I suppose since compost is later turned into fertilizer, composting is a bit less truly wasteful than throwing uneaten food into the "regular" trash, but I doubt that distinction is meaningful since in either case the food is no longer edible.
The only "meaning" it has is to their particular recycling and waste disposal programs. As you say, this is not about waste at all. It is only about where to put different kinds of trash.
It would be very similar to an ordinance that fines people for putting glass in the aluminum recycle bin.
To make a single line break. Double it for 2 (paragraph).
Also see down below your text entry window for "Allowed HTML". b in brackets is bold, i in brackets is italics, etc. You must use opening and closing brackets around your text. E.g.,
<i>This would be italics.</i>
I used trickery to do that though. The brackets don't show up in the final text. Try it in a reply and use the "preview" button.
Further, Emma Watson's speech wasn't so much about "the need for feminism" as it was about how so many women distort feminism and turn it into man-hating instead.
There have been so few because, as it turns out, the moon is a terribly uninteresting place with really annoying dust.
"Terribly uninteresting"? How quaint.
The moon is the single best opportunity for the expansion of space exploration.
Guess what? Rockets large enough to send out to the asteroid belt with people in them, as a practical matter, are too damned big to launch from Earth. Did I hear "build them in orbit"? Nope. Too difficult, slow, and expensive. At our current level of technology you really need gravity to do practical construction on a very large scale. 1/6 the gravity? Perfect! Rockets built there don't have to be very large at all.
The moon has vast natural resources; they merely need to be extracted from the rock. Oxygen is one of them. There is also a surprising amount of fissionable material available. So... given some initial energy and material input, you can probably have sustained output, without too much "resupply" coming from Earth. And while energy requirements of a colony might be high, there are vast amounts of solar energy available, and plenty of silicon and trace elements to make solar cells.
Etc., etc. Our current U.S. government administration might be clueless about these things, but in the long run, the moon is our greatest hope for the future.
I am also going to say to you, khayman80, that there will be no further discussion here. You have been doing nothing but repeating false claims which I proved wrong long ago. Any further discussion with you would be a waste of time. You have wasted far too much of my time already.
You've twisted and distorted arguments, played havoc with the math, and tried to deny known physical laws. But I've caught you at every turn.
Time to act like a man and admit that you were wrong. After all, other people are going to see it anyway. I promised to publish the results of our exchange no matter how it turned out. You don't get to complain now just because you lost.
I am making one last reply to "khayman80" here, because he's so good at trolling and readers deserve to see the rebuttal.
If radiation enters the boundary and goes right back out, we need to account for it entering and exiting. That's why there are separate terms for "power in" and "power out".
Just no. If radiation goes in and comes right back out, we do not need to account for it, because then the NET amount of that particular radiation crossing your boundary is ZERO. A = A. You do know how to add and subtract, right? You know what a zero is, right?
There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4).
That's exactly the equation Jane should be using to calculate electrical heating power! It has separate terms for "power in" and "power out" so it can describe power entering and exiting a boundary. If Jane would use that equation, he'd honestly be only saying there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter.
Just no. This is a ridiculous assertion. The equation above is for heat transfer, not radiative power.
I used the proper equation for radiative power, which at steady-state doesn't depend on other bodies. So there is no "difference" term. Just temperature. That's simple physics. You are trying to use a heat transfer equation to calculate power out of a single body at known temperature. That's just plain WRONG.
So Jane refuses to retract his absurd claim [slashdot.org] that view factors vary as the radius ratio, which violates conservation of energy. A cynic might have expected as much, given how Jane flagrantly violates conservation of energy by incoherently ignoring radiative power passing in through a boundary around the heat source.
I made no such claim, you liar. As you well know, the view factor from the surface of the inner sphere to the inner surface of the outer sphere is 1. The calculated view factor from the outer sphere to the inner was 0.9998. BUT, since all the radiation going IN which strikes the hotter body is effectively reflected or scattered, it goes right back out, AND the small amount of radiation from the cooler body that misses the inner sphere ALSO goes right back out, then the EFFECTIVE view factors in this case are both 1.
