However, the faulty logic is on your part not mine. You have engaged in the non-formal inductive fallacy of semantic confusion. Whereas, I was using the more colloquial definition of 'efficiency'' i.e. mpg, you used a more technical thermodynamic definition of 'efficiency'' i.e. nu (the greek letter). See:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/OttoCycl e. html
Further, the use of supercharging, or turbo-charging will cause an increase in the efficiency of either the Otto, or Diesel cycle. Not to mention that the Miller Cycle depends on supercharging.
Given the *context* of the post that I was responding to, it should have been manifest that the efficiency that I was referring to was miles (km) per gallon (l).
"I thought that gasoline had the highest energy density than any other fossil fuel, way more than natural gas."
Nope. Diesel has a greater density than gasoline, and thus that is why Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.
"Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. On average, 1 gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 155x106 joules (147,000 BTU), while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 132x106 joules (125,000 BTU). This, combined with the improved efficiency of diesel engines, explains why diesel engines get better mileage than equivalent gasoline engines. "--www.howitworks.com
"What is it with texas these days ?/. seems to measure anything extraterestrial in STU (Standard Texas Units)."
Query: Is the STU based on The State of Texas, or The Republic of Texas? The Republic was 1/3rd larger than the State is.
Dude, it's not just/., I did a search for Texas via the World Factbook here's what I got:
Search Results for "Texas"
1) Botswana. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 585,370 sq km water: 15,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,013 km border countries: Namibia 1,360 km,...
2) Central African Republic. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 622,984 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,203 km border countries: Cameroon 797 km, Chad...
3) Niger. The World Factbook. 2001 ...1,266,700 sq km water: 300 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,697 km border countries: Algeria 956 km,...
4) Greenland. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km ice-covered) (est.) Area -- comparative: slightly more than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: 0 km Coastline: 44,087 km Maritime claims: continental...
5) Burma. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 657,740 sq km water: 20,760 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,876 km border countries: Bangladesh 193 km,...
6) Mexico. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 49,510 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,538 km border countries: Belize 250 km, Guatemala...
7) Afghanistan. The World Factbook. 2001 ...647,500 sq km land: 647,500 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,529 km border countries: China 76 km, Iran...
8) Zambia. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 740,724 sq km water: 11,890 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly larger than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,664 km border countries: Angola 1,110 km, Democratic...
9) Mali. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 20,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 7,243 km border countries: Algeria 1,376 km, Burkina...
10) Angola. The World Factbook. 2001 ...1,246,700 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,198 km border countries: Democratic Republic...
11) Ukraine. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 603,700 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,558 km border countries: Belarus 891 km, Hungary...
12) Algeria. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than 3.5 times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 6,343 km border countries: Libya 982 km, Mali 1,376...
13) Indonesia. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 93,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,602 km border countries: Malaysia 1,782 km,...
14) South Africa. The World Factbook. 2001 ...Island and Prince Edward Island) Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,750 km border countries: Botswana 1,840...
15) Turkey. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 770,760 sq km water: 9,820 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly larger than Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,627 km border countries: Armenia 268 km, Azerbaijan...
16) Ethiopia. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 7,444 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,311 km border countries: Djibouti 337 km, Eritrea...
17) Kazakhstan. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 47,500 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than four times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 12,012 km border countries: China 1,533 km,...
18) Somalia. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 627,337 sq km water: 10,320 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,366 km border countries: Djibouti 58 km, Ethiopia...
"What is it with texas these days ?./ seems to measure anything extraterestrial in STU (Standard Texas Units)."
Dude, it's not just/., I did a search for Texas via the World Factbook here's what I got:
Search Results for "Texas"
1) Botswana. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km land: 585,370 sq km water: 15,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,013 km border countries: Namibia 1,360 km,...
2) Central African Republic. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km land: 622,984 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,203 km border countries: Cameroon 797 km, Chad...
3) Niger. The World Factbook. 2001...1,266,700 sq km water: 300 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,697 km border countries: Algeria 956 km,...
4) Greenland. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km ice-covered) (est.) Area -- comparative: slightly more than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: 0 km Coastline: 44,087 km Maritime claims: continental...
5) Burma. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km land: 657,740 sq km water: 20,760 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,876 km border countries: Bangladesh 193 km,...
6) Mexico. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km water: 49,510 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,538 km border countries: Belize 250 km, Guatemala...
7) Afghanistan. The World Factbook. 2001...647,500 sq km land: 647,500 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,529 km border countries: China 76 km, Iran...
8) Zambia. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km land: 740,724 sq km water: 11,890 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly larger than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,664 km border countries: Angola 1,110 km, Democratic...
9) Mali. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km water: 20,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 7,243 km border countries: Algeria 1,376 km, Burkina...
10) Angola. The World Factbook. 2001...1,246,700 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,198 km border countries: Democratic Republic...
11) Ukraine. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km land: 603,700 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,558 km border countries: Belarus 891 km, Hungary...
12) Algeria. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than 3.5 times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 6,343 km border countries: Libya 982 km, Mali 1,376...
13) Indonesia. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km water: 93,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,602 km border countries: Malaysia 1,782 km,...
14) South Africa. The World Factbook. 2001...Island and Prince Edward Island) Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,750 km border countries: Botswana 1,840...
15) Turkey. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km land: 770,760 sq km water: 9,820 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly larger than Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,627 km border countries: Armenia 268 km, Azerbaijan...
16) Ethiopia. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km water: 7,444 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,311 km border countries: Djibouti 337 km, Eritrea...
17) Kazakhstan. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km water: 47,500 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than four times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 12,012 km border countries: China 1,533 km,...
18) Somalia. The World Factbook. 2001...sq km land: 627,337 sq km water: 10,320 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,366 km border countries: Djibouti 58 km, Ethiopia...
Mr. Ebert confused the speed of the shadow of an object on Earth with the speed of the Earths Terminator.
Here's my e-mail to Mr. Ebert...
Mr. Ebert recently wrote in his review of THE MUMMY RETURNS:
"4. I have written before of the ability of movie characters to outrun fireballs. In "The Mummy Returns," there is a more amazing feat. If the rising sun touches little Alex while he is wearing the magical bracelet, he will die (it is written). But Rick, carrying Alex in his arms, is able to outrace the sunrise; we see the line of sunlight moving on the ground right behind them. It is written by Eratosthenes that the Earth is about 25,000 miles around, and since there are 24 hours in a day, Rick was running approximately 1,041 miles an hour."
Mr. Ebert is in error.
Mr. Ebert has over-simplified the geometry, and physics of the velocity of shadows generated by the Sun.
While it is true that the Earth's rotates with an angular velocity of ~7.29e-5, and thus has a tangental rotational velocity of ~1041 mph, it is manifestly untrue that a shadow cast by mountains, canyon walls, etc. also travel at 1041 mph.
The velocity of the shadow is a function of not only the Earth's angular velocity, but also of the hight of the object, the time of day, as well as the time of year.
