It's not like the human eye can see infrared anyhow.;-)
Actually you can see infrared past what is typically considered the human vision spectrum. It appears as a deep red color, simply look at led infrared emitters for cheap night vision cameras and you will see a dull glow in low ambient light at the junction. It's not producing light out of band it's actually your cones picking up the light as a weak red signal. I've been able to see past 1000nm in this fashion, but be careful as its not great on your eyes to stare directly at high intensity light even if it is past the human range of sight.
DOJ is requesting remote backdoor capabilities to all phones so that they can browse for hot nudes at any time anywhere. They originally wanted it to stop terrorism, but then realized that every other thing they've done to try to stop terrorism seems to have failed miserably. The DOJ is happy to announce that this time their plans will be used 100% as expected, and will for sure have great success.
I'm not sure I want to grant them backdoor access unless they at least buy me dinner first.
And this is why self driving cars today can't compete against distracted teenage drivers. For all the claims of how perfect computer vision and sensor fusion is, humans are far superior.
I regularly work with these kinds of devices and technologies. A few tiny screws, heat sensitive adhesive, and some flat flex cables will not and have not deterred me from fixing the phone for $2-12 instead of a ridiculous $100 and a long wait or some just as ridiculous maintenance plan.
Rather than give them darkened glasses simply make them like welding helmets. Put several sensors around the glasses and darken them instantly if it detects bright light. If it works for welding there isn't a reason it wouldn't work here too. At the typical ranges with cheap laser pointers the beam is pretty wide.
There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. For all of human history nothing stopped the masses from overthrowing tyranny except the restraint and convictions of the people. But fast forward 250 years where a mega corporation could have full automation production of these drones, robots, and autonomous systems - the entire remaining 99.9999% people on the earth could be wiped out with no recourse. I'm fairly sure we are seeing the final steps in the removal of any possible threat the people at large pose to those who wield power. Good luck with your gun when a drone army airstrikes your dwelling before sending in armored kill bots.
Exactly. With a subsidized cost of 4000 to 12,000 usd after every 8-10 years you are basically paying the same as gasoline despite the inexpensive charges. Further many people who purchased hybrid and electrics around 2006-2008 are now suffering from replacement anxiety.
You're forgetting that 60-75% of the energy in hydrocarbon fuel is wasted in the form of heat when you burn it in a combustion engine. Conversion losses for electricity are a tiny fraction of this.
Partially true. Essentially all of the formulas assume you *could* discharge to an absolute zero heat sink and calculate efficiency that way. Needless to say that is ludicrous as if you had one of those you could deplete the surface temperature of the earth for essentially fuel free unlimited energy. It's far more realistic to assume the low temperature heat resovoir to be the ambient air temperature and then the efficiency with respect to the maximum achievable efficiency isn't nearly that bad.
Actually cargo ships have an enormous surface area. Typically they have 30-80MW engines and can be 400m long by 60m wide. Given roughly 1kw/m^2 that's 24MW power production. So it seems feaible to have a hybrid solution where you could put panels atop all the containers and generate up to a 25-50% power savings depending on the time of day and weather. Add a sail like hull/design and you might make up even more power.
so it seems it's possible to make an electric hybrid container ship in principle, but with today's low fuel prices it's just not cost effective.
As pointed out above the best lithium ion batteries are around 1/30th the energy density of hydrocarbon fuel like gasoline. Further though it would require a battery with high power density as well, you couldn't use a technology incapable of discharging it's full actual capacity in an hour. Finally you would need a reliable battery that would keep working over many charge discharge cycles and not die prematurely for purely financial and practicality reasons which is why there are no lithium air batteries helping extend electric car range today.
You shouldn't do that. The US power strip is likely only rated for 120v. If you use it with an adapter in a country with 240v service you may find that some of the clearances are not enough and you get arcing, thus a fire hazard. I've actually had this happen to me.
The voltage required to start an arc is around a million volts per meter. The 110V difference requires under four thousandths of an inch additional clearance given no insulation at all. If that's the issue I'm going to argue the device was so cheaply made it was already a fire hazard.
A more likely scenario is cheap components (like capacitors for example) and overall bad design.
Your response is hilarious. You said there are no experiments you can run to verify the first law of thermodynamics and you don't typically graduate high school without being shown examples of this.
I submit to you an electron around a hydrogen atom. It's been in perpetual motion for billions of years already,...