All the radiation going IN from the cooler body just goes right back OUT again, making the NET radiation crossing your boundary from the cooler body zero. If that were not so, then you'd have net energy being transferred from a cooler body to a hotter one, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. As I've explained to you many times now. You're just plain wrong.
Jane's campaign of educating ignorant, stupid physicists about physics has only just begun. Jane still needs to educate Prof. Brown [slashdot.org] and Lonny Eachus still needs to educate Dr. Joel Shore [rit.edu].
No, I don't need to educate either one. They can both pick up a textbook on heat transfer and see that I am correct. I'm not arguing with them. Our discussion was about THIS experiment of Spencer's. What I did was refute YOUR "solution" to Spencer's challenge. I found the correct answers and checked my work. Funny, but YOUR solutions didn't check out when plugged back in to standard heat transfer equations. I daresay that any eminent physicist can also do the math and see where you were wrong. And I'm going to give them plenty of opportunity to see it. So why not just wait and see?
I did NOT make broad claims in this recent exchange about "greenhouse gas" or any such thing. So I'm not arguing with those other people. I simply showed YOU to be wrong.
I agree with Blue Trane. It's just not a defining factor. Science fiction is about science. Even if it's just postulating a future world, there is a line between fantasy fiction and science fiction, even if it's a blurry one.
There is nothing more to say. You have been proved wrong. You can write books about your nonsense "physics", and it won't make your bullshit theory any more correct.
I have 3 heat transfer textbooks here, and they all say you're wrong. I'll stick with the well-known and established physics, thanks very much, and dismiss the nonsense from the cheap seats.
Funny, but for years you talked about "consensus" and "established science", but whenever the established physics disagrees with you, you will write pages and pages about why they're wrong and you're right.
There's a word for that. The word is "hypocrisy". There are other words for what you do, too, but I'll let other readers decide on those.
Well, it didn't work and it won't work. The textbooks all say you're wrong. Goodbye.
That's why we need to use a heat transfer equation to determine electrical heating power, not just an equation for radiative power out.
And you can achieve that quite nicely by drawing your "boundary" around the heat source.
I've already agreed that it's not necessary to account for cooler bodies in the temperature versus power out equation. Again, we're not disputing the equation for radiative power out. We're disputing the equation describing conservation of energy around a boundary drawn around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Nonsense. By the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, the chamber walls add no net power in. It just goes right back out through your boundary again. How many times must I explain this to you?
Apparently I would be explaining forever, because I've explained it clearly many times now.
If Jane would reconsider conservation of energy and include a term for "radiative power in", then Jane could honestly say he was only claiming that no net radiative power is absorbed by the source. Until then, Jane's equation claims that no radiation is absorbed by the source at all.
I won't consider it because it's not physics. There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4).
We've been over this. You're just trolling. You were proved wrong many days ago now. No more. Done.
Science fiction has never been about predicting future technology.
Science fiction is about considering and exploring the human ramifications when certain aspects of reality are changed.
I don't think so. That description describes fantasy as well as it does science fiction, but they're two different genres.
You're forgetting the "science" in science fiction. While there is occasionally some overlap, science fiction isn't fantasy fiction isn't horror fiction.
Further, if I were any of the organizations that - we have lots of solid evidence - were harassed by the IRS under Lerner, I would charge her, and her cohorts as individuals under 18 USC 242, which carries some harsh penalties... up to life in prison.
I never said Jane objected to a term for "electrical power". I said Jane repeatedly [slashdot.org] objects [slashdot.org] to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. And Jane continues to do this:
Apparently you did not read what I wrote:
NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. I do NOT object to a term for electrical power. I simply asserted a physical truth: in our isolated system, the electrical power to the heat source, called for by Spencer, has zero dependency on the chamber walls.
What I object to is your insane insistence that the electrical power to the heat source requires a term for the chamber walls. This is sheer nonsense. Standard, textbook physics says the thermodynamic temperature of the heat source, since it is "the hottest thing in the room", as it were, is independent of radiation from the chamber walls. Since it cannot absorb net radiative power from the chamber walls, any electrical power calculation is similarly independent.
