the searchlight to simulate the bat signal. The thing is that searchlights have too high a candlepower and the light just bends around the cutout. The light spreads more the farther away from the searchlight. It looks cool when shown against a wall, but far out in the sky it simply doesn't work. The physics of light doesn't allow it.

    2. Re:batman by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      That is what made the whole thing totally unbelievable for me too!

    3. Re:batman by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      What about "lasers"? /Dr.Evil

    4. Re:batman by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you'd need a lens, the cost would be immense

    5. Re:batman by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      you'd need a lens, the cost would be immense

      Not for billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:batman by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, if you watch the first Batmovie when the Batsignal is introduced it is shown with a genuine searchlight with a cardboard cutout.

      It's just a movie... :P

    7. Re:batman by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      What about using a much larger cutout, much further from the light? They don't have to be attached unless you need to point it.

    8. Re:batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lasers pointed into the sky willy-nilly. What a wise idea. I'm sure there is no chance of anything going wrong there.

    9. Re:batman by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Yes. It's not the candlepower, it's just the optics.

    10. Re:batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nolan's movies just beat you, they count right? =p

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DImh0ac-jdQ

    11. Re:batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been a number of DIY laser mods that put a symbol on clouds, sure it wouldn't look exactly like the traditional bat signal but it would put an image of a bat on a cloud with a few hundred dollars. You could also probably modify a searchlight to be able to project a bat signal, but it would likely involve a carefully made reflective mirror

    12. Re:batman by jythie · · Score: 1

      Maybe Gotham is in a very low ceiling bubble with the sky projected on it?

    13. Re:batman by daverk · · Score: 1

      The cutout should have been placed very close to the focal point(where the arc lamp is) for the searchlight reflector to have any chance of focusing it. A cutout on the front of the searchlight is not at the focal point and will not focus without more optics.

    14. Re:batman by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yeah try putting a big piece of cardboard or wood or plastic anywhere within a foot of business end of searchlight and watch hiliarity ensue

    15. Re:batman by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      searchlights do have parabolic reflector. but see the issue is that at the focus there is arc lamp pumping out thousands of kilowatts of power. so maybe a weird custom bulb could be made....

    16. Re:batman by pakar · · Score: 1

      Hey... Just imagine the trouble of training the sharks to paint a bat-signal in the sky with their lasers......

  8. African or European spider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? I don't know that!! aaaaaaggghhhhhh

  9. Spiderman paradox resolved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Peter parker doesn't attach his webbing to buildings. He simply launches it up and glides away.

  10. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So if a human being is about 7,000,000 times heavier than a spider, would a scaled up thread charged at -0.21 coulombs allow us to fly?

    1. Re:hmm by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I'm thinking. Also, 120V per metre? Really? So the potential difference between my head and my feet is roughly the same as a wall socket? Okay, one is DC and the other is AC, but still, this should mean that if I put a meter into DC voltage mode and hold one probe up and the other down I should measure hundreds of volts, right?

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    2. Re:hmm by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      No. The field is given with nothing in it; as soon as you put your body in it the field lines move around it.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    3. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 meter = 3.2808399 feet You are a very short person unless you live in places that have 220 or 240V.

    4. Re: hmm by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Agreed. That strong of a field seems unlikely to exist at all times. He may have based his estimate on the field strength prior to a lightning strike, which is on the order of a megavolt (10^6 V). Over a distance of 10 km (10^4 m), the approximate distance from ground to clouds, that works out to ~100 V/m. However, such large fields are not always present.

    5. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the world uses 220-240V. So, statistically speaking, if his statement is accurate, then it implies he is well above average in height.

    6. Re:hmm by AlecC · · Score: 1

      As I have read, yes. Somewhere about spiders suggested that a hair fifty miles long, given an atmosphere 50 miles deep, and a follicle much stronger than that actually fitted, could support a human, You might have to scale up the charge/m as well, but the physics still works.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    7. Re:hmm by AlecC · · Score: 1

      No. There is very little power behind that voltage, so your conductive body shorts it out. Effectively the field lines detour round your body - and hills, buildings etc. This has been used to make model aircraft avoid obstacles. Keep the voltage between wingtips zero.: as you approach a hill, the field lines lift, banking the aircraft and steering it away from the hill.