It's not really in motion, though, because the probability of finding it at a particular point in space (i.e. relative to the nucleus) isn't changing: the electron density cloud isn't moving.
Now, if we could ever split the wave function from it's complex conjugate, so to speak, then we might actually get a source of infinite energy. But that gets to the whole question of the ontological reality of the wave function.
Well mr smarty pants has that atom ever been precisely at absolute zero? As you well know it hasn't as the CMB is still warm so it has in fact been moving.
Some "laws" of physics are mathematical in nature; that is, they are logically true, like the laws of arithmetic.
Some "laws" of physics are experimentally verified; that is, you can run experiments and observe the results directly, like inverse square laws at macroscopic scales.
The "laws of thermodynamics" aren't either of those; they are instead a statement about the non-existence of certain physical effects. As such, they are the weakest of the three kinds of laws. It would probably be better to call them "the conjectures of thermodynamics". In principle, there might by physical effects that allow you to circumvent those "laws".
Bollocks. The laws of thermodynamics can be shown to be statistically true and hold for all real world cases using nothing but the standard model and statistics. Further it has been rigorously tested for over a hundred years and not only has successfully predicted results but not once has been shown to be incorrect on macroscopic scales nor exploitable for free energy in any way on microscopic scales. In fact it can and has been shown that any attempt to circumvent the statical process requires more energy than you save.
Again incorrect. When you total all energy in the universe, including that from gravitational fields it is likely zero. It has always been zero, and will continue to be zero. Even if you were to somehow harvest dark energy (which btw only is a meaningful amount when you talk about millions of light years) you would essentially be bringing two masses together and is exploiting gravitational potential energy.
If you add up all the energy in the universe, including that through gravitational fields, the sum of energy in the universe is actually zero. There is no free lunch and if the laws of physics were wrong at human useable levels of energy, even in the 15th decimal place, many of the real world practical inventions like gps would not work. We all know the laws of physics are an approximation, but no competent sane scientist thinks we can actually get an over unity energy return from springs, magnets and some wire.
It would be one thing if these people were actually trying to form a hypothesis and test it; Or experiment with various process cycles to try to further their understanding. But the reality is 90%+ can't explain the physics of how a hammer works nor correctly recite even 15% of the high school level physics they never actually passed. It's an embarrassment in ignorance. It's like they don't even bother to learn the principles they are trying to refute.
I submit to you an electron around a hydrogen atom. It's been in perpetual motion for billions of years already, and will likely be for many many billions more. In a properly controlled environment near perpetual macroscopic motion is achievable (Simple - orbit two rocks around them selves in space away from other gravitational disturbances), but obviously you can't pull power from nowhere on a statistically averaged and continuous basis.
It's worth pointing out that "conservation of energy" is not a property of the universe we inhabit. Sure, at human-tinkering scale it is, and these guys won't achieve over-unity, but in the greater scheme of things: energy is not conserved in general relativity.
Incorrect. Macroscopically, and in general relativity energy is conserved. In quantum mechanics it's still conserved on average, but not conserved for specific cases which then average out in the long term or over multiple measurements/outcomes. It is a fundamental concept and not only has never been shown incorrect, but is a required underlying concept for all of physics.
Conservation of energy is mathematically equivalent to "current age of the universe is not an input to the laws of motion" (time intervals are unrelated). It doesn't work out that way in GR, mostly because the idea of "current age" doesn't apply.
Relativity is odd that way. The mass of an object depends on it's total potential energy (a compressed spring is heavier). That concept of potential energy having some absolute total value, not just relative values to an arbitrary "floor", doesn't exist in "normal" physics. All that matters is potential difference (aka "force"). That change makes most of our intuitions, heck most of the stuff engineering is built on, wrong.
There is a floor in relativity, and that is in the reference frame at rest with respect to the object. The relativity aspect is that you could imagine a moving reference frame which only adds to the energy. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Suffice to say that if the underlying principles of physics and engineering were significantly wrong in everyday energy levels and scale, even at 15 decimal places, we wouldn't have gps or any number of practical functioning devices that show - yes indeed it is correct. We all know physics is wrong, but only at energy levels and scales that don't apply to humans.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like the human eye can see infrared anyhow. ;-)
Actually you can see infrared past what is typically considered the human vision spectrum. It appears as a deep red color, simply look at led infrared emitters for cheap night vision cameras and you will see a dull glow in low ambient light at the junction. It's not producing light out of band it's actually your cones picking up the light as a weak red signal. I've been able to see past 1000nm in this fashion, but be careful as its not great on your eyes to stare directly at high intensity light even if it is past the human range of sight.