Consider the shadow cast by a flag pole. The length of the shadow is infinite at sunrise, but at local noon it will be at minimum at local noon. If the pole is located along the equator, and it's an equinox the the shadow will have a length of zero. Thus in six hours the shadow will have gone from infinitely long to infinitely short, thus having an average velocity that is infinite. (It is written by Zeno of Elea) A second example may serve to make my point a bit better. Consider the same day, and the same flag pole, but this time let us stipulate that the flag pole is 100 feet tall. As 09:00 local time the Sun will be 45 degrees above the horizon therefore the shadow will be 100 feet long as the oppsite, and adjacent sides of a 45 degree right triangle are equal. Thus, in the three hours between 09:00, and 12:00 local time the shadow of the flag pole will have moved 100 feet. Thus, the average speed at which the shadow will move in this period will be 100 feet / 3hours = 33.33... feet per hour, or ~0.0063131313... mph. Manifestly, this is very much less that 1041 mph.
I post this--I know it's long--so that those that have never read Jefferson's most famous statement on patents in it's entirety may do so. There are a number of web sites the have the condensed version, but fewer that have the full letter. I consider this letter to be amazingly pertinent to the issue at hand, extremely well considered, and well worth the effort to read in its entirety
NO PATENTS ON IDEAS
_To Isaac McPherson_
_Monticello, August 13, 1813_
SIR, -- Your letter of August 3d asking information on the subject of Mr. Oliver Evans' exclusive right to the use of what he calls his Elevators, Conveyers, and Hopper-boys, has been duly received. My wish to see new inventions encouraged, and old ones brought again into useful notice, has made me regret the circumstances which have followed the expiration of his first patent. I did not expect the retrospection which has been given to the reviving law. For although the second proviso seemed not so clear as it ought to have been, yet it appeared susceptible of a just construction; and the retrospective one being contrary to natural right, it was understood to be a rule of law that where the words of a statute admit of two constructions, the one just and the other unjust, the former is to be given them. The first proviso takes care of those who had lawfully used Evans' improvements under the first patent; the second was meant for those who had lawfully erected and used them after that patent expired, declaring they "should not be liable to damages therefore." These words may indeed be restrained to uses already past, but as there is parity of reason for those to come, there should be parity of law. Every man should be protected in his lawful acts, and be certain that no _ex post facto_ law shall punish or endamage him for them. But he is endamaged, if forbidden to use a machine lawfully erected, at considerable expense, unless he will pay a new and unexpected price for it. The proviso says that he who erected and used lawfully should not be liable to pay damages. But if the proviso had been omitted, would not the law, construed by natural equity, have said the same thing. In truth both provisos are useless. And shall useless provisos, inserted _pro majori cautela_ only, authorize inferences against justice? The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right, is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong. Nor ought it to be presumed that the legislature meant to use a phrase in an unjustifiable sense, if by rules of construction it can be ever strained to what is just. The law books abound with similar instances of the care the judges take of the public integrity. Laws, moreover, abridging the natural right of the citizen, should be restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits.
Your letter, however, points to a much broader question, whether what have received from Mr. Evans the new and proper name of Elevators, are of his invention. Because, if they are not, his patent gives him no right to obstruct others in the use of what they possessed before. I assume it is a Lemma, that it is the invention of the machine itself, which is to give a patent right, and not the application of it to any particular purpose, of which it is susceptible. If one person invents a knife convenient for pointing our pens, another cannot have a patent right for the same knife to point our pencils. A compass was invented for navigating the sea; another could not have a patent right for using it to survey land. A machine for threshing _wheat_ has been invented in Scotland; a second person cannot get a patent right for the same machine to thresh _oats_, a third _rye_, a fourth _peas_, a fifth _clover_, &c. A string of buckets is invented and used for raising water, ore, &c., can a second have a patent right to the same machine for raising wheat, a third oats, a fourth rye, a fifth peas, &c? The question then whether such a string of buckets was invented first by Oliver Evans, is a mere question of fact in mathematical history. Now, turning to such books only as I happen to possess, I find abundant proof that this simple machinery has been in use from time immemorial. Doctor Shaw, who visited Egypt and the Barbary coast in the years 1727-8-9, in the margin of his map of Egypt, gives us the figure of what he calls a Persian wheel, which is a string of round cups or buckets hanging on a pully, over which they revolved, bringing up water from a well and delivering it into a trough above. He found this used at Cairo, in a well 264 feet deep, which the inhabitants believe to have been the work of the patriarch Joseph. Shaw's travels, 341, Oxford edition of 1738 in folio, and the Universal History, I. 416, speaking of the manner of watering the higher lands of Egypt, says, "formerly they made use of Archimedes's screw, thence named the Egyptian pump, but they now generally use wheels (wallowers) which carry a rope or chain of earthen pots holding about seven or eight quarts apiece, and draw the water from the canals. There are besides a vast number of wells in Egypt, from which the water is drawn in the same manner to water the gardens and fruit trees; so that it is no exaggeration to say, that there are in Egypt above 200,000 oxen daily employed in this labor." Shaw's name of Persian wheel has been since given more particularly to a wheel with buckets, either fixed or suspended on pins, at its periphery. Mortimer's husbandry, I. 18, Duhamel III. II., Ferguson's Mechanic's plate, XIII; but his figure, and the verbal description of the Universal History, prove that the string of buckets is meant under that name. His figure differs from Evans' construction in the circumstances of the buckets being round, and strung through their bottom on a chain. But it is the principle, to wit, a string of buckets, which constitutes the invention, not the form of the buckets, round, square, or hexagon; nor the manner of attaching them, nor the material of the connecting band, whether chain, rope, or leather. Vitruvius, L. x. c. 9, describes this machinery as a windlass, on which is a chain descending to the water, with vessels of copper attached to it; the windlass being turned, the chain moving on it will raise the vessel, which in passing over the windlass will empty the water they have brought up into a reservoir. And Perrault, in his edition of Vitruvius, Paris, 1684, fol. plates 61, 62, gives us three forms of these water elevators, in one of which the buckets are square, as Mr. Evans' are. Bossut, Histoire de Mathematiques, i. 86, says, "the drum wheel, the wheel with buckets and the _Chapelets_, are hydraulic machines which come to us from the ancients. But we are ignorant of the time when they began to be put into use." The _Chapelets_ are the revolving bands of the buckets which Shaw calls the Persian wheel, the moderns a chain-pump, and Mr. Evans elevators. The next of my books in which I find these elevators is Wolf's Cours de Mathematiques, i. 370, and plate 1, Paris 1747, 8vo; here are two forms. In one of them the buckets are square, attached to two chains, passing over a cylinder or wallower at top, and under another at bottom, by which they are made to revolve. It is a nearly exact representation of Evans' Elevators. But a more exact one is to be seen in Desagulier's Experimental Philosophy, ii. plate 34; in the Encyclopedie de Diderot et D'Alembert, 8vo edition of Lansanne, 1st volume of plates in the four subscribed Hydraulique. Norie, is one where round eastern pots are tied by their collars between two endless ropes suspended on a revolving lantern or wallower. This is said to have been used for raising ore out of a mine. In a book which I do not possess, L'Architecture Hidraulique de Belidor, the 2d volume of which is said [De la Lande's continuation of Montuclas' Historie de Mathematiques, iii. 711] to contain a detail of all the pumps, ancient and modern, hydraulic machines, fountains, wells, &c, I have no doubt this Persian wheel, chain pump, chapelets, elevators, by whichever name you choose to call it, will be found in various forms. The last book I have to quote for it is Prony's Architecture Hydraulique i., Avertissement vii., and 648, 649, 650. In the latter of which passages he observes that the first idea which occurs for raising water is to lift it in a bucket by hand. When the water lies too deep to be reached by hand, the bucket is suspended by a chain and let down over a pulley or windlass. If it be desired to raise a continued stream of water, the simplest means which offers itself to the mind is to attach to an endless chain or cord a number of pots or buckets, so disposed that, the chain being suspended on a lanthorn or wallower above, and plunged in water below, the buckets may descend and ascend alternately, filling themselves at bottom and emptying at a certain height above, so as to give a constant stream. Some years
before the date of Mr. Evans' patent, a Mr. Martin of Caroline county in this State, constructed a drill-plough, in which he used the band of buckets for elevating the grain from the box into the funnel, which let them down into the furrow. He had bands with different sets of buckets adapted to the size of peas, of turnip seed, &c. I have used this machine for sowing Benni seed also, and propose to have a band of buckets for drilling Indian Corn, and another for wheat. Is it possible that in doing this I shall infringe Mr. Evans' patent? That I can be debarred of any use to which I might have applied my drill, when I bought it, by a patent issued after I bought it?