You are attempting to add a term to "account for" radiation from the cooler chamber walls, but no such accounting is necessary according to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. No net radiative power from the chamber walls is absorbed by the heat source. The chamber wall do not somehow magically cause it to output either less or more radiative power, therefore the input power is not dependent on the chamber walls. QED. I've explained this (truly) about 10 times now.
Ranting about imaginary violations of the Stefan-Boltzmann law won't help Jane understand physics. It might help Jane to draw a boundary around the heat source and think carefully about exactly why Jane keeps ignoring the heat radiated in from the chamber wells. Accounting for that radiation doesn't "violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law" but ignoring it violates conservation of energy.
There is nothing imaginary about it. I am the one who told YOU to draw your boundary around your heat source. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, no NET RADIATIVE POWER is absorbed by the heat source from the chamber walls, and the chamber walls do not affect its radiative power out. I capitalized different words this time in a (probably vain) attempt to get you to understand what is being said here. YOU are apparently imagining some kind of magical net energy flow from less thermodynamically energetic to more thermodynamically energetic, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The chamber walls neither transfer any of their net radiative power to the heat source, nor do they cause the net radiative power of the heat source to be any less. They have NO EFFECT. Net energy flows only FROM the heat source to the walls, and the temperature of the walls effects heat transfer only, not radiative power of the heat source.
For about 100 times now, I do not claim "no radiation" is absorbed. Just no net radiative power.
Jane/Lonny Eachus can capitalize "NET" all he wants, but it doesn't change the fact that Jane's equation assumes warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Here's an equation which only says there's no NET radiative power input from cooler objects:
electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*(Ta^4 - Tb^4)
The above equation satisfies conservation of energy and says there's no NET radiative power input from cooler objects.
Right. Exactly. That's the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, as I've stated many, many times now. Note that it is an equation for heat transfer.
But Jane's equation is different:
electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*Ta^4
YES!!! This is a different equation! It's not an equation for heat transfer! It's the Stefan-Botlzmann RELATION between radiative power out and temperature for gray bodies. It is used for calculating
Ironically, Jane's still insisting that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Otherwise Jane wouldn't repeatedly [slashdot.org] object [slashdot.org] to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power.
NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. I do NOT object to a term for electrical power. I simply asserted a physical truth: in our isolated system, the electrical power to the heat source, called for by Spencer, has zero dependency on the chamber walls.
It is this nonsense dependency on the chamber walls that I have disputed, nothing else. That is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
So just to be clear: I don't object to a term for "electrical power" and never have. My only objection is your insistence that the power input to the heat source is somehow related to radiation from the chamber walls. If these are treated as gray bodies: just no. That's a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.
You are VERY good at trying to make it appear I have been saying things I actually haven't. But it isn't going to fly. It's just bullshit.
Ironically, Jane's still insisting that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Otherwise Jane wouldn't repeatedly object to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. Since Jane doesn't even include that term, Jane's assuming that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects.
NO!!! Repeat, for about the 100th time now: no NET radiative power input from cooler objects. That is ALL I have claimed, and it's a direct result of the Stefan-Botlzmann radiation law. Why do you keep disputing textbook physics laws?
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
NONSENSE. The power output is not dependent on the chamber walls, therefore the power input is not dependent on the chamber walls. You're contradicting yourself, trying to have it both ways.
Radiation from the cooler walls has no effect on the heat source whatsoever. This is a basic requirement of thermodynamics!
That's ridiculous, Jane. I'm just noting that the chamber walls are hotter than 0K, so they emit radiation into a boundary around the heat source. Therefore Jane's wrong to ignore that radiation when applying the principle of conservation of energy:
What's ridiculous is your constant repetition of this bullshit idea. Yes, the cooler walls radiate inward but they have no effect whatsoever on the heat source. ALL of that radiation is reflected or scattered by the heat source. (It is not transmitted because we're dealing with diffuse gray bodies of significant mass.)
If you're being honest, then it's really too bad that you still don't understand the clear implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. But at the same time, it makes me wonder how you got your degree.
I'm done. If all you're going to do is keep repeating these incorrect assertions, after why they are incorrect has been clearly explained to you many times, this is indeed just a waste of my time. I set out to have a scientific discussion, not to argue about your religion.
