Note that I suggest using H2 for i.e. recombination of ferrous oxide (iron ore) in smelting instead of using CO for the same purpose. In the end, you have same amount of water you started with, but amount of oxygen released in the process of cracking water remains in atmosphere when oxygen from oxide reacts with hydrogen to recreate water. I was not commenting on using hydrogen as energy storage/transportation medium (fuel), that process is no doubt completely reversible, but I agree with TFA that it is impractical. There, I summarized my previous post:) .
Wind won't work outside of a very few areas that have the kinds of sustained winds to make it workable.
Why impose additional constraints on new solutions to old problems? Hydroelectric power also won't work outside a very few areas where there is enough water and elevation difference, coal thermoelectric plants are impractical outside areas where you can strip mine coal, nuclear fission power plant is not feasible where you don't have uranium available (or water for cooling for that matter, or where it is IMBY). All this "downsides" didn't stop us from building and using each one of them. Why should we now suddenly make such an exception for wind power plants only?
Ever heard of Niagara Falls hydroelectric plant and Nikola Tesla? Back then, the guy demonstrated that energy can be harvested in remote locations, then conducted to areas of deployment.
Unrelated to that, but similar in paradigmatic sense, note that petroleum is used throughout the world, even though it is obtained only from handful of regions of the planet.
So, the only thing that actually matters for whichever energy production is: is it doable anywhere?
Sure, with enough energy supply, we wouldn't have a problem in the first place. We could use that hypothetic energy source directly or to synthesize portable chemical energy storage fluids, aka fuels, for use in autonomous (i.e. mobile) engines, lol.
Hydrogen, impractical (high pressure, cryogenics, leaky, low energy density) for mobile applications as it may be, will however play major role in raw materials production technology - we need a substitute for traditionally used carbon monoxide as oxide reduction agent that would not produce CO2 in the process (CO2 bad, H2O good) and we need it in industrial amounts. I just hope that after the switch we don't run into "too much atmospheric industrial waste oxygen" problem (if we crack water to get H2, which leaves us with excess O2). However, comparing percentage of CO2 we managed to kick up to percentage of O2 in the air so far, I suppose we would be on a safe side with O2 rise, for a very long time.
BTW, looking at sizes of giant fossils of flying insects and vertebratae that lived on Earth in the past, man has to wonder if air had greater percentage of oxygen back then to provide them with enough muscle power to lift their heavy bodies in the air. Elevated oxygen level would also mean a slightly larger air buoyancy, because O2 is heavier then now prevalent N2, but that is of marginal importance.
Gecko feet would probably capillary "drink of" and absorb at least some part of that thin layer of water, like a brush or a mop does. Anyway, although at present certainly much more expensive, even if it wouldn't be much better, I am sure it wouldn't be any worse either, compared to common tire rubber.
I have a feeling that calculus, and measure theory, and all that good stuff has a better handle on infinities than this theory... don't you think?
For all the practical purposes, yes, provided infinity == "too much". However, if I understood all of this well, nullity isn't "our" infinity at all. It is different, quite peculiar beast, a solution searching for problem.
Let's call it a hunch, but it often proved in the past that previously nonsensical values made sense in a deeper insight. IMHO it always pays to give it a taught ("what if it somehow made sense?" or "if it did made sense, why would it be so?") even just for fun or exercise of mind. Whenever a fence was removed in our abstract reasoning, there was a landslide of new breakthroughs (OK, not always immediately), when each standing structure of ideas is checked for new possibilities.
Analysis and Calculus stand there, apparently complete and perfect. Could there be more to it? If there was, what could that mean for physics? Then, what would that make in engineering?
We can (no, ought to!... at least in engineering professions it is absolutely required) safely avoid to go there, where our experience isn't worth any more and would mislead us to high and dry, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there.
My point exactly. It is not only that sign of zero is... well, without better choice why not zero sign but multiplication with zero apparently gives to result always the zero sign (as well as magnitude, of course). Now, multiplicative inverse of zero, which is (was) so far undefined, apparently has this very same sign as zero itself, just as inverse of any finite number keeps the same sign as that number. OK, all this really doesn't break down into +0, -0, and consequently +inf, -inf as these are really just the bounds of 0 and inf (nullity) respectively, just like you said. So, nullity seems to lack a physical example or incarnation but otherwise is not so strange concept.
I admit, not being mathematician myself, I never before truly taught about the peculiar nature and deep significance of our ubiquitous zero. Because of its "triviality" it masks all levels of structure it may have.