These verbal descriptions, applying so exactly to Mr. Evans' elevators, and the drawings exhibited to the eye, flash conviction both on reason and the senses that there is nothing new in these elevators but their being strung together on a strap of leather. If this strap of leather be an invention, entitling the inventor to a patent right, it can only extend to the strap, and the use of the string of buckets must remain free to be connected by chains, ropes, a strap of hempen girthing, or any other substance except leather. But, indeed, Mr. Martin had before used the strap of leather.
The screw of Archimedes is as ancient, at least, as the age of that mathematician, who died more than 2,000 years ago. Diodorus Siculus speaks of it, L. i., p. 21, and L. v., p. 217, of Stevens' edition of 1559, folio; and Vitruvius, xii. The cutting of its spiral worm into sections for conveying flour or grain, seems to have been an invention of Mr. Evans, and to be a fair subject of a patent right. But it cannot take away from others the use of Archimedes' screw with its perpetual spiral, for any purposes of which it is susceptible.
The hopper-boy is an useful machine, and so far as I know, original.
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured. Some, however, were established by that board. One of these was, that a machine of which we were possessed, might be applied by every man to any use of which it is susceptible, and that this right ought not to be taken from him and given to a monopolist, because the first perhaps had occasion so to apply it. Thus a screw for crushing plaster might be employed for crushing corn-cobs. And a chain-pump for raising water might be used for raising wheat: this being merely a change of application. Another rule was that a change of material should not give title to a patent. As the making a ploughshare of cast rather than of wrought iron; a comb of iron instead of horn or of ivory, or the connecting buckets by a band of leather rather than of hemp or iron. A third was that a mere change of form should give no right to a patent, as a high-quartered shoe instead of a low one; a round hat instead of a three-square; or a square bucket instead of a round one. But for this rule, all the changes of fashion in dress would have been under the tax of patentees. These were among the rules which the uniform decisions of the board had already established, and under each of them Mr. Evans' patent would have been refused. First, because it was a mere change of application of the chain-pump, from raising water to raise wheat. Secondly, because the using a leathern instead of a hempen band, was a mere change of material; and thirdly, square buckets instead of round, are only a change of form, and the ancient forms, too, appear to have been indifferently square or round. But there were still abundance of cases which could not be brought under rule, until they should have presented themselves under all their aspects; and these investigations occupying more time of the members of the board than they could spare from higher duties, the whole was turned over to the judiciary, to be matured into a system, under which every one might know when his actions were safe and lawful. Instead of refusing a patent in the first instance, as the board was authorized to do, the patent now issues of course, subject to be declared void on such principles as should be established by the courts of law. This business, however, is but little analogous to their course of reading, since we might in vain turn over all the lubberly volumes of the law to find a single ray which would lighten the path of the mechanic or the mathematician. It is more within the information of a board of academical professors, and a previous refusal of patent would better guard our citizens against harrassment by law-suits. But England had given it to her judges, and the usual predominancy of her examples carried it to ours.
It happened that I had myself a mill built in the interval between Mr. Evans' first and second patents. I was living in Washington, and left the construction to the mill-wright. I did not even know he had erected elevators, conveyers and hopper-boys, until I learnt it by an application from Mr. Evans' agent for the patent price. Although I had no idea he had a right to it by law, (for no judicial decision had then been given,) yet I did not hesitate to remit to Mr. Evans the old and moderate patent price, which was what he then asked, from a wish to encourage even the useful revival of ancient inventions. But I then expressed my opinion of the law in a letter, either to Mr. Evans or to his agent.
I have thus, Sir, at your request, given you the facts and ideas which occur to me on this subject. I have done it without reserve, although I have not the pleasure of knowing you personally. In thus frankly committing myself to you, I trust you will feel it as a point of honor and candor, to make no use of my letter which might bring disquietude on myself. And particularly, I should be unwilling to be brought into any difference with Mr. Evans, whom, however, I believe too reasonable to take offence at an honest difference of opinion. I esteem him much, and sincerely wish him wealth and honor. I deem him a valuable citizen, of uncommon ingenuity and usefulness. And had I not esteemed still more the establishment of sound principles, I should now have been silent. If any of the matter I have offered can promote that object, I have no objection to its being so used; if it offers nothing new, it will of course not be used at all. I have gone with some minuteness into the mathematical history of the elevator, because it belongs to a branch of science in which, as I have before observed, it is not incumbent on lawyers to be learned; and it is possible, therefore, that some of the proofs I have quoted may have escaped on their former arguments. On the law of the subject I should not have touched, because more familiar to those who have already discussed it; but I wished to state my own view of it merely in justification of myself, my name and approbation being subscribed to the act. With these explanations, accept the assurance of my respect.
Let's see... You believe in moderation in all things, thus necessarily you believe in moderating moderation, as moderation itself is a thing.
But, to moderate moderation yields immoderation by definition. Thus, in at least one case you believe in immoderation, thus contradicting your original statement.
Ergo, your original statement is self-contradictory due to the fact that it's self-referential, and thus a semantic paradox. We therefore must conclude that the phrase "moderation in all things' is nonsensical, and thus useless in a rational dialog.
Sorry, but I've been itching to post on this topic for some time.:{D
Re:parent article correct (Score:1) by Mr_Matt on Tuesday May 28, @02:16PM (#3596466) (User #225037 Info) ""While Venus has an exposed surface area that is 0.9 times that of Earth, it receives a flux density 1.93 times that of Earth, thus as 1.93 * 0.9 = 1.74 then Venus receives ~ 3/4 more energy from the Sun than does the Earth." ...at top-of-atmosphere. You're still not accounting for the fact that the Venusian albedo is 0.65 - nearly twice that of the Earth (albedo = 0.37). Reflected solar energy does not contribute to the radiative balance of an atmosphere."
Let's look at your argument. You state that the Venusian albedo is near twice that of Earth, and thus makes a significant contribution to the greenhouse effect on Venus. Therefore, for the Earth to develop the sort of greenhouse effect that is present on Venus it would have to develop an albedo at greater than that of Venus, given Venusian TOA solar flux is ~3/4ths greater that the Terrestrial TOA solar flux.
Beyond that there is the question of atmospheric genesis. That Venus has an albedo ~twice that of Earth manifestly demonstrates divergent atmospheric evolutions. The differentiation in the magnitude of the solar flux at 0.72 vs. 1.00 AU in this divergence of atmospheric genesis is necessarily a first order factor. In the early solar system planetary bodies were very much hotter that they currently are. Ergo, the higher solar flux at 0.72 AU in ALL likelihood had a VERY significant impact on the chemical genesis of the Venusian atmosphere.