      For this to work, the web silk would have to be a pretty effective insulator, which I believe is the case.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    8. Re:hmm by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Yep, 120 Volts/metre. However, the air has a resistance of ~1.6*10^16 Ohms/metre as well, which means you aren't going to get a current and will therefore measure no voltage difference with a meter (for similar reasons it's also impractical for producing electricity). It's theoretically one way to produce levitation, but engineering wise thats quite difficult to actually do (for heavy objects).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    9. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as an experiment, try connecting your meter to a good earth ground and put a six foot long dielectric (insulator) into the air, connected only to the meter probe. It'll work better on dry, windy days.

      I'm going to estimate you can pull a working voltage in the low two digits that way, if you don't mind it being sporadic with dangerous spikes into the thousands. Keep in mind that during storms, you can see thousands of volts at the tops of trees in the form of St. Elmo's Fire.

    10. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the charge collected by the probes needs to be large enough to allow the approx. 100uA of current to flow in the 1Meg meter impedance (at 100V). So I guess you need pretty large area probes or alternatively use a very high impedance volt meter.

    11. Re:hmm by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Since his statement used the word "roughly", it can be accurate even if imprecise.

    12. Re:hmm by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      What if you hold a metal rod up though, that would have a lower resistance.

    13. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you drop the potential around the rod, as everything on the surface of a conducting rod will essentially be at the same potential (without some serious current flowing). There will still be a ~100 V/m field outward from the rod, dependent slightly on its shape.

    14. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do stupid people talk so much?

    15. Re:hmm by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough, I live in the sane bit of the world, yes.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
  11. 120V/m - why can't we tap that by RichMan · · Score: 1

    So why are we unable to tap the planets electric field? Can someone explain this a little more. Seems like that is a power source just waiting to be tapped. Unintented consequences like collapsing earths magnetic sphere aside.

    1. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      I've just read that one bolt of lightning powers one household with all their energy needs for a month. I'm not too sure how accurate that is; but I think we'll need a lot more than that.

    2. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It might be worth setting up lightning rod power stations if there were a way to store it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring Wardenclyffe back online?

    4. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fine source of voltage, but the density is so low that it's not a good source of power.

    5. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its 120V at an infinitesimally small amperage.

    6. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The earth's magnetic field is almost certainly unrelated. The magnetic field is generated internally due to us having a molten iron core. This atmospheric electrical field comes from the bulk transport, separation, and friction of huge air masses - like the kind that give rise to thunderstorms. There's interplay between the two, especially during a solar storm (e.g., aurorae), but you couldn't freeze the magnetic field by tapping the atmosphere.

      As for why we can't tap that, I could only speculate. 120 V/m sounds like a sizable field - strong enough that we ought to be able to feel it. On the other hand, the E-field in an ordinary capacitor is many orders of magnitude greater (10s of volts, perhaps, but separated by just microns). You can get a greater E-field from peeling scotch tape off its roll.

      Also bear in mind that an electric field, by itself, is not a store of energy. In order to make use of that field, you need to have charge traverse that field - a flow of electrons. If we think of the atmosphere between stratosphere and ground like a giant capacitor, its stored energy is 1/2 * C * V^2. The V term might be very large (120 kV/km, squared!), but if the C is tiny, then you end up without much energy. And do not conflate power and energy: you can get quite a spark from a discharging capacitor (or a lightning bolt!) - great instantaneous power - but it doesn't last. Unless there's some source to continuously replenish the charge separation, you may not be able to tap much energy. I suspect that the available energy is very diffuse; more diffuse than, say, the kinetic energy of wind that we are able to capture with turbines. You would probably need kilometer-sized antenna arrays to capture much useful power.

    7. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      It might be worth setting up lots of $PowerStorageStations if there were ways to do that.