But this isn't a "methodology" at all. It's a statement of goals.
This isn't an "alternative to Agile", because it isn't a methodology. You can use Agile to achieve this "reactive system".
Frankly, it looks like a bunch of BS buzzwords to me. I write software to meet my customer's needs. "Reactive" attempts to define those needs... but NO, that's what the customer does.
This might be something good to show a client who wants a web site built, which you then proceed to build using Agile or some other methodology. But it isn't a methodology itself, and calling that thing a "Manifesto" is a joke.
"We want a machine that makes things cold. We don't care how it's built. We'll call this... The Refrigerator Manifesto".
Give me a frigging break. In fact I have to think this is actually somebody's idea of a joke.
If you are sincere (you certainly haven't been acting like you are), then you must be postulating some kind of "tractor beam" effect that allows the chamber wall to "suck" power out of the heat source from a distance.
I assure you that at least at out current level of technology, we have not managed to build such a sucking device. The heat source radiates out what it radiates out, and nothing around it is "sucking" any power from it.
Although you seem to be doing your very best at "sucking" my time away over stupid bullshit.
Do you understand what NET means, or do you not? I assure you that a lot of people do. You claimed before that you did.
Why are you doing this? Are you really trying to make yourself look more ridiculous than before?
Since Jane's equation for required electrical power doesn't even include a term for radiation from the chamber walls, Jane's equation wrongly says that no radiation at all is absorbed by the source. None. Zero.
Repeat: this ASSUMPTION of yours that the chamber walls must be accounted for in the power requirement of the heat source is a direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There are no 2 ways around it. Established physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann law) says that the radiative power out (and therefore power in) of a gray body is dependent ONLY on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. It is completely unrelated to any nearby cooler bodies.
I'm going to ask you again: WHY do you continue to spout this violation-of-physics bullshit? What do you think you're accomplishing other than wasting my time?
I have concluded that is all you are trying to do.
It's only part of the problem. The REAL big part of the problem, is that Android (so far) has insisted that your encryption password and unlock code be the same.
So if you encrypt your phone with a secure password, like upper-and-lower-case, numbers, non-alphanumeric, and 10 characters long, then every time your phone is locked and it rings, you have to enter the entire damned thing before you can answer.
Understandably, not many people want to do that. It's a huge pain in the ass.
I don't have a problem so much with encryption being irreversible, but it should be separate from your unlock code.
Referring to state crony capitalism as "socialism" does not make it that.
I wasn't referring to crony capitalism, although I admit I could have worded it better. Mea culpa; it is reasonable to think that's what I meant from what I wrote. But it isn't actually what I meant.
To be clearer: EPA for example is "crony capitalism" by way of "market capture". Obamacare is a rather huge attempt at socialism.
The current setup in China is more accurately described as "Fascism-Lite".
I wouldn't quite say that either. It is totalitarianism wearing padded gloves. When China's leaders really got it through their heads that their economy was genuinely starting to fail, big time, they introduced "incentives": allowing businesses to be just a little bit capitalist. When that worked, they allowed a little more.
But make no mistake: the central leadership still rules things with an iron fist, and controls the economy. That's socialism (which, truth be told, isn't that different from fascism, after all). They just know which side of their bread the butter is on, and allow "capitalist" activity where it suits them.
Such systems are being built today and I helped build one myself in a small way, when I was working for an engineering firm.
Pumped storage is an excellent way to store that energy, because infrastructure is relatively cheap, and losses are minimized. (Compare to trying to store the same energy with chemical batteries.) But you are mistaken about one thing. You don't build just one super-huge tank; you soon run into diminishing returns. Instead you build a lot of smaller tanks. That's more reliable anyway.
You are probably correct. They looked like brass, but they were most likely bronze. In any case: the original screws held up to seawater, while the stainless screws were gone in a short time.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose since compost is later turned into fertilizer, composting is a bit less truly wasteful than throwing uneaten food into the "regular" trash, but I doubt that distinction is meaningful since in either case the food is no longer edible.
The only "meaning" it has is to their particular recycling and waste disposal programs. As you say, this is not about waste at all. It is only about where to put different kinds of trash.