This leaves us with the real question here.
Can anthropogenic greenhouse gasses effect the chemical composition of the Terrestrial atmosphere to the degree that its composition reflects (;D) that of the Venusian atmosphere.
My answer to this question is that the potency of the differential in the solar flux between 0.72 AU, and 1.00 AU, combined with the residual heat of formation of planetary bodies in the early solar system differs by orders of magnitude from that of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in effecting the chemical composition of the respective atmospheres of Earth, and Venus, and thus the respective albedos.
"You forgot to mention that Venus is smaller - it's mean radius is some 300km less than that of the Earth's. By my calculations, it therefore intercepts by area only 90% of what the Earth receives."
Correct.
A(sphere) = 4pi r**2
Ergo 1/2 A(sphere) would yield the surface area of a planet that would be exposed to solar radiation. Thus, given r(Earth) = 12750/2 km, and r(Venus) = 12100/2 km then the surface area of Venus exposed to solar radiation would indeed be ~90% of the surface area of Earth exposed to solar radiation.
However, I made a typo on the calculator and got a solar flux density for Venus that was 30% of the solar flux density of Earth. This is incorrect. Venus actually has a solar flux density that is ~193% of that of Earth, i.e. nearly twice that of Earth.
Using the inverse square law: flux density = 1/r**2, then given that Venus is a distance of 0.72 AU from the Sun then the solar flux density for Venus is:
1/(0.72)**2 = 1/0.518 = 1.929 i.e. near twice that of Earth.
To conclude: While Venus has an exposed surface area that is 0.9 times that of Earth, it receives a flux density 1.93 times that of Earth, thus as 1.93 * 0.9 = 1.74 then Venus receives ~ 3/4 more energy from the Sun than does the Earth.
Works great if you're on Venus, BOTOH Venus has the most circular orbit of any planet in the Solar System not an insignificant factor.
More importantly Venus lies at a distance of 0.72 AU from the Sun. Thus with the inverse square law Venus receives approximately 1.3 times as much energy as the Earth, i.e. 30% more energy from the Sun as the Earth. This is VERY significantly in the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.
Trying to assert that any build up of greenhouse gases on Earth due to humanity will cause Earth to develop anything remotely like the atmospheric conditions on Venus in complete nonsense.
"some classrooms at Bentley have technology that allows teachers to capture a student's e-mails or instant messages and display them on a large screen for the whole class to see."
Some student with PhotoShop will quickly put an end to this sort of thing.
Some sicko porn JPEG, a JPEG of the profs head, a bit of morphing = counter-embarrassment.
It seems to me that the simplest way to get around hardware based key loggers is to pull the hard drive/s from the old computer, and install it/them into a new computer. If the hard drive/s that contain the important data contained only said data then any additional code that was added to the hard drive would be fairly easy to detect.
If there were some concern that there was some sort of hardware based key logger attached to the hard drive then when you got the drive/s back transfer the data to a new hard drive/s, and slag the old drive/s.
Let's see if we can come to agreement about the word 'Nip.'
The word 'Jap' is without question a racial slur. It's rare (at least in my experience) to hear someone use 'Nip' in referring to the Japanese in general, rather it (the word Nip) is almost exclusively used as a reference by American Military, and Naval forces to their enemy in the Pacific during WW-II. Please, note that the enemy was not the Japanese, the people of Japan, but rather the Imperium of Dai Nippon.
Thus, to refer to an aircraft as being 'Nip' is the same as referring to a tank as being a kraut tank. I know of no one that would take such usage as being racist, as it is understood that the context alone indicates that the the word 'kraut' is a reference to the Third Reich, and Nazism.
To recap: Nip is to the Imperium of Dai Nippon, what 'Kraut,' or 'Jerry' is the the Third Reich of Nazi Germany.
>Second, if you're going to insult the Japanese by calling them "Nips" , you'd better be ready to be called a "redneck", "hick", or even a "yankee" (an ironic insult, I guess). From my experience, un-PC types are quite surprised to learn that it goes both ways ("What, you mean those red/brown/black folk can call us names too?"). Get used to it.
As stated before I was not referring to the Japanese per se, but rather to something very closely associated with ***IMPERIAL DAI NIPPON.***
I recommend that you reevaluate you hyper-sensitive PC proclivities, and consider the --now let's all say it-- CONTEXT in which a word is used, prior to posting sanctimonious Charlie Sierra.
>If this were actually 1941, maybe you could get away with using the word "Nips", but it's not. When was the last time you heard a historian use the word "Nigger"? Never, because they know that they're talking about history, not trying to pretend that they're actually in the past.
My statement about "Nip aircraft" was no different that historian referring to U-571, or whatever as a Nazi submarine. To refer to something as Nazi, or Fascist is in no way a denigration, respectively, of things German, or Italian, or Spanish. In the same vain; to refer to something as being Nip, or to someone as being a Nip is to identify that thing, or person as have a very close association with the IMPERIAL military, or naval forces of IMPERIAL DAI NIPPON, or to identify it, or them as being very closely associated with the pro-war faction of *Imperial Dai Nippon*.
>I think you're misusing the word "context". You're alive and talking in the present, about a movie which was released in the last few days.
No I did not misuse the word 'context,' indeed I used it in the grammatical correct (GC) sense. Second, while I am alive I was not talking in the present, I was at that time *writing* in the present. My post dealt -directly-- with the actual facts of the Imperial Japanese Navy's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and only indirectly with the newly released movie 'Pearl Harbor.' You should note that I did not call any person a 'Nip,' but rather referred to an aircraft as being 'Nip,' which is to say that I identified the aircraft that were shot down by Welch, and Taylor as belong to the *Imperial Japanese Navy*.
Slashdot Mirror
Faulty logic indeed...
y cl e.html
l e. html
However, the faulty logic is on your part not mine. You have engaged in the non-formal inductive fallacy of semantic confusion. Whereas, I was using the more colloquial definition of 'efficiency'' i.e. mpg, you used a more technical thermodynamic definition of 'efficiency'' i.e. nu (the greek letter). See:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DieselC
and
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/OttoCyc
Further, the use of supercharging, or turbo-charging will cause an increase in the efficiency of either the Otto, or Diesel cycle. Not to mention that the Miller Cycle depends on supercharging.
Given the *context* of the post that I was responding to, it should have been manifest that the efficiency that I was referring to was miles (km) per gallon (l).
"I thought that gasoline had the highest energy density than any other fossil fuel, way more than natural gas."
Nope. Diesel has a greater density than gasoline, and thus that is why Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.
"Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. On average, 1 gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 155x106 joules (147,000 BTU), while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 132x106 joules (125,000 BTU). This, combined with the improved efficiency of diesel engines, explains why diesel engines get better mileage than equivalent gasoline engines. "--www.howitworks.com
"What is it with texas these days ? /. seems to measure anything extraterestrial in STU (Standard Texas Units)."
/., I did a search for Texas via the World Factbook here's what I got:
Query: Is the STU based on The State of Texas, or The Republic of Texas? The Republic was 1/3rd larger than the State is.
Dude, it's not just
Search Results for "Texas"
1) Botswana. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km land: 585,370 sq km water: 15,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,013 km border countries: Namibia 1,360 km,...