      If we had a reliable, scalable, generally applicable (ort two out of three) method of storing instantaneous power generation from a variety of natural or man made resources, wind and solar power would completely stomp fossil fuels for baseline power use.

      We don't and it doesn't. Yet.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a household uses 1.21 gigawatts of electricity in a month?

    9. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by n7ytd · · Score: 2

      One household for a month, or one trip anytime into the past or future with your hovering time machine!

    10. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've just read that one bolt of lightning powers one household with all their energy needs for a month. I'm not too sure how accurate that is; but I think we'll need a lot more than that.

      I will try to plug the numbers in. Let's see how this goes.

      According to the physics.org toast power article, a lightning packs "over five billion joules of energy". I will round that down to 5 billion. A watt is the same thing as "joules per second". A month has 60 * 60 * 24 * 30 = 2,592,000 seconds. Then, 5 * 10^9 J / 2,592,000 s = 1929 J/s. This means that we can run the house at a constant power consumption of 1929 watts. Converted to a standard kWh number that would be 1389kWh per month.

      That's pretty much on the spot. It would indeed be enough to run a house of a small family for one month, accounting electrical heating running around winter.

    11. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After one direct lightning strike, your house won't consume electricity any more. That is until you replace all your toys and equipments.

    12. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

      Somewhere where I saw a lot of lightning rods (possibly one of the theme parks in Florida, lightning capital of the world), I saw a dragonfly perched on the tip of every lightning rod. Now I know dragonflies like a high perch so they can see mosquitoes, but I began to wonder whether something else was going on. Were they attracted to the ions or ozone streaming from the lightning rods?

    13. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A majority of the power is exhausted across the arc though. If you have even a 100 m tower intercepting a couple km long lightning strike, you'll get a couple perfect n of the energy at best, assuming you had a system 100% efficient at handling that brief, high current spike.

    14. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we had a reliable, scalable, generally applicable (ort two out of three) method of storing instantaneous power generation from a variety of natural or man made resources, wind and solar power would completely stomp fossil fuels for baseline power use.

      We don't and it doesn't. Yet.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

  12. Re:AGW FRAUD!!!!!!! there is no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is impossible because the earth is only 6000 years old.

  13. Next B-Horror Movie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SpiderNado

    1. Re:Next B-Horror Movie... by meerling · · Score: 1

      probably, syfy(lus) sucks.

  14. Lifters/Ioncraft propulsion mechanism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like there may be much more to it than just Ion Wind

    Aerospace engineers should definitely investigate it.

  15. anonymosside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ballooning" Spiders Use Electrostatic Forces To Generate Generosity on PCBs.

  16. What would 0.21 Coulombs do? by Kludge · · Score: 1

    0.21 Coulombs would give you a very good shock.

  17. not an effective strategy, seems bugs can't read by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The rule in my house is that if you have more than four limbs, you are a bug , and you belong outdoors. This policy is clearly stated on the signs underneath each door.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  18. Uh Oh by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    NSA and DOD will have a nervous breakdown trying to build a drone the size of a small spider that can make silk.

  19. Honestly it looks more to me like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Life imitates glitching :)

    I mean this sounds exactly like some games that have double-jump and other glitches. Officially nothing is supposed to float unless it's lighter than air, but in reality there's about six (known) ways to exploit aspects of the world that were 'never intended' to end up with flight. Much like with videogame physics some animal figures out a trick, then keeps iterating until that trick is an art, then a science, and finally a way of life :)

  20. Which begs the question: by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    Do they know that they are using an electric field to generate lift?

    1. Re:Which begs the question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which raises the question: Do you even lift?

    2. Re:Which begs the question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even raise, lead to, or suggest that moronic question.

  21. Tesla's Flying Machine by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

    I think this is the basis upon which Nikola Tesla based the engines for his never-completed flying machine:

    “When I found that I had been anticipated as to the flying machine, by men working in a different field, I began to study the problem from other angles, to regard it as a mechanical rather than an electrical problem. I felt certain there must be some means of obtaining power that was better than any now in use. And by vigorous use of my gray matter for a number of years, I grasped the possibilities of the principle of the viscosity and adhesion of fluids and conceived the mechanism of my engine. Now that I have it, my next step will be the perfect flying machine."