Sign is not the only thing strange about zero.
i.e. what is direction of zero vector? Zero! All right, but... how do we represent zero direction in the (unordered) set of all directions? This is a lot like zen koan. And now, if it was not enough, perhaps we have a nullity vector as well.
In physics, can some variable really, honestly, be deemed to have dimension (units) if its' value is zero?
Back to divide by zero... when computer encounters divide by zero error, if there was no programming error, then it means there is the end of one model and that another approach, another concept should be applied (and should had been readied for the situation). A sort of like Flatland creatures getting computation results that indicate a point out of their plane of existence, if we are getting such errors, our model of the real world is incomplete or overconstrained. However, there is no limit to how much we could be wrong in our models, because in each an every model, zero remains!
The problem with trying to abstract is that 0 holds no sign. It poses no problem when you multiply with 0, because you don't need to ask about the sign of resulting 0. However, when dividing finite with 0, you know that you have two possible and distant infinite outcomes.
Therefore, if there was 0 and -0, you could claim x/0 = (SIGN(x))*infinity and x/(-0) = -(SIGN(x))*infinity.
Perhaps nullity is used to address exactly this problem of zero's "third sign". There is also similar concept, "infinite complex number", where complex plane is mapped on Riemann's sphere, where south pole is mapped to zero, while north pole is considered "complex infinity". The nullity is "real numbers' only" version of that.
Um, but who owns the stuff that company owns? If I understood you correctly, there is no owner, the company is own owner, so you cannot i.e. buy a non-profit organization... How they start at all then? Someone makes it and donates it to itself?
Besides, that cab was driving closely behind fast moving huge, tall vehicle cutting the air in front, effectively in a sub-pressure bubble, saving quite substantial amount of fuel (knowing their psychology, probably no taxi driver on Earth could resist the opportunity to save on "expenses" side of trip for a bit of hazard).
I stand corrected. For some reason (OK, it's BS, I was simply ignorant and still am in other numerous fields that I *feel* I know something about) I thought that low-speed Stokes' (viscous) drag applies, not the high-speed Rayleigh's.
Nevertheless, virtues of abstaining from speeding seem to keep popping up!
I would, too, but how many people in your neighborhood both works near and lives near each other? Then, are they working the same hours? Today in the time of implied obligation to work unpayed overtime, return-from-work synchronization is virtually impossible. Then, you have to have your own car, not wait for your buddy Fred Flintstone to finish his work (or worse, discover that he's gone home already).
IMHO, telecommuting is the right solution, by so many orders of magnitude. Even for those occupations that require physical presence, robotic tele-presence could do it in the future. Work should be place-decoupled, for so many reasons: traffic pollution, expenses, workforce migrations, outsourcing, full 24/7 business by employing the staff from daylight hemisphere overnight (no additional pay for late work)...
Imagine the add:
"Restaurant with good renome announces an open position for a Chef, required: minimum experience 5y, timezone GMT-8 plusminus 1 hr, excellent oral and writing English language skills, recommendations from former employers, bandwidth at least 1Mbps, round trip ping maximum 300ms, access to and ability to operate remote actuators assumed."
Is there any legal or other obstacle to, say, buy a house in center of suburban settlement and turn it into a general store? Or tear the house down and make a medium-sized several-story building with telecommute-ready (remote, broadband connected to whichever company by VPN) offices for rent, small post office and small general store? IMHO there is a lot of potential for profitable business (as well as savings for inhabitants, it is a win-win!) in adding just a little bit of city features to suburbia.
This morning, as I was driving to work, I was thinking about REAL energy consumption: same distance can be driven with various energy (fuel) expenditure.
First, we burn fuel to accelerate and attain certain kinetic energy. This energy is wasted for good whenever I have to lower the speed (unless my car has regenerative braking system). So, keeping as low trip speed ceiling as possible saves a lot. Also, if your vehicle is loaded, acceleration to same speed and back will consume more fuel then when it is empty.
Second, drag force is directly proportional to air speed which is roughly equal to speed against the road. The energy lost conquering drag is this force multiplied by distance (perhaps mpg figures roughly represent that consumption, for some arbitrarily chosen, or actual test-average speed). That is another argument against high speed.
Third, going to up the gravitational potential well (up hill) will burn additional fuel, so if the road is not flat, you will have additional consumption. If your car (once again) has no regenerative brakes, this potential energy will be wasted. Perhaps going around the hill instead of cutting "short" over it would save fuel even though the mileage is much greater, but it has to be calculated for a given mass, relative altitude of the top of the path, drag, speed, etc.