It would be very similar to an ordinance that fines people for putting glass in the aluminum recycle bin.
<br> or <br />
To make a single line break. Double it for 2 (paragraph). Also see down below your text entry window for "Allowed HTML". b in brackets is bold, i in brackets is italics, etc. You must use opening and closing brackets around your text. E.g.,
<i>This would be italics.</i>
I used trickery to do that though. The brackets don't show up in the final text. Try it in a reply and use the "preview" button.
Further, Emma Watson's speech wasn't so much about "the need for feminism" as it was about how so many women distort feminism and turn it into man-hating instead.
There have been so few because, as it turns out, the moon is a terribly uninteresting place with really annoying dust.
"Terribly uninteresting"? How quaint.
The moon is the single best opportunity for the expansion of space exploration.
Guess what? Rockets large enough to send out to the asteroid belt with people in them, as a practical matter, are too damned big to launch from Earth. Did I hear "build them in orbit"? Nope. Too difficult, slow, and expensive. At our current level of technology you really need gravity to do practical construction on a very large scale. 1/6 the gravity? Perfect! Rockets built there don't have to be very large at all.
The moon has vast natural resources; they merely need to be extracted from the rock. Oxygen is one of them. There is also a surprising amount of fissionable material available. So... given some initial energy and material input, you can probably have sustained output, without too much "resupply" coming from Earth. And while energy requirements of a colony might be high, there are vast amounts of solar energy available, and plenty of silicon and trace elements to make solar cells.
Etc., etc. Our current U.S. government administration might be clueless about these things, but in the long run, the moon is our greatest hope for the future.
I am also going to say to you, khayman80, that there will be no further discussion here. You have been doing nothing but repeating false claims which I proved wrong long ago. Any further discussion with you would be a waste of time. You have wasted far too much of my time already.
You've twisted and distorted arguments, played havoc with the math, and tried to deny known physical laws. But I've caught you at every turn.
Time to act like a man and admit that you were wrong. After all, other people are going to see it anyway. I promised to publish the results of our exchange no matter how it turned out. You don't get to complain now just because you lost.
If radiation enters the boundary and goes right back out, we need to account for it entering and exiting. That's why there are separate terms for "power in" and "power out".
Just no. If radiation goes in and comes right back out, we do not need to account for it, because then the NET amount of that particular radiation crossing your boundary is ZERO. A = A. You do know how to add and subtract, right? You know what a zero is, right?
There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4).
That's exactly the equation Jane should be using to calculate electrical heating power! It has separate terms for "power in" and "power out" so it can describe power entering and exiting a boundary. If Jane would use that equation, he'd honestly be only saying there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter.
Just no. This is a ridiculous assertion. The equation above is for heat transfer, not radiative power.
I used the proper equation for radiative power, which at steady-state doesn't depend on other bodies. So there is no "difference" term. Just temperature. That's simple physics. You are trying to use a heat transfer equation to calculate power out of a single body at known temperature. That's just plain WRONG.
So Jane refuses to retract his absurd claim [slashdot.org] that view factors vary as the radius ratio, which violates conservation of energy. A cynic might have expected as much, given how Jane flagrantly violates conservation of energy by incoherently ignoring radiative power passing in through a boundary around the heat source.
I made no such claim, you liar. As you well know, the view factor from the surface of the inner sphere to the inner surface of the outer sphere is 1. The calculated view factor from the outer sphere to the inner was 0.9998. BUT, since all the radiation going IN which strikes the hotter body is effectively reflected or scattered, it goes right back out, AND the small amount of radiation from the cooler body that misses the inner sphere ALSO goes right back out, then the EFFECTIVE view factors in this case are both 1.
All the radiation going IN from the cooler body just goes right back OUT again, making the NET radiation crossing your boundary from the cooler body zero. If that were not so, then you'd have net energy being transferred from a cooler body to a hotter one, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. As I've explained to you many times now. You're just plain wrong.
Jane's campaign of educating ignorant, stupid physicists about physics has only just begun. Jane still needs to educate Prof. Brown [slashdot.org] and Lonny Eachus still needs to educate Dr. Joel Shore [rit.edu].