    "An aeroplane driven by your engine?" I asked.

    "Not at all," said Dr. Tesla. "The aeroplane is fatally defective. It is merely a toy — a sporting play-thing. It can never become commercially practical. It has fatal defects. One is the fact that when it encounters a downward current of air it is helpless. The "hole in the air" of which aviators speak is simply a downward current, and unless the aeroplane is high enough above the earth to move laterally it can do nothing but fall."

    "There is no way of detecting these downward currents, no way of avoiding them, and therefore the aeroplane must always be subject to chance and its operator to the risk of fatal accident. Sportsmen will always take these chances, but as a business proposition the risk is too great."

    "The flying machine of the future—my flying machine—will be heavier than air, but it will not be an aeroplane. It will have no wings. It will be substantial, solid, stable. You cannot have a stable airplane. The gyroscope can never be successfully applied to the airplane, for it would give a stability that would result in the machine being torn to pieces by the wind, just as the unprotected aeroplane on the ground is torn to pieces by a high wind."

    "My flying machine will have neither wings nor propellers. You might see it on the ground and you would never guess that it was a flying machine. Yet it will be able to move at will through the air in any direction with perfect safety, higher speeds than have yet been reached, regardless of weather and oblivious of “holes in the air? or downward currents. It will ascend in such currents if desired. It can remain absolutely stationary in the air, even in a wind, for great length of time. Its lifting power will not depend upon any such delicate devices as the bird has to employ, but upon positive mechanical action."

    “You will get stability through gyroscopes?" I asked.

    “Through gyroscopic action of my engine, assisted by some devices I am not yet prepared to talk about," he replied.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Tesla's Flying Machine by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Tesla was a mysticist quack by the end of his life, endlessly promising inventions that he didn't have designs for and must seem impossible. He was a great scientist and experimenter in his early career, sure. He was a quack by the end.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:Tesla's Flying Machine by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Tesla was a mysticist quack by the end of his life, endlessly promising inventions that he didn't have designs for and must seem impossible. He was a great scientist and experimenter in his early career, sure. He was a quack by the end.

      OK... the interview quoted, if you bothered to check the link, was given in 1911, long before his so-called slide into madness.

      For the record, one of the things Tesla spoke about that gave people back then cause to question his sanity was his theories about a method of sending video and audio signals through the air - technologies that we take for granted today.

      So, probably less 'quack' and more 'a solid generation before his time.' But by all means, don't let that diminish your sense of mental superiority over the man who invented more stuff you use every day than I could list in a Slashdot post.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Tesla's Flying Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, probably less 'quack' and more 'a solid generation before his time.' But by all means, don't let that diminish your sense of mental superiority over the man who invented more stuff you use every day than I could list in a Slashdot post.

      Basically, he was a good engineer. But then people hear that he had "a method of sending video and audio signals through the air", and people think that he envisioned modern radio communications... and think was some sort of mystical genius... in reality, he probably saw that there was no fundamental difficulties in accomplishing what he had in mind, but it's not like he could deliver. It's nothing against him -- no one could, in the era. But people then call him a "quack" to offset the people that talk of his never completed works, especially those that still are not possible... just because he said he had an idea does not make all of the geniuses that came after idiots in comparison. To do so disparages the hard work of all of the other engineers whose contributions made the world what it is today.

    4. Re:Tesla's Flying Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that too many people assume everyone of his ideas must work. For some reason, if you have some great, revolutionary ideas, then you become almost infallible in the eyes of many. They assume that every patent, every line dropped, must be rock solid that only fails now because others are not as smart as he was. The reality is that he had a mix of some revolutionary ideas that are still around today almost unchanged, other revolutionary ideas where a lot of advancement has been made beyond his understanding, and plenty of duds too.