Fourth, what all of us know very well, if we are in a traffic jam and low on fuel, we may as well run out of it even though it would had been enough otherwise. There are two reasons for that: first, there is a lot of acceleration/breaking involved (see above), and second, for low vehicle speed, powertrain is not efficient (it is designed to reach optimum at common trip speed interval) - that is another one for hybrids.
It should be emphasized that above little simple energy analysis is applicable on any surface vehicles (even muscles'-powered), not just ICE automobiles.
So, conclusion is that hybrid powertrain/regenerative braking vehicle design should be mandated by law(s), if automotive fuel consumption is wanted to be optimised on a national(global) level. Likewise, speed limiting, road reconstruction (rectification of elevation) and "smart" traffic lights could have positive effect in lowering overall fuel consumption.
As much cheaper aid for all vehicle types, an electronic device, a fuel consumption computer could be designed, that could calculate (predict) fuel consumption on the basis of input from sensors for vehicle (and load, overall) mass, road speed, airspeed and altitude (or elevation, so that weight force vector projection on vehicle speed vector direction could be calculated), present to the driver the diagram chart of consumption components during the trip and perhaps advise driver on changes in driving style that could save fuel better (i.e. "for additional 1 mpg, keep your speed under xx mph", or "inflate tires 0.1 bar"). With added GPS and map, it could also advise the most fuel-efficient route, on the memorized previous trips or purchased data packs for the area. Additionally, traffic jams information could be broadcast digitally to this devices over the radio, to complete the needed data. That would put drivers in tighter control over fuel consumption and allow them to make informed decisions while driving.
What I would like is, when I am low on fuel, to hit a switch to let car control my speed in order to get me home or to nearest gas station on the available fuel budget.
Rain gets into the sewer system anyway, unless the sewage treatment system demands that surface water ("gray water") and fecal water ("brown water") are conducted separately all the way to the treatment plant, but it seems they do so to keep "gray water" simple for treatment, not to protect "brown water" from thinning. IMHO dumping unmetered rain water into sewer can only do good to it.
Anyway, you can flush toilet with dirty water leftover after washing your clothes. Furthermore, last water used for rinsing in machines is clean enough to be reused in soaking part of next clothes washing cycle.
Many household processes could be integrated for better savings. Having cooling devices, refrigerators and deep freezers pump the heat into surroundings, AC's cooling the same air they warm and on top of it having separate electric heaters to produce additional heat for shower warm water and inside dishwasher and clothes washing and drying machines... is just wasteful big time!
Besides, letting the warm water into the sewer during the winter? Why don't we have heat pumps cooling it before it leaves the building?
Like I said, we have so many things we could do now to cut the emissions down.
Yes, you could even power a computer instead of TV and make ultimate cross country cycling simulation game, with uphills and downhills, rough terrain, etc... nice marriage of arcades and gyms!
Heey, it is a nice concept! It can be expanded to other sports simulations (i.e. a rowing competition), a lot of fun, sporty, you can have various levels of strength and skill...
Generally, anything that saves material and energy expenditure is a step in good direction regarding carbon problem and it also saves money. For instance, telecommuting, public transportation, thermal isolation of buildings, hybrid cars etc. There are some more untried opportunities for savings and instant business success:
public cargo transportation service (instead of per-company truck fleets),
new construction methods using materials whose production technology does not demand carbon emissions (for instance, we need something to substitute iron and cement, as those two, due to high demand, are major industrial sources of CO2 emission, right after the fossil fuel thermoelectric power plants),
power-efficient agricultural machinery, end goal: carbon neutral (or net carbon sink, if attainable) food production. With autonomous guidance (without paying human operators), we could very well trade time (abundant, at present) for consumption and save big bucks as well. Possibility of introducing weaker, renewable power sources to power them up is a bonus.
power-cycling resistant, instant-on, low power electronic appliances (those are expensive and we tend to prolong their working life by avoiding power-cycling),
regenerative workout machines which do not dissipate your work during fitness exercise but instead stores it in usable form, (i.e. charge batteries or put power back to grid)
three-cycle in house reusing of water:
drinkable - also for cooking and oral hygiene, (and no, if you drink it, it does not get recycled in the system subsequently),
technical - usable for washing (i.e. from rain collector, or pure drinkable spilled in the sink),
hydraulic - usable for toilet flushing (already used up in washing)
- essentially, both water supply- and energy- saving
What about me:), thinking of foot-mouse (slipper-mouse, pedal-mouse,...) so disabled people can use it (or people with both hands - we can keep them on keyboard all the time)? It would be a sort of computer mouse (a pointing device), only suitable to be operated (slided) by foot, over the floor, or over a special surface or mat instead of over the desktop.