DOJ is requesting remote backdoor capabilities to all phones so that they can browse for hot nudes at any time anywhere. They originally wanted it to stop terrorism, but then realized that every other thing they've done to try to stop terrorism seems to have failed miserably. The DOJ is happy to announce that this time their plans will be used 100% as expected, and will for sure have great success.
I'm not sure I want to grant them backdoor access unless they at least buy me dinner first.
Either it's typical /. Editors or I haven't had enough coffee to compensate my alcohol use. link
And this is why self driving cars today can't compete against distracted teenage drivers. For all the claims of how perfect computer vision and sensor fusion is, humans are far superior.
I regularly work with these kinds of devices and technologies. A few tiny screws, heat sensitive adhesive, and some flat flex cables will not and have not deterred me from fixing the phone for $2-12 instead of a ridiculous $100 and a long wait or some just as ridiculous maintenance plan.
Rather than give them darkened glasses simply make them like welding helmets. Put several sensors around the glasses and darken them instantly if it detects bright light. If it works for welding there isn't a reason it wouldn't work here too. At the typical ranges with cheap laser pointers the beam is pretty wide.
There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. For all of human history nothing stopped the masses from overthrowing tyranny except the restraint and convictions of the people. But fast forward 250 years where a mega corporation could have full automation production of these drones, robots, and autonomous systems - the entire remaining 99.9999% people on the earth could be wiped out with no recourse. I'm fairly sure we are seeing the final steps in the removal of any possible threat the people at large pose to those who wield power. Good luck with your gun when a drone army airstrikes your dwelling before sending in armored kill bots.
Exactly. With a subsidized cost of 4000 to 12,000 usd after every 8-10 years you are basically paying the same as gasoline despite the inexpensive charges. Further many people who purchased hybrid and electrics around 2006-2008 are now suffering from replacement anxiety.
-1 Stupid.
You're forgetting that 60-75% of the energy in hydrocarbon fuel is wasted in the form of heat when you burn it in a combustion engine. Conversion losses for electricity are a tiny fraction of this.
Partially true. Essentially all of the formulas assume you *could* discharge to an absolute zero heat sink and calculate efficiency that way. Needless to say that is ludicrous as if you had one of those you could deplete the surface temperature of the earth for essentially fuel free unlimited energy. It's far more realistic to assume the low temperature heat resovoir to be the ambient air temperature and then the efficiency with respect to the maximum achievable efficiency isn't nearly that bad.
Actually cargo ships have an enormous surface area. Typically they have 30-80MW engines and can be 400m long by 60m wide. Given roughly 1kw/m^2 that's 24MW power production. So it seems feaible to have a hybrid solution where you could put panels atop all the containers and generate up to a 25-50% power savings depending on the time of day and weather. Add a sail like hull/design and you might make up even more power.
so it seems it's possible to make an electric hybrid container ship in principle, but with today's low fuel prices it's just not cost effective.
As pointed out above the best lithium ion batteries are around 1/30th the energy density of hydrocarbon fuel like gasoline. Further though it would require a battery with high power density as well, you couldn't use a technology incapable of discharging it's full actual capacity in an hour. Finally you would need a reliable battery that would keep working over many charge discharge cycles and not die prematurely for purely financial and practicality reasons which is why there are no lithium air batteries helping extend electric car range today.
You shouldn't do that. The US power strip is likely only rated for 120v. If you use it with an adapter in a country with 240v service you may find that some of the clearances are not enough and you get arcing, thus a fire hazard. I've actually had this happen to me.
The voltage required to start an arc is around a million volts per meter. The 110V difference requires under four thousandths of an inch additional clearance given no insulation at all. If that's the issue I'm going to argue the device was so cheaply made it was already a fire hazard.
A more likely scenario is cheap components (like capacitors for example) and overall bad design.
Not even yourself.
In the end they flipped them the bird.
You have nothing to hide.
Actually, when Trump gets elected and has a full dossier on every political AND financial rival you really should have an escape plan.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to actually pull this (or something similar) off.
Your response is hilarious. You said there are no experiments you can run to verify the first law of thermodynamics and you don't typically graduate high school without being shown examples of this.
I submit to you an electron around a hydrogen atom. It's been in perpetual motion for billions of years already,...