    5. Re:Tesla's Flying Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “When I found that I had been anticipated as to the flying machine, by men working in a different field, I began to study the problem from other angles, to regard it as a mechanical rather than an electrical problem. I felt certain there must be some means of obtaining power that was better than any now in use. And by vigorous use of my gray matter for a number of years, I grasped the possibilities of the principle of the viscosity and adhesion of fluids and conceived the mechanism of my engine. Now that I have it, my next step will be the perfect flying machine."

      From this I infer that he was about to extend the principle of his bladeless turbine to make a novel type of air propulsion device. Probably turbine discs protruding from the canopy of his craft, or using one to accelerate the flow of air between inlets and nozzles.

      "My flying machine will have neither wings nor propellers. You might see it on the ground and you would never guess that it was a flying machine. Yet it will be able to move at will through the air in any direction with perfect safety, higher speeds than have yet been reached, regardless of weather and oblivious of holes in the air or downward currents. It will ascend in such currents if desired. It can remain absolutely stationary in the air, even in a wind, for great length of time. Its lifting power will not depend upon any such delicate devices as the bird has to employ, but upon positive mechanical action."

      This fits well with my previous conjecture.

  22. How about a video? by willthiswork89 · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T1N2_I8hHQ Surprised they wouldn't include a video when they talk about something so crazy. I've never seen these maybe they aren't in my part of the world.

  23. Re:AGW FRAUD!!!!!!! there is no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DNFtT

  24. obXKCD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  25. Spider Silk powered flying car... by Macdude · · Score: 1

    So how long until I can use this technology to finally get my flaying car?

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    1. Re:Spider Silk powered flying car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how long until I can use this technology to finally get my flaying car?

      Hmm, kinky...

    2. Re:Spider Silk powered flying car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying cars came about from the nuclear era, when an energy revolution was expected. If you don't mind using miniaturized nuclear reactors for everything, you can have your flying cars. Some hippies were complaining about radiation hazards or something, though....

    3. Re:Spider Silk powered flying car... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      As long as you weigh no more than a typical spider.

    4. Re:Spider Silk powered flying car... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      So how long until I can use this technology to finally get my flaying car?

      You can have it now if you heavily diet.
         

  26. Spider Silk powered flying car... by Macdude · · Score: 1

    So how long until this technology can be used to build the flying car I've been promised for several decades?

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  27. Muhuhuhuwhahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget the magnifying glass. I need to find my old Discwasher static gun.

    1. Re:Muhuhuhuwhahahaha by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      What is blasting them with hype going to do?

    2. Re:Muhuhuhuwhahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I have to draw you a diagram? Ballooning spiders use a mechanism involving electrostatic reactions between charged silk and atmospheric charge gradients. Static guns contain a piezoelectric charging mechanism. Ergo, you can take your static gun and fuck with spiders by fucking with the charge on their silk. Instead of merely burning them with a magnifying glass. Turn in your illegitimate nerd card, undercover bro.

  28. Tesla's machine sounds like Lifters scaled up.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A flying machine without wings or propellers immune to gusts of wind.

    1. Re:Tesla's machine sounds like Lifters scaled up.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      immune to gusts of wind.

      What are you smoking? If it's in the air, then it is physically impossible to be "immune" to gusts of wind.

      And it's not like Tesla had some perfect insight...

      "The gyroscope can never be successfully applied to the airplane, for it would give a stability that would result in the machine being torn to pieces by the wind, just as the unprotected aeroplane on the ground is torn to pieces by a high wind."

      Yup, gyroscope never been applied to the airplane...

    2. Re:Tesla's machine sounds like Lifters scaled up.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conventional airplanes derive their ability to fly from moving air to generate lift. Their propulsion therefore is at the mercy of atmospheric conditions. If the wind is too high or atmospheric conditions too problematic for any reason, they're grounded.

      An Ioncraft by contrast, derives its propulsion from self generated (Positive and negative) ion cloud attraction and repulsion that occurs around its positively and negatively charged electrodes, so it generates its own means of propulsion, making it immune, or if you want "extremely resistant," to gusts of wind or other atmospheric conditions.

      An extremely well written paper on this was published a number of years ago explaining this mechanism.