Now, I don't think obviousness is measurable. "Foot mouse" IS VERY OBVIOUS, it just never (AFAIK) came to a mind (I admit, I taught of it this instant) and into a product.
Perhaps better patent validity criteria would be: "how useful the invention is (why is it better and what good comes from using it - savings, quality, etc...)" and "what (equivalent) amount of worth (money, time, work) should patent protect (the very point of patents - protecting investments in research)".
Besides, patents should be revocable if patent holder does not use it for the good of the public and his own but instead use it to fend off progress by sitting on it and not producing workable products offered to the public (i.e. a producer patenting better or competing product for the sole purpose of stopping others from developing better class of products that would put end to their product or industry, i.e. : energy efficient light bulb, electric car,... etc. ).
Is there a "proper" way to ensure your idea will stay patent-free without patenting it (provided it hasn't already been patented by somebody else)? I have heard about "prior art" but how do you make it ? Post idea in "classified ads"? Mail it to Patent Office and get a receipt? How come ideas from Sci Fi get patented (by readers) when there is prior art? Does prior art have to be in the form of a patent application? Are algorithms in Free Software code automatically prior art against patenting them subsequently even though they are not formally described as such?
Slashdot Mirror
see explanation
Note that I suggest using H2 for i.e. recombination of ferrous oxide (iron ore) in smelting instead of using CO for the same purpose. In the end, you have same amount of water you started with, but amount of oxygen released in the process of cracking water remains in atmosphere when oxygen from oxide reacts with hydrogen to recreate water. I was not commenting on using hydrogen as energy storage/transportation medium (fuel), that process is no doubt completely reversible, but I agree with TFA that it is impractical. There, I summarized my previous post :) .
I apologize... It was remote regarding New York city, which was electricity target consumer market at the time.
Why impose additional constraints on new solutions to old problems? Hydroelectric power also won't work outside a very few areas where there is enough water and elevation difference, coal thermoelectric plants are impractical outside areas where you can strip mine coal, nuclear fission power plant is not feasible where you don't have uranium available (or water for cooling for that matter, or where it is IMBY). All this "downsides" didn't stop us from building and using each one of them. Why should we now suddenly make such an exception for wind power plants only?
Ever heard of Niagara Falls hydroelectric plant and Nikola Tesla? Back then, the guy demonstrated that energy can be harvested in remote locations, then conducted to areas of deployment.
Unrelated to that, but similar in paradigmatic sense, note that petroleum is used throughout the world, even though it is obtained only from handful of regions of the planet.
So, the only thing that actually matters for whichever energy production is: is it doable anywhere?
Sure, with enough energy supply, we wouldn't have a problem in the first place. We could use that hypothetic energy source directly or to synthesize portable chemical energy storage fluids, aka fuels, for use in autonomous (i.e. mobile) engines, lol.
Hydrogen, impractical (high pressure, cryogenics, leaky, low energy density) for mobile applications as it may be, will however play major role in raw materials production technology - we need a substitute for traditionally used carbon monoxide as oxide reduction agent that would not produce CO2 in the process (CO2 bad, H2O good) and we need it in industrial amounts. I just hope that after the switch we don't run into "too much atmospheric industrial waste oxygen" problem (if we crack water to get H2, which leaves us with excess O2). However, comparing percentage of CO2 we managed to kick up to percentage of O2 in the air so far, I suppose we would be on a safe side with O2 rise, for a very long time.
BTW, looking at sizes of giant fossils of flying insects and vertebratae that lived on Earth in the past, man has to wonder if air had greater percentage of oxygen back then to provide them with enough muscle power to lift their heavy bodies in the air. Elevated oxygen level would also mean a slightly larger air buoyancy, because O2 is heavier then now prevalent N2, but that is of marginal importance.
Gecko feet would probably capillary "drink of" and absorb at least some part of that thin layer of water, like a brush or a mop does. Anyway, although at present certainly much more expensive, even if it wouldn't be much better, I am sure it wouldn't be any worse either, compared to common tire rubber.