2) Central African Republic. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km land: 622,984 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,203 km border countries: Cameroon 797 km, Chad...
3) Niger. The World Factbook. 2001
...1,266,700 sq km water: 300 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,697 km border countries: Algeria 956 km,...
4) Greenland. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km ice-covered) (est.) Area -- comparative: slightly more than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: 0 km Coastline: 44,087 km Maritime claims: continental...
5) Burma. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km land: 657,740 sq km water: 20,760 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,876 km border countries: Bangladesh 193 km,...
6) Mexico. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km water: 49,510 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,538 km border countries: Belize 250 km, Guatemala...
7) Afghanistan. The World Factbook. 2001
...647,500 sq km land: 647,500 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,529 km border countries: China 76 km, Iran...
8) Zambia. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km land: 740,724 sq km water: 11,890 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly larger than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,664 km border countries: Angola 1,110 km, Democratic...
9) Mali. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km water: 20,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 7,243 km border countries: Algeria 1,376 km, Burkina...
10) Angola. The World Factbook. 2001
...1,246,700 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,198 km border countries: Democratic Republic...
11) Ukraine. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km land: 603,700 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,558 km border countries: Belarus 891 km, Hungary...
12) Algeria. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than 3.5 times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 6,343 km border countries: Libya 982 km, Mali 1,376...
13) Indonesia. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km water: 93,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,602 km border countries: Malaysia 1,782 km,...
14) South Africa. The World Factbook. 2001
...Island and Prince Edward Island) Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,750 km border countries: Botswana 1,840...
15) Turkey. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km land: 770,760 sq km water: 9,820 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly larger than Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,627 km border countries: Armenia 268 km, Azerbaijan...
16) Ethiopia. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km water: 7,444 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,311 km border countries: Djibouti 337 km, Eritrea...
17) Kazakhstan. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km water: 47,500 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than four times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 12,012 km border countries: China 1,533 km,...
18) Somalia. The World Factbook. 2001
...sq km land: 627,337 sq km water: 10,320 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,366 km border countries: Djibouti 58 km, Ethiopia...
"It's All About The Pentiums" baby...
Blast! Posted the previous message as HTML, Bad Dawg! My apologies... To the powers that B for /. Please feel free to deleat the above post.
"What is it with texas these days ? ./ seems to measure anything extraterestrial in STU (Standard Texas Units)."
Dude, it's not just /., I did a search for Texas via the World Factbook here's what I got:
Search Results for "Texas"
1) Botswana. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 585,370 sq km water: 15,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,013 km border countries: Namibia 1,360 km,...
2) Central African Republic. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 622,984 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,203 km border countries: Cameroon 797 km, Chad...
3) Niger. The World Factbook. 2001 ...1,266,700 sq km water: 300 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,697 km border countries: Algeria 956 km,...
4) Greenland. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km ice-covered) (est.) Area -- comparative: slightly more than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: 0 km Coastline: 44,087 km Maritime claims: continental...
5) Burma. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 657,740 sq km water: 20,760 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,876 km border countries: Bangladesh 193 km,...
6) Mexico. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 49,510 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,538 km border countries: Belize 250 km, Guatemala...
7) Afghanistan. The World Factbook. 2001 ...647,500 sq km land: 647,500 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,529 km border countries: China 76 km, Iran...
8) Zambia. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 740,724 sq km water: 11,890 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly larger than Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,664 km border countries: Angola 1,110 km, Democratic...
9) Mali. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 20,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 7,243 km border countries: Algeria 1,376 km, Burkina...
10) Angola. The World Factbook. 2001 ...1,246,700 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,198 km border countries: Democratic Republic...
11) Ukraine. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 603,700 sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,558 km border countries: Belarus 891 km, Hungary...
12) Algeria. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 0 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than 3.5 times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 6,343 km border countries: Libya 982 km, Mali 1,376...
13) Indonesia. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 93,000 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than three times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,602 km border countries: Malaysia 1,782 km,...
14) South Africa. The World Factbook. 2001 ...Island and Prince Edward Island) Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 4,750 km border countries: Botswana 1,840...
15) Turkey. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 770,760 sq km water: 9,820 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly larger than Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,627 km border countries: Armenia 268 km, Azerbaijan...
16) Ethiopia. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 7,444 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than twice the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 5,311 km border countries: Djibouti 337 km, Eritrea...
17) Kazakhstan. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km water: 47,500 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly less than four times the size of Texas Land boundaries: total: 12,012 km border countries: China 1,533 km,...
18) Somalia. The World Factbook. 2001 ...sq km land: 627,337 sq km water: 10,320 sq km Area -- comparative: slightly smaller than Texas Land boundaries: total: 2,366 km border countries: Djibouti 58 km, Ethiopia...
Arrrrrgh! No! no! no!
Mr. Ebert confused the speed of the shadow of an object on Earth with the speed of the Earths Terminator.
Here's my e-mail to Mr. Ebert...
Mr. Ebert recently wrote in his review of THE MUMMY RETURNS:
"4. I have written before of the ability of movie characters to outrun fireballs. In "The Mummy Returns," there is a more amazing feat. If the rising sun touches little Alex while he is wearing the magical bracelet, he will die (it is written). But Rick, carrying Alex in his arms, is able to outrace the sunrise; we see the line of sunlight moving on the ground right behind them. It is written by Eratosthenes that the Earth is about 25,000 miles around, and since there are 24 hours in a day, Rick was running approximately 1,041 miles an hour."
Mr. Ebert is in error.
Mr. Ebert has over-simplified the geometry, and physics of the velocity of shadows generated by the Sun.
While it is true that the Earth's rotates with an angular velocity of ~7.29e-5, and thus has a tangental rotational velocity of ~1041 mph, it is manifestly untrue that a shadow cast by mountains, canyon walls, etc. also travel at 1041 mph.
The velocity of the shadow is a function of not only the Earth's angular velocity, but also of the hight of the object, the time of day, as well as the time of year.
Consider the shadow cast by a flag pole. The length of the shadow is infinite at sunrise, but at local noon it will be at minimum at local noon. If the pole is located along the equator, and it's an equinox the the shadow will have a length of zero. Thus in six hours the shadow will have gone from infinitely long to infinitely short, thus having an average velocity that is infinite. (It is written by Zeno of Elea) A second example may serve to make my point a bit better. Consider the same day, and the same flag pole, but this time let us stipulate that the flag pole is 100 feet tall. As 09:00 local time the Sun will be 45 degrees above the horizon therefore the shadow will be 100 feet long as the oppsite, and adjacent sides of a 45 degree right triangle are equal. Thus, in the three hours between 09:00, and 12:00 local time the shadow of the flag pole will have moved 100 feet. Thus, the average speed at which the shadow will move in this period will be 100 feet / 3hours = 33.33... feet per hour, or ~0.0063131313... mph. Manifestly, this is very much less that 1041 mph.
I post this--I know it's long--so that those that have never read Jefferson's most famous statement on patents in it's entirety may do so. There are a number of web sites the have the condensed version, but fewer that have the full letter. I consider this letter to be amazingly pertinent to the issue at hand, extremely well considered, and well worth the effort to read in its entirety
NO PATENTS ON IDEAS
_To Isaac McPherson_
_Monticello, August 13, 1813_
SIR, -- Your letter of August 3d asking information on the
subject of Mr. Oliver Evans' exclusive right to the use of what he
calls his Elevators, Conveyers, and Hopper-boys, has been duly
received. My wish to see new inventions encouraged, and old ones
brought again into useful notice, has made me regret the
circumstances which have followed the expiration of his first patent.