    3. Re:Tesla's machine sounds like Lifters scaled up.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this a joke? Lifters are so light weight due to the limited lifting force, they are far more at the mercy of the wind and atmospheric conditions than any other craft that I know of. I've had ones that were literally downed by sneezing from a meter away because it didn't take much wind to knock them over. Depending on how hard you push it, simple changes to humidity can ground it, let alone actual weather.

      There is another AC post saying something about self-generating lift... so do nearly all other craft, and many with out actually needing an airfoil to do so, like a rocket or some jets with thrust-to-weigh ratio above one. An airplane in principle can handle any speed wind once airborne. The only problems are when trying to take off/land, or if the wind is turbulent.

      The impact of weather, wind in particular, on a craft comes down to pretty much the ratio of the weight to area exposed to the wind. Even with a sideways wind, airplanes are still pretty heavy and can handle quite a bit, while lifters are the exact opposite: very light, and typically have wide flat areas.

  29. Wasn't that a dance move? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Somehow the "Electric Spider" sounds like it's right out of an early 80's night club choreography.

    (yes, I know there was the Electric Slide, thank you)

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  30. I don't understand how this works by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I will have to read the research article because the press article doesn't explain it. a dipole charge would not move in a linear gradient field. it would require a second order curvature to the gradient to make it move. thus it's irrelevant that the linear field is 120 v /meter. what would matter is the derivative on that.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:I don't understand how this works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Easy: it's not a dipole. The spiders are expected to carry a net charge.

    2. Re:I don't understand how this works by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Just a thought, could Archimedes Law apply here, but instead of water, the medium is the ambiant air?

    3. Re: I don't understand how this works by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      Air is fluid so, yes, Archimede's law is if application too.

    4. Re:I don't understand how this works by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Just a thought, could Archimedes Law apply here, but instead of water, the medium is the ambiant air?

      That is exactly how hot-air and helium balloons, blimps etc. work. It is left as an exercise to the student to work out why that would not work with a spider and/or its thread.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    5. Re:I don't understand how this works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i didn't read dipole anywhere in the linked articles. my impression is that the spider spins the threads while still on the ground, and that's where the charge goes. the spider and the threads accumulate a net negative charge while the positive goes in to the ground.

      for a simple charged object, no charge gradient is required for a repulsive effect.

  31. FYI by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    30 nanoCoulumbs = 6.24 Biiiiilllion electrons.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    1. Re:FYI by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Which would still be something along the lines of .000001% of the electrons in 1 meter of silk.

      Every now and them I'm reminded just how small atoms actually are.

    2. Re:FYI by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Heck - make that 187.25 Biiiiilion electrons. I forgot to multiply by 30.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently read a typical news article that somehow managed to use "grams of electrons". I'm sorry, but that scares me. When you can start to measure the number of electrons in grams, people gonna die if something goes wrong.

  32. Space Elevator? by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Can we duplicate this for a space elevator?

    The problem was always that hundred mile cable, can use an incomplete cable link to float to orbit?

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  33. Artificial intelligence says no. Design 9M or 4? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > That is like saying "why would you use math to figure out the area of that rectangle when you can just guess randomly until you find a fitting number".
    > Both solutions work but one is intelligent.

    That's the same distinction between an old-school program that tells the machine exact instructions "go forward 3 meters, turn left, go 1 meter", vs. artificial intelligence - building a robot that can adapt to it's environment. Why make it adaptable when you can program in precise instructions to begin with?

    The entire field of AI is based on the idea that adaptable is better. We know of about 8.7 million species, from ones that live in boiling acid to blue whales and humans. If you wanted to make million variations on something, is it smarter to explicitly design one, then the next, then another, nine million times, or is it more intelligent to design one or ten which have the ability to morph into whatever variation is required?

    You're assuming hard-coding specific values is the smart way. In almost al cases, hard-coding is the dumb way to do things.

  34. Re:not an effective strategy, seems bugs can't rea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The rule in my house is that if you have more than four limbs, you are a bug , and you belong outdoors. This policy is clearly stated on the signs underneath each door.