It's not really in motion, though, because the probability of finding it at a particular point in space (i.e. relative to the nucleus) isn't changing: the electron density cloud isn't moving.
Now, if we could ever split the wave function from it's complex conjugate, so to speak, then we might actually get a source of infinite energy. But that gets to the whole question of the ontological reality of the wave function.
Well mr smarty pants has that atom ever been precisely at absolute zero? As you well know it hasn't as the CMB is still warm so it has in fact been moving.
Some "laws" of physics are mathematical in nature; that is, they are logically true, like the laws of arithmetic.
Some "laws" of physics are experimentally verified; that is, you can run experiments and observe the results directly, like inverse square laws at macroscopic scales.
The "laws of thermodynamics" aren't either of those; they are instead a statement about the non-existence of certain physical effects. As such, they are the weakest of the three kinds of laws. It would probably be better to call them "the conjectures of thermodynamics". In principle, there might by physical effects that allow you to circumvent those "laws".
Bollocks. The laws of thermodynamics can be shown to be statistically true and hold for all real world cases using nothing but the standard model and statistics. Further it has been rigorously tested for over a hundred years and not only has successfully predicted results but not once has been shown to be incorrect on macroscopic scales nor exploitable for free energy in any way on microscopic scales. In fact it can and has been shown that any attempt to circumvent the statical process requires more energy than you save.
It is rigorously justified through measurement. Honestly a 5 second Google search would do you good.
Not only is energy not conserved, but it keeps increasing as our universe full of dark energy keeps expanding.
This energy could be mined:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ApJ...446...63H
Again incorrect. When you total all energy in the universe, including that from gravitational fields it is likely zero. It has always been zero, and will continue to be zero. Even if you were to somehow harvest dark energy (which btw only is a meaningful amount when you talk about millions of light years) you would essentially be bringing two masses together and is exploiting gravitational potential energy.
If you add up all the energy in the universe, including that through gravitational fields, the sum of energy in the universe is actually zero. There is no free lunch and if the laws of physics were wrong at human useable levels of energy, even in the 15th decimal place, many of the real world practical inventions like gps would not work. We all know the laws of physics are an approximation, but no competent sane scientist thinks we can actually get an over unity energy return from springs, magnets and some wire.
It would be one thing if these people were actually trying to form a hypothesis and test it; Or experiment with various process cycles to try to further their understanding. But the reality is 90%+ can't explain the physics of how a hammer works nor correctly recite even 15% of the high school level physics they never actually passed. It's an embarrassment in ignorance. It's like they don't even bother to learn the principles they are trying to refute.
I submit to you an electron around a hydrogen atom. It's been in perpetual motion for billions of years already, and will likely be for many many billions more.
In a properly controlled environment near perpetual macroscopic motion is achievable (Simple - orbit two rocks around them selves in space away from other gravitational disturbances), but obviously you can't pull power from nowhere on a statistically averaged and continuous basis.
It's worth pointing out that "conservation of energy" is not a property of the universe we inhabit. Sure, at human-tinkering scale it is, and these guys won't achieve over-unity, but in the greater scheme of things: energy is not conserved in general relativity.
Incorrect. Macroscopically, and in general relativity energy is conserved. In quantum mechanics it's still conserved on average, but not conserved for specific cases which then average out in the long term or over multiple measurements/outcomes. It is a fundamental concept and not only has never been shown incorrect, but is a required underlying concept for all of physics.
Conservation of energy is mathematically equivalent to "current age of the universe is not an input to the laws of motion" (time intervals are unrelated). It doesn't work out that way in GR, mostly because the idea of "current age" doesn't apply.
Relativity is odd that way. The mass of an object depends on it's total potential energy (a compressed spring is heavier). That concept of potential energy having some absolute total value, not just relative values to an arbitrary "floor", doesn't exist in "normal" physics. All that matters is potential difference (aka "force"). That change makes most of our intuitions, heck most of the stuff engineering is built on, wrong.
There is a floor in relativity, and that is in the reference frame at rest with respect to the object. The relativity aspect is that you could imagine a moving reference frame which only adds to the energy. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Suffice to say that if the underlying principles of physics and engineering were significantly wrong in everyday energy levels and scale, even at 15 decimal places, we wouldn't have gps or any number of practical functioning devices that show - yes indeed it is correct. We all know physics is wrong, but only at energy levels and scales that don't apply to humans.
Thank goodness the government dosent have a way to see into all of our daily lives with striking detail. That would have been a nightmare!