No, I don't need to educate either one. They can both pick up a textbook on heat transfer and see that I am correct. I'm not arguing with them. Our discussion was about THIS experiment of Spencer's. What I did was refute YOUR "solution" to Spencer's challenge. I found the correct answers and checked my work. Funny, but YOUR solutions didn't check out when plugged back in to standard heat transfer equations. I daresay that any eminent physicist can also do the math and see where you were wrong. And I'm going to give them plenty of opportunity to see it. So why not just wait and see?
I did NOT make broad claims in this recent exchange about "greenhouse gas" or any such thing. So I'm not arguing with those other people. I simply showed YOU to be wrong.
I agree with Blue Trane. It's just not a defining factor. Science fiction is about science. Even if it's just postulating a future world, there is a line between fantasy fiction and science fiction, even if it's a blurry one.
There is nothing more to say. You have been proved wrong. You can write books about your nonsense "physics", and it won't make your bullshit theory any more correct.
I have 3 heat transfer textbooks here, and they all say you're wrong. I'll stick with the well-known and established physics, thanks very much, and dismiss the nonsense from the cheap seats.
Funny, but for years you talked about "consensus" and "established science", but whenever the established physics disagrees with you, you will write pages and pages about why they're wrong and you're right.
There's a word for that. The word is "hypocrisy". There are other words for what you do, too, but I'll let other readers decide on those.
Well, it didn't work and it won't work. The textbooks all say you're wrong. Goodbye.
That's why we need to use a heat transfer equation to determine electrical heating power, not just an equation for radiative power out.
And you can achieve that quite nicely by drawing your "boundary" around the heat source.
I've already agreed that it's not necessary to account for cooler bodies in the temperature versus power out equation. Again, we're not disputing the equation for radiative power out. We're disputing the equation describing conservation of energy around a boundary drawn around the heat source: power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Nonsense. By the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, the chamber walls add no net power in. It just goes right back out through your boundary again. How many times must I explain this to you?
Apparently I would be explaining forever, because I've explained it clearly many times now.
If Jane would reconsider conservation of energy and include a term for "radiative power in", then Jane could honestly say he was only claiming that no net radiative power is absorbed by the source. Until then, Jane's equation claims that no radiation is absorbed by the source at all.
I won't consider it because it's not physics. There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4).
We've been over this. You're just trolling. You were proved wrong many days ago now. No more. Done.
Science fiction has never been about predicting future technology.
Science fiction is about considering and exploring the human ramifications when certain aspects of reality are changed.
I don't think so. That description describes fantasy as well as it does science fiction, but they're two different genres.
You're forgetting the "science" in science fiction. While there is occasionally some overlap, science fiction isn't fantasy fiction isn't horror fiction.
Yes, they most definitely did.
Further, if I were any of the organizations that - we have lots of solid evidence - were harassed by the IRS under Lerner, I would charge her, and her cohorts as individuals under 18 USC 242, which carries some harsh penalties... up to life in prison.
I never said Jane objected to a term for "electrical power". I said Jane repeatedly [slashdot.org] objects [slashdot.org] to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. And Jane continues to do this:
Apparently you did not read what I wrote:
NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. I do NOT object to a term for electrical power. I simply asserted a physical truth: in our isolated system, the electrical power to the heat source, called for by Spencer, has zero dependency on the chamber walls.
What I object to is your insane insistence that the electrical power to the heat source requires a term for the chamber walls. This is sheer nonsense. Standard, textbook physics says the thermodynamic temperature of the heat source, since it is "the hottest thing in the room", as it were, is independent of radiation from the chamber walls. Since it cannot absorb net radiative power from the chamber walls, any electrical power calculation is similarly independent.
You are attempting to add a term to "account for" radiation from the cooler chamber walls, but no such accounting is necessary according to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. No net radiative power from the chamber walls is absorbed by the heat source. The chamber wall do not somehow magically cause it to output either less or more radiative power, therefore the input power is not dependent on the chamber walls. QED. I've explained this (truly) about 10 times now.