    The true bugs tire of being misrepresented and politely suggest the colorful phrase "creepy crawlies" if you want an all-encompassing term for animals you don't want in your house.

  35. So do they reach space? by freality · · Score: 1

    The magnetic fields goes out of the atmosphere.. if the spider for some reason can't control its ascent, I'd guess it goes all the way up? Sounds like a new micro-satellite technology!

    1. Re:So do they reach space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From my understanding, it's an indirect effect of the magnetic field, but the electrostatic charge requires matter, and the strength of the ballooning should drop off as they go higher into the atmosphere where the air is thinner.

    2. Re:So do they reach space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They assent using electric fields that develop from the dynamics in the atmosphere, which won't extend as is beyond where the air gets too thin. If you had just a magnetic field and a charged object, the object would just go in a circle unless there was a strong enough gradient in the field. Additionally, if you get to a high enough altitude, you would start to have neutralizing effects from stuff around you in the ionosphere.

  36. Show me an experiment by TheSync · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll believe this when someone takes some spider silk, charges it up, and it can lift an inanimate object of weight of a spider in still air.

    1. Re:Show me an experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, you won't. Go back to rubbing that balloon on your sweater.

    2. Re:Show me an experiment by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Or in other words "nuh-uh"?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  37. Re:AGW FRAUD!!!!!!! by J+Story · · Score: 0

    Nice rant. We have all heard of cases where someone was caught "making stuff up" to support some research paper, but in the cases I know of it was only one person acting alone. I wonder if there are proven cases of groups of scientists who knowingly manipulate, or outright invent, data to suit their purposes. While some might be saying that the AGW crowd are doing this, it seems to me that at worst they can only be accused of misapplying statistics, or making unwarranted extrapolations, rather than outright, intentional, fraud.

  38. Re:AGW FRAUD!!!!!!! there is no by J+Story · · Score: 0

    "There are dynamics here we are still looking at and learning. Surface temperatures are the thin single layer of the onion when there are many layers of the atmosphere and many layers of the oceans to look at as well."

    That's funny, I thought there was a consensus and a 99% certainty and being a skeptic was worse than denying the holocaust, etc.

    The great thing about this explanation, if it is accepted, is that henceforth the data will no longer matter! Any and all deviations from whatever new climate models are made will be waved away by saying that the warm stuff went down into the layers somewhere. Nevermind that no one has explained why the temperature rise before 2000 did not go there also. Science is wonderful when you don't have to prove anything.

  39. Space elevators by m6ack · · Score: 2

    I wonder if the same concept could be used to help relieve stress on the cables of space elevators? How much charge would it take to offset the weight of some amount of cable and can solve a measure of the strain problem?

  40. the Montgolfier brothers[*] say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "ballooning? sacre bleu! I did not realize spiders even had scrotums!"


    [*]well known frog "balloonists"

  41. Easier way to test it. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    Of course, Gorhamâ(TM)s ideas will need to be tested by actually measuring the charge on gossamer spider silk as it is generated.

    Rather than trying to test it directly, just modulate the field in a room containing such a spider.

    If the spider and its silk has a net charge you should be able to steer it around the room, land it where you want it, and measure the charge by the spider's response to the ambient field you're modulating. The attitude of the spider/silk system in the modified field will also give you the distribution of charge vs. weight on the spider and its silk.

    If the spider and its silk doesn't have a net charge it will just hang there and blow around in the air currents.

    (Of course the fanning out of the silk already proves the silk itself has a substantial charge.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  42. Exact wrong conclusion by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Then he isn't very intelligent, is he?

    Actually, researchers who use genetic algorithms to solve problems are extremely intelligent. "A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection."

    Natural selection itself, then, is the ultimate genetic algorithm, and the entity that created the process of natural selection is the ultimate intelligence.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  43. Especially by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Especially when you are hit in face by one of those spiders and the wild flaying of your arms and spastic twisting proof a great deal of current must be involved because there is no way a grown man could be that freaked out by a tiny spider baby.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  44. Space Elevator... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here we come!