I did not expect the retrospection which has been given to the
reviving law. For although the second proviso seemed not so clear as
it ought to have been, yet it appeared susceptible of a just
construction; and the retrospective one being contrary to natural
right, it was understood to be a rule of law that where the words of
a statute admit of two constructions, the one just and the other
unjust, the former is to be given them. The first proviso takes care
of those who had lawfully used Evans' improvements under the first
patent; the second was meant for those who had lawfully erected and
used them after that patent expired, declaring they "should not be
liable to damages therefore." These words may indeed be restrained to
uses already past, but as there is parity of reason for those to
come, there should be parity of law. Every man should be protected
in his lawful acts, and be certain that no _ex post facto_ law shall
punish or endamage him for them. But he is endamaged, if forbidden
to use a machine lawfully erected, at considerable expense, unless he
will pay a new and unexpected price for it. The proviso says that he
who erected and used lawfully should not be liable to pay damages.
But if the proviso had been omitted, would not the law, construed by
natural equity, have said the same thing. In truth both provisos are
useless. And shall useless provisos, inserted _pro majori cautela_
only, authorize inferences against justice? The sentiment that
ex post facto laws are against natural right, is so strong in the
United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have
failed to proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed interdicts
them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as
in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have
been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong. Nor ought it
to be presumed that the legislature meant to use a phrase in an
unjustifiable sense, if by rules of construction it can be ever
strained to what is just. The law books abound with similar
instances of the care the judges take of the public integrity. Laws,
moreover, abridging the natural right of the citizen, should be
restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits.
Your letter, however, points to a much broader question,
whether what have received from Mr. Evans the new and proper name of
Elevators, are of his invention. Because, if they are not, his
patent gives him no right to obstruct others in the use of what they
possessed before. I assume it is a Lemma, that it is the invention
of the machine itself, which is to give a patent right, and not the
application of it to any particular purpose, of which it is
susceptible. If one person invents a knife convenient for pointing
our pens, another cannot have a patent right for the same knife to
point our pencils. A compass was invented for navigating the sea;
another could not have a patent right for using it to survey land. A
machine for threshing _wheat_ has been invented in Scotland; a second
person cannot get a patent right for the same machine to thresh
_oats_, a third _rye_, a fourth _peas_, a fifth _clover_, &c. A
string of buckets is invented and used for raising water, ore, &c.,
can a second have a patent right to the same machine for raising
wheat, a third oats, a fourth rye, a fifth peas, &c? The question
then whether such a string of buckets was invented first by Oliver
Evans, is a mere question of fact in mathematical history. Now,
turning to such books only as I happen to possess, I find abundant
proof that this simple machinery has been in use from time
immemorial. Doctor Shaw, who visited Egypt and the Barbary coast in
the years 1727-8-9, in the margin of his map of Egypt, gives us the
figure of what he calls a Persian wheel, which is a string of round
cups or buckets hanging on a pully, over which they revolved,
bringing up water from a well and delivering it into a trough above.
He found this used at Cairo, in a well 264 feet deep, which the
inhabitants believe to have been the work of the patriarch Joseph.
Shaw's travels, 341, Oxford edition of 1738 in folio, and the
Universal History, I. 416, speaking of the manner of watering the
higher lands of Egypt, says, "formerly they made use of Archimedes's
screw, thence named the Egyptian pump, but they now generally use
wheels (wallowers) which carry a rope or chain of earthen pots
holding about seven or eight quarts apiece, and draw the water from
the canals. There are besides a vast number of wells in Egypt, from
which the water is drawn in the same manner to water the gardens and
fruit trees; so that it is no exaggeration to say, that there are in
Egypt above 200,000 oxen daily employed in this labor." Shaw's name
of Persian wheel has been since given more particularly to a wheel
with buckets, either fixed or suspended on pins, at its periphery.
Mortimer's husbandry, I. 18, Duhamel III. II., Ferguson's Mechanic's
plate, XIII; but his figure, and the verbal description of the
Universal History, prove that the string of buckets is meant under
that name. His figure differs from Evans' construction in the
circumstances of the buckets being round, and strung through their
bottom on a chain. But it is the principle, to wit, a string of
buckets, which constitutes the invention, not the form of the
buckets, round, square, or hexagon; nor the manner of attaching them,
nor the material of the connecting band, whether chain, rope, or
leather. Vitruvius, L. x. c. 9, describes this machinery as a
windlass, on which is a chain descending to the water, with vessels
of copper attached to it; the windlass being turned, the chain moving
on it will raise the vessel, which in passing over the windlass will
empty the water they have brought up into a reservoir. And Perrault,
in his edition of Vitruvius, Paris, 1684, fol. plates 61, 62, gives
us three forms of these water elevators, in one of which the buckets
are square, as Mr. Evans' are. Bossut, Histoire de Mathematiques, i.
86, says, "the drum wheel, the wheel with buckets and the
_Chapelets_, are hydraulic machines which come to us from the
ancients. But we are ignorant of the time when they began to be put
into use." The _Chapelets_ are the revolving bands of the buckets
which Shaw calls the Persian wheel, the moderns a chain-pump, and Mr.
Evans elevators. The next of my books in which I find these
elevators is Wolf's Cours de Mathematiques, i. 370, and plate 1,
Paris 1747, 8vo; here are two forms. In one of them the buckets are
square, attached to two chains, passing over a cylinder or wallower
at top, and under another at bottom, by which they are made to
revolve. It is a nearly exact representation of Evans' Elevators.
But a more exact one is to be seen in Desagulier's Experimental
Philosophy, ii. plate 34; in the Encyclopedie de Diderot et
D'Alembert, 8vo edition of Lansanne, 1st volume of plates in the four
subscribed Hydraulique. Norie, is one where round eastern pots are
tied by their collars between two endless ropes suspended on a
revolving lantern or wallower. This is said to have been used for
raising ore out of a mine. In a book which I do not possess,
L'Architecture Hidraulique de Belidor, the 2d volume of which is said
[De la Lande's continuation of Montuclas' Historie de Mathematiques,
iii. 711] to contain a detail of all the pumps, ancient and modern,
hydraulic machines, fountains, wells, &c, I have no doubt this
Persian wheel, chain pump, chapelets, elevators, by whichever name
you choose to call it, will be found in various forms. The last book
I have to quote for it is Prony's Architecture Hydraulique i.,
Avertissement vii., and 648, 649, 650. In the latter of which
passages he observes that the first idea which occurs for raising
water is to lift it in a bucket by hand. When the water lies too
deep to be reached by hand, the bucket is suspended by a chain and
let down over a pulley or windlass. If it be desired to raise a
continued stream of water, the simplest means which offers itself to
the mind is to attach to an endless chain or cord a number of pots or
buckets, so disposed that, the chain being suspended on a lanthorn or
wallower above, and plunged in water below, the buckets may descend
and ascend alternately, filling themselves at bottom and emptying at
a certain height above, so as to give a constant stream. Some years
before the date of Mr. Evans' patent, a Mr. Martin of Caroline county
in this State, constructed a drill-plough, in which he used the band
of buckets for elevating the grain from the box into the funnel,
which let them down into the furrow. He had bands with different
sets of buckets adapted to the size of peas, of turnip seed, &c. I
have used this machine for sowing Benni seed also, and propose to
have a band of buckets for drilling Indian Corn, and another for
wheat. Is it possible that in doing this I shall infringe Mr. Evans'
patent? That I can be debarred of any use to which I might have
applied my drill, when I bought it, by a patent issued after I bought
it?