Ranting about imaginary violations of the Stefan-Boltzmann law won't help Jane understand physics. It might help Jane to draw a boundary around the heat source and think carefully about exactly why Jane keeps ignoring the heat radiated in from the chamber wells. Accounting for that radiation doesn't "violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law" but ignoring it violates conservation of energy.
There is nothing imaginary about it. I am the one who told YOU to draw your boundary around your heat source. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, no NET RADIATIVE POWER is absorbed by the heat source from the chamber walls, and the chamber walls do not affect its radiative power out. I capitalized different words this time in a (probably vain) attempt to get you to understand what is being said here. YOU are apparently imagining some kind of magical net energy flow from less thermodynamically energetic to more thermodynamically energetic, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The chamber walls neither transfer any of their net radiative power to the heat source, nor do they cause the net radiative power of the heat source to be any less. They have NO EFFECT. Net energy flows only FROM the heat source to the walls, and the temperature of the walls effects heat transfer only, not radiative power of the heat source.
For about 100 times now, I do not claim "no radiation" is absorbed. Just no net radiative power.
Jane/Lonny Eachus can capitalize "NET" all he wants, but it doesn't change the fact that Jane's equation assumes warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Here's an equation which only says there's no NET radiative power input from cooler objects:
electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*(Ta^4 - Tb^4)
The above equation satisfies conservation of energy and says there's no NET radiative power input from cooler objects.
Right. Exactly. That's the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, as I've stated many, many times now. Note that it is an equation for heat transfer.
But Jane's equation is different:
electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*Ta^4
YES!!! This is a different equation! It's not an equation for heat transfer! It's the Stefan-Botlzmann RELATION between radiative power out and temperature for gray bodies. It is used for calculating
Ironically, Jane's still insisting that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Otherwise Jane wouldn't repeatedly [slashdot.org] object [slashdot.org] to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power.
NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. I do NOT object to a term for electrical power. I simply asserted a physical truth: in our isolated system, the electrical power to the heat source, called for by Spencer, has zero dependency on the chamber walls.
It is this nonsense dependency on the chamber walls that I have disputed, nothing else. That is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
So just to be clear: I don't object to a term for "electrical power" and never have. My only objection is your insistence that the power input to the heat source is somehow related to radiation from the chamber walls. If these are treated as gray bodies: just no. That's a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.
You are VERY good at trying to make it appear I have been saying things I actually haven't. But it isn't going to fly. It's just bullshit.
Ironically, Jane's still insisting that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Otherwise Jane wouldn't repeatedly object to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. Since Jane doesn't even include that term, Jane's assuming that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects.
NO!!! Repeat, for about the 100th time now: no NET radiative power input from cooler objects. That is ALL I have claimed, and it's a direct result of the Stefan-Botlzmann radiation law. Why do you keep disputing textbook physics laws?
Stop lying. Because that's all you're doing now.
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
NONSENSE. The power output is not dependent on the chamber walls, therefore the power input is not dependent on the chamber walls. You're contradicting yourself, trying to have it both ways.
Radiation from the cooler walls has no effect on the heat source whatsoever. This is a basic requirement of thermodynamics!
That's ridiculous, Jane. I'm just noting that the chamber walls are hotter than 0K, so they emit radiation into a boundary around the heat source. Therefore Jane's wrong to ignore that radiation when applying the principle of conservation of energy:
What's ridiculous is your constant repetition of this bullshit idea. Yes, the cooler walls radiate inward but they have no effect whatsoever on the heat source. ALL of that radiation is reflected or scattered by the heat source. (It is not transmitted because we're dealing with diffuse gray bodies of significant mass.)
If you're being honest, then it's really too bad that you still don't understand the clear implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. But at the same time, it makes me wonder how you got your degree.
I'm done. If all you're going to do is keep repeating these incorrect assertions, after why they are incorrect has been clearly explained to you many times, this is indeed just a waste of my time. I set out to have a scientific discussion, not to argue about your religion.
Hybrid or not, I'm not buying a Chinese car.
I'll pay twice as much for a Tesla first.
Methodologies are like religion
But this isn't a "methodology" at all. It's a statement of goals.