Let's call it a hunch, but it often proved in the past that previously nonsensical values made sense in a deeper insight. IMHO it always pays to give it a taught ("what if it somehow made sense?" or "if it did made sense, why would it be so?") even just for fun or exercise of mind. Whenever a fence was removed in our abstract reasoning, there was a landslide of new breakthroughs (OK, not always immediately), when each standing structure of ideas is checked for new possibilities.
... at least in engineering professions it is absolutely required) safely avoid to go there, where our experience isn't worth any more and would mislead us to high and dry, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there.
Analysis and Calculus stand there, apparently complete and perfect. Could there be more to it? If there was, what could that mean for physics? Then, what would that make in engineering?
We can (no, ought to!
My point exactly. It is not only that sign of zero is
I admit, not being mathematician myself, I never before truly taught about the peculiar nature and deep significance of our ubiquitous zero. Because of its "triviality" it masks all levels of structure it may have.
Sign is not the only thing strange about zero.
i.e. what is direction of zero vector? Zero! All right, but... how do we represent zero direction in the (unordered) set of all directions? This is a lot like zen koan. And now, if it was not enough, perhaps we have a nullity vector as well.
In physics, can some variable really, honestly, be deemed to have dimension (units) if its' value is zero?
Back to divide by zero... when computer encounters divide by zero error, if there was no programming error, then it means there is the end of one model and that another approach, another concept should be applied (and should had been readied for the situation). A sort of like Flatland creatures getting computation results that indicate a point out of their plane of existence, if we are getting such errors, our model of the real world is incomplete or overconstrained. However, there is no limit to how much we could be wrong in our models, because in each an every model, zero remains!
The problem with trying to abstract is that 0 holds no sign. It poses no problem when you multiply with 0, because you don't need to ask about the sign of resulting 0. However, when dividing finite with 0, you know that you have two possible and distant infinite outcomes.
Therefore, if there was 0 and -0, you could claim x/0 = (SIGN(x))*infinity and x/(-0) = -(SIGN(x))*infinity.
Perhaps nullity is used to address exactly this problem of zero's "third sign". There is also similar concept, "infinite complex number", where complex plane is mapped on Riemann's sphere, where south pole is mapped to zero, while north pole is considered "complex infinity". The nullity is "real numbers' only" version of that.
Um, but who owns the stuff that company owns? If I understood you correctly, there is no owner, the company is own owner, so you cannot i.e. buy a non-profit organization... How they start at all then? Someone makes it and donates it to itself?
Besides, that cab was driving closely behind fast moving huge, tall vehicle cutting the air in front, effectively in a sub-pressure bubble, saving quite substantial amount of fuel (knowing their psychology, probably no taxi driver on Earth could resist the opportunity to save on "expenses" side of trip for a bit of hazard).
"Er, Mark, is that you, Mark... (waiting for you to end sentence)... er... (gives up) Carlson?"
"Yes, it's me."
"Uhh
Why not within 5 minutes walk? Ah, yes, because it is assumed that *everybody* drives. Well that is the point... it is a vicious circle!
True. But what if you use as high gear as engine can sustain, on whichever speed it is?
I stand corrected. For some reason (OK, it's BS, I was simply ignorant and still am in other numerous fields that I *feel* I know something about) I thought that low-speed Stokes' (viscous) drag applies, not the high-speed Rayleigh's.
Nevertheless, virtues of abstaining from speeding seem to keep popping up!
OK, what are actual negative side effects they might fear?
I would, too, but how many people in your neighborhood both works near and lives near each other? Then, are they working the same hours? Today in the time of implied obligation to work unpayed overtime, return-from-work synchronization is virtually impossible. Then, you have to have your own car, not wait for your buddy Fred Flintstone to finish his work (or worse, discover that he's gone home already).
IMHO, telecommuting is the right solution, by so many orders of magnitude. Even for those occupations that require physical presence, robotic tele-presence could do it in the future. Work should be place-decoupled, for so many reasons: traffic pollution, expenses, workforce migrations, outsourcing, full 24/7 business by employing the staff from daylight hemisphere overnight (no additional pay for late work)...
Imagine the add:
"Restaurant with good renome announces an open position for a Chef, required: minimum experience 5y, timezone GMT-8 plusminus 1 hr, excellent oral and writing English language skills, recommendations from former employers, bandwidth at least 1Mbps, round trip ping maximum 300ms, access to and ability to operate remote actuators assumed."