These verbal descriptions, applying so exactly to Mr. Evans'
elevators, and the drawings exhibited to the eye, flash conviction
both on reason and the senses that there is nothing new in these
elevators but their being strung together on a strap of leather. If
this strap of leather be an invention, entitling the inventor to a
patent right, it can only extend to the strap, and the use of the
string of buckets must remain free to be connected by chains, ropes,
a strap of hempen girthing, or any other substance except leather.
But, indeed, Mr. Martin had before used the strap of leather.
The screw of Archimedes is as ancient, at least, as the age of
that mathematician, who died more than 2,000 years ago. Diodorus
Siculus speaks of it, L. i., p. 21, and L. v., p. 217, of Stevens'
edition of 1559, folio; and Vitruvius, xii. The cutting of its
spiral worm into sections for conveying flour or grain, seems to have
been an invention of Mr. Evans, and to be a fair subject of a patent
right. But it cannot take away from others the use of Archimedes'
screw with its perpetual spiral, for any purposes of which it is
susceptible.
The hopper-boy is an useful machine, and so far as I know,
original.
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,)
that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their
inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to
their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of
any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be
singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to
inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the
subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate
property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law,
indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men
equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who
occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property
goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is
given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if
an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of
natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If
nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps
it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into
the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess
himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses
the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who
receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light
without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to
another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man,
and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and
benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire,
expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any
point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our
physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society
may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an
encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but
this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of
the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly,
it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until
wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law,
gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other
countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and
personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought
that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to
society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse
monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful
devices.
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of
natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the
difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to
the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which
are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while
the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with
what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured. Some,
however, were established by that board. One of these was, that a
machine of which we were possessed, might be applied by every man to
any use of which it is susceptible, and that this right ought not to
be taken from him and given to a monopolist, because the first
perhaps had occasion so to apply it. Thus a screw for crushing
plaster might be employed for crushing corn-cobs. And a chain-pump
for raising water might be used for raising wheat: this being merely
a change of application. Another rule was that a change of material
should not give title to a patent. As the making a ploughshare of
cast rather than of wrought iron; a comb of iron instead of horn or
of ivory, or the connecting buckets by a band of leather rather than
of hemp or iron. A third was that a mere change of form should give
no right to a patent, as a high-quartered shoe instead of a low one;
a round hat instead of a three-square; or a square bucket instead of
a round one. But for this rule, all the changes of fashion in dress
would have been under the tax of patentees. These were among the
rules which the uniform decisions of the board had already
established, and under each of them Mr. Evans' patent would have been
refused. First, because it was a mere change of application of the
chain-pump, from raising water to raise wheat. Secondly, because the
using a leathern instead of a hempen band, was a mere change of
material; and thirdly, square buckets instead of round, are only a
change of form, and the ancient forms, too, appear to have been
indifferently square or round. But there were still abundance of
cases which could not be brought under rule, until they should have
presented themselves under all their aspects; and these
investigations occupying more time of the members of the board than
they could spare from higher duties, the whole was turned over to the
judiciary, to be matured into a system, under which every one might
know when his actions were safe and lawful. Instead of refusing a
patent in the first instance, as the board was authorized to do, the
patent now issues of course, subject to be declared void on such
principles as should be established by the courts of law. This
business, however, is but little analogous to their course of
reading, since we might in vain turn over all the lubberly volumes of
the law to find a single ray which would lighten the path of the
mechanic or the mathematician. It is more within the information of
a board of academical professors, and a previous refusal of patent
would better guard our citizens against harrassment by law-suits.
But England had given it to her judges, and the usual predominancy of
her examples carried it to ours.
It happened that I had myself a mill built in the interval
between Mr. Evans' first and second patents. I was living in
Washington, and left the construction to the mill-wright. I did not
even know he had erected elevators, conveyers and hopper-boys, until
I learnt it by an application from Mr. Evans' agent for the patent
price. Although I had no idea he had a right to it by law, (for no
judicial decision had then been given,) yet I did not hesitate to
remit to Mr. Evans the old and moderate patent price, which was what
he then asked, from a wish to encourage even the useful revival of
ancient inventions. But I then expressed my opinion of the law in a
letter, either to Mr. Evans or to his agent.
I have thus, Sir, at your request, given you the facts and
ideas which occur to me on this subject. I have done it without
reserve, although I have not the pleasure of knowing you personally.
In thus frankly committing myself to you, I trust you will feel it as
a point of honor and candor, to make no use of my letter which might
bring disquietude on myself. And particularly, I should be unwilling
to be brought into any difference with Mr. Evans, whom, however, I
believe too reasonable to take offence at an honest difference of
opinion. I esteem him much, and sincerely wish him wealth and honor.
I deem him a valuable citizen, of uncommon ingenuity and usefulness.
And had I not esteemed still more the establishment of sound
principles, I should now have been silent. If any of the matter I
have offered can promote that object, I have no objection to its
being so used; if it offers nothing new, it will of course not be
used at all. I have gone with some minuteness into the mathematical
history of the elevator, because it belongs to a branch of science in
which, as I have before observed, it is not incumbent on lawyers to
be learned; and it is possible, therefore, that some of the proofs I
have quoted may have escaped on their former arguments. On the law
of the subject I should not have touched, because more familiar to
those who have already discussed it; but I wished to state my own
view of it merely in justification of myself, my name and approbation
being subscribed to the act. With these explanations, accept the
assurance of my respect.
TI-86---Bah humbug!
Make mine a HP-15C...
RPN (slide)RULES!!!
"Moderation in all things--..."
:{D
Let's see...
You believe in moderation in all things, thus necessarily you believe in moderating moderation, as moderation itself is a thing.
But, to moderate moderation yields immoderation by definition.
Thus, in at least one case you believe in immoderation, thus contradicting your original statement.
Ergo, your original statement is self-contradictory due to the fact that it's self-referential, and thus a semantic paradox. We therefore must conclude that the phrase "moderation in all things' is nonsensical, and thus useless in a rational dialog.
Sorry, but I've been itching to post on this topic for some time.
Re:parent article correct (Score:1)
by Mr_Matt on Tuesday May 28, @02:16PM (#3596466)
(User #225037 Info)
""While Venus has an exposed surface area that is 0.9 times that of Earth, it receives a flux density 1.93 times that of Earth, thus as 1.93 * 0.9 = 1.74 then Venus receives ~ 3/4 more energy from the Sun than does the Earth."
...at top-of-atmosphere. You're still not accounting for the fact that the Venusian albedo is 0.65 - nearly twice that of the Earth (albedo = 0.37). Reflected solar energy does not contribute to the radiative balance of an atmosphere."
Let's look at your argument. You state that the Venusian albedo is near twice that of Earth, and thus makes a significant contribution to the greenhouse effect on Venus. Therefore, for the Earth to develop the sort of greenhouse effect that is present on Venus it would have to develop an albedo at greater than that of Venus, given Venusian TOA solar flux is ~3/4ths greater that the Terrestrial TOA solar flux.