This isn't an "alternative to Agile", because it isn't a methodology. You can use Agile to achieve this "reactive system".
Frankly, it looks like a bunch of BS buzzwords to me. I write software to meet my customer's needs. "Reactive" attempts to define those needs... but NO, that's what the customer does.
This might be something good to show a client who wants a web site built, which you then proceed to build using Agile or some other methodology. But it isn't a methodology itself, and calling that thing a "Manifesto" is a joke.
"We want a machine that makes things cold. We don't care how it's built. We'll call this... The Refrigerator Manifesto".
Give me a frigging break. In fact I have to think this is actually somebody's idea of a joke.
If you are sincere (you certainly haven't been acting like you are), then you must be postulating some kind of "tractor beam" effect that allows the chamber wall to "suck" power out of the heat source from a distance.
I assure you that at least at out current level of technology, we have not managed to build such a sucking device. The heat source radiates out what it radiates out, and nothing around it is "sucking" any power from it.
Although you seem to be doing your very best at "sucking" my time away over stupid bullshit.
Jane's equation claims "none at all":
electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*Ta^4
NOW what kind of bullshit are you trying to pull?
Do you understand what NET means, or do you not? I assure you that a lot of people do. You claimed before that you did.
Why are you doing this? Are you really trying to make yourself look more ridiculous than before?
Since Jane's equation for required electrical power doesn't even include a term for radiation from the chamber walls, Jane's equation wrongly says that no radiation at all is absorbed by the source. None. Zero.
Repeat: this ASSUMPTION of yours that the chamber walls must be accounted for in the power requirement of the heat source is a direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There are no 2 ways around it. Established physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann law) says that the radiative power out (and therefore power in) of a gray body is dependent ONLY on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. It is completely unrelated to any nearby cooler bodies.
I'm going to ask you again: WHY do you continue to spout this violation-of-physics bullshit? What do you think you're accomplishing other than wasting my time?
I have concluded that is all you are trying to do.
Experiment needed, bozo.
Put a smallish (30 cm^3) piece of styrofoam on water that has a decent amount of ripples, and try to hold it still.
You don't need Wikipedia to do that.
They were plain iron chains. It is not a very suitable material for making finish screws.
If they can build offshore oil platforms, they can do this. (They ARE doing this.)
It's only part of the problem. The REAL big part of the problem, is that Android (so far) has insisted that your encryption password and unlock code be the same.
So if you encrypt your phone with a secure password, like upper-and-lower-case, numbers, non-alphanumeric, and 10 characters long, then every time your phone is locked and it rings, you have to enter the entire damned thing before you can answer.
Understandably, not many people want to do that. It's a huge pain in the ass.
I don't have a problem so much with encryption being irreversible, but it should be separate from your unlock code.
Referring to state crony capitalism as "socialism" does not make it that.
I wasn't referring to crony capitalism, although I admit I could have worded it better. Mea culpa; it is reasonable to think that's what I meant from what I wrote. But it isn't actually what I meant.
To be clearer: EPA for example is "crony capitalism" by way of "market capture". Obamacare is a rather huge attempt at socialism.
The current setup in China is more accurately described as "Fascism-Lite".
I wouldn't quite say that either. It is totalitarianism wearing padded gloves. When China's leaders really got it through their heads that their economy was genuinely starting to fail, big time, they introduced "incentives": allowing businesses to be just a little bit capitalist. When that worked, they allowed a little more.
But make no mistake: the central leadership still rules things with an iron fist, and controls the economy. That's socialism (which, truth be told, isn't that different from fascism, after all). They just know which side of their bread the butter is on, and allow "capitalist" activity where it suits them.
Such systems are being built today and I helped build one myself in a small way, when I was working for an engineering firm.
Pumped storage is an excellent way to store that energy, because infrastructure is relatively cheap, and losses are minimized. (Compare to trying to store the same energy with chemical batteries.) But you are mistaken about one thing. You don't build just one super-huge tank; you soon run into diminishing returns. Instead you build a lot of smaller tanks. That's more reliable anyway.
You are probably correct. They looked like brass, but they were most likely bronze. In any case: the original screws held up to seawater, while the stainless screws were gone in a short time.