Beyond that there is the question of atmospheric genesis. That Venus has an albedo ~twice that of Earth manifestly demonstrates divergent atmospheric evolutions. The differentiation in the magnitude of the solar flux at 0.72 vs. 1.00 AU in this divergence of atmospheric genesis is necessarily a first order factor. In the early solar system planetary bodies were very much hotter that they currently are. Ergo, the higher solar flux at 0.72 AU in ALL likelihood had a VERY significant impact on the chemical genesis of the Venusian atmosphere.
This leaves us with the real question here.
Can anthropogenic greenhouse gasses effect the chemical composition of the Terrestrial atmosphere to the degree that its composition reflects (;D) that of the Venusian atmosphere.
My answer to this question is that the potency of the differential in the solar flux between 0.72 AU, and 1.00 AU, combined with the residual heat of formation of planetary bodies in the early solar system differs by orders of magnitude from that of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in effecting the chemical composition of the respective atmospheres of Earth, and Venus, and thus the respective albedos.
"You forgot to mention that Venus is smaller - it's mean radius is some 300km less than that of the Earth's. By my calculations, it therefore intercepts by area only 90% of what the Earth receives."
Correct.
A(sphere) = 4pi r**2
Ergo 1/2 A(sphere) would yield the surface area of a planet that would be exposed to solar radiation.
Thus, given r(Earth) = 12750/2 km, and r(Venus) = 12100/2 km then the surface area of Venus exposed to solar radiation would indeed be ~90% of the surface area of Earth exposed to solar radiation.
However, I made a typo on the calculator and got a solar flux density for Venus that was 30% of the solar flux density of Earth. This is incorrect. Venus actually has a solar flux density that is ~193% of that of Earth, i.e. nearly twice that of Earth.
Using the inverse square law: flux density = 1/r**2, then given that Venus is a distance of 0.72 AU from the Sun then the solar flux density for Venus is:
1/(0.72)**2 = 1/0.518 = 1.929 i.e. near twice that of Earth.
To conclude:
While Venus has an exposed surface area that is 0.9 times that of Earth, it receives a flux density 1.93 times that of Earth, thus as 1.93 * 0.9 = 1.74 then Venus receives ~ 3/4 more energy from the Sun than does the Earth.
There is a word that many folk on /. are manifestly unfamiliar with. That word is, now let's all say it out loud, CONTEXT.
Any text book on algebra can seem to contradict itself if axioms, theorems, corollaries, etc. are taken out of CONTEXT.
"An sufficiently large body of statements can be shown to contradict itself when some of those statements are taken out of CONTEXT." -L.D. Luther
"Venusian feedback cycle" eh?
Works great if you're on Venus, BOTOH Venus has the most circular orbit of any planet in the Solar System not an insignificant factor.
More importantly Venus lies at a distance of 0.72 AU from the Sun. Thus with the inverse square law Venus receives approximately 1.3 times as much energy as the Earth, i.e. 30% more energy from the Sun as the Earth. This is VERY significantly in the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.
Trying to assert that any build up of greenhouse gases on Earth due to humanity will cause Earth to develop anything remotely like the atmospheric conditions on Venus in complete nonsense.
Ah, Snell!
Someone beat me to the punch!
Methinks -- that he confused moral decay with exponential decay...
"Just like Shatner's toupee..."
All to gather now...
(Sung to Prince's Raspberry Beret)
Shatner's scary toupee,
the kind that you get in a second hand store...
True, but contrary to the film it will not run on garbage, but rather a mixture of cold cream, and margarine. Ponds and Fleishman strike again!
"Ston, she is yours. You may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. This is not logical, but it is often true. -- Spock (Amok Time)
Yep, tis true the chem dudes were the ones to blame.
I was an undergrad at the time in the A&M physics department.
The profs in the physics dept. were kinda dubvious about the whole thing.
"some classrooms at Bentley have technology that allows teachers to capture a student's e-mails or instant messages and display them on a large screen for the whole class to see."
Some student with PhotoShop will quickly put an end to this sort of thing.
Some sicko porn JPEG, a JPEG of the profs head, a bit of morphing = counter-embarrassment.
It seems to me that the simplest way to get around hardware based key loggers is to pull the hard drive/s from the old computer, and install it/them into a new computer. If the hard drive/s that contain the important data contained only said data then any additional code that was added to the hard drive would be fairly easy to detect.
If there were some concern that there was some sort of hardware based key logger attached to the hard drive then when you got the drive/s back transfer the data to a new hard drive/s, and slag the old drive/s.
FWIW
Apology accepted.
Let's see if we can come to agreement about the word 'Nip.'
The word 'Jap' is without question a racial slur. It's rare (at least in my experience) to hear someone use 'Nip' in referring to the Japanese in general, rather it (the word Nip) is almost exclusively used as a reference by American Military, and Naval forces to their enemy in the Pacific during WW-II. Please, note that the enemy was not the Japanese, the people of Japan, but rather the Imperium of Dai Nippon.
Thus, to refer to an aircraft as being 'Nip' is the same as referring to a tank as being a kraut tank. I know of no one that would take such usage as being racist, as it is understood that the context alone indicates that the the word 'kraut' is a reference to the Third Reich, and Nazism.
To recap: Nip is to the Imperium of Dai Nippon, what 'Kraut,' or 'Jerry' is the the Third Reich of Nazi Germany.
>Second, if you're going to insult the Japanese by calling them "Nips" , you'd better be ready to be called a "redneck", "hick", or even a "yankee" (an ironic insult, I guess). From my experience, un-PC types are quite surprised to learn that it goes both ways ("What, you mean those red/brown/black folk can call us names too?"). Get used to it.
As stated before I was not referring to the Japanese per se, but rather to something very closely associated with ***IMPERIAL DAI NIPPON.***
I recommend that you reevaluate you hyper-sensitive PC proclivities, and consider the --now let's all say it-- CONTEXT in which a word is used, prior to posting sanctimonious Charlie Sierra.
>If this were actually 1941, maybe you could get away with using the word "Nips", but it's not. When was the last time you heard a historian use the word "Nigger"? Never, because they know that they're talking about history, not trying to pretend that they're actually in the past.
My statement about "Nip aircraft" was no different that historian referring to U-571, or whatever as a Nazi submarine. To refer to something as Nazi, or Fascist is in no way a denigration, respectively, of things German, or Italian, or Spanish. In the same vain; to refer to something as being Nip, or to someone as being a Nip is to identify that thing, or person as have a very close association with the IMPERIAL military, or naval forces of IMPERIAL DAI NIPPON, or to identify it, or them as being very closely associated with the pro-war faction of *Imperial Dai Nippon*.
>I think you're misusing the word "context". You're alive and talking in the present, about a movie which was released in the last few days.
No I did not misuse the word 'context,' indeed I used it in the grammatical correct (GC) sense. Second, while I am alive I was not talking in the present, I was at that time *writing* in the present. My post dealt -directly-- with the actual facts of the Imperial Japanese Navy's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and only indirectly with the newly released movie 'Pearl Harbor.' You should note that I did not call any person a 'Nip,' but rather referred to an aircraft as being 'Nip,' which is to say that I identified the aircraft that were shot down by Welch, and Taylor as belong to the *Imperial Japanese Navy*.