Is there any legal or other obstacle to, say, buy a house in center of suburban settlement and turn it into a general store? Or tear the house down and make a medium-sized several-story building with telecommute-ready (remote, broadband connected to whichever company by VPN) offices for rent, small post office and small general store? IMHO there is a lot of potential for profitable business (as well as savings for inhabitants, it is a win-win!) in adding just a little bit of city features to suburbia.
This morning, as I was driving to work, I was thinking about REAL energy consumption: same distance can be driven with various energy (fuel) expenditure.
First, we burn fuel to accelerate and attain certain kinetic energy. This energy is wasted for good whenever I have to lower the speed (unless my car has regenerative braking system). So, keeping as low trip speed ceiling as possible saves a lot. Also, if your vehicle is loaded, acceleration to same speed and back will consume more fuel then when it is empty.
Second, drag force is directly proportional to air speed which is roughly equal to speed against the road. The energy lost conquering drag is this force multiplied by distance (perhaps mpg figures roughly represent that consumption, for some arbitrarily chosen, or actual test-average speed). That is another argument against high speed.
Third, going to up the gravitational potential well (up hill) will burn additional fuel, so if the road is not flat, you will have additional consumption. If your car (once again) has no regenerative brakes, this potential energy will be wasted. Perhaps going around the hill instead of cutting "short" over it would save fuel even though the mileage is much greater, but it has to be calculated for a given mass, relative altitude of the top of the path, drag, speed, etc.
Fourth, what all of us know very well, if we are in a traffic jam and low on fuel, we may as well run out of it even though it would had been enough otherwise. There are two reasons for that: first, there is a lot of acceleration/breaking involved (see above), and second, for low vehicle speed, powertrain is not efficient (it is designed to reach optimum at common trip speed interval) - that is another one for hybrids.
It should be emphasized that above little simple energy analysis is applicable on any surface vehicles (even muscles'-powered), not just ICE automobiles.
So, conclusion is that hybrid powertrain/regenerative braking vehicle design should be mandated by law(s), if automotive fuel consumption is wanted to be optimised on a national(global) level. Likewise, speed limiting, road reconstruction (rectification of elevation) and "smart" traffic lights could have positive effect in lowering overall fuel consumption.
As much cheaper aid for all vehicle types, an electronic device, a fuel consumption computer could be designed, that could calculate (predict) fuel consumption on the basis of input from sensors for vehicle (and load, overall) mass, road speed, airspeed and altitude (or elevation, so that weight force vector projection on vehicle speed vector direction could be calculated), present to the driver the diagram chart of consumption components during the trip and perhaps advise driver on changes in driving style that could save fuel better (i.e. "for additional 1 mpg, keep your speed under xx mph", or "inflate tires 0.1 bar"). With added GPS and map, it could also advise the most fuel-efficient route, on the memorized previous trips or purchased data packs for the area. Additionally, traffic jams information could be broadcast digitally to this devices over the radio, to complete the needed data. That would put drivers in tighter control over fuel consumption and allow them to make informed decisions while driving.
What I would like is, when I am low on fuel, to hit a switch to let car control my speed in order to get me home or to nearest gas station on the available fuel budget.
Rain gets into the sewer system anyway, unless the sewage treatment system demands that surface water ("gray water") and fecal water ("brown water") are conducted separately all the way to the treatment plant, but it seems they do so to keep "gray water" simple for treatment, not to protect "brown water" from thinning. IMHO dumping unmetered rain water into sewer can only do good to it. Anyway, you can flush toilet with dirty water leftover after washing your clothes. Furthermore, last water used for rinsing in machines is clean enough to be reused in soaking part of next clothes washing cycle. Many household processes could be integrated for better savings. Having cooling devices, refrigerators and deep freezers pump the heat into surroundings, AC's cooling the same air they warm and on top of it having separate electric heaters to produce additional heat for shower warm water and inside dishwasher and clothes washing and drying machines ... is just wasteful big time!
Besides, letting the warm water into the sewer during the winter? Why don't we have heat pumps cooling it before it leaves the building?
Like I said, we have so many things we could do now to cut the emissions down.
Yes, you could even power a computer instead of TV and make ultimate cross country cycling simulation game, with uphills and downhills, rough terrain, etc... nice marriage of arcades and gyms!
Heey, it is a nice concept! It can be expanded to other sports simulations (i.e. a rowing competition), a lot of fun, sporty, you can have various levels of strength and skill...
- drinkable - also for cooking and oral hygiene, (and no, if you drink it, it does not get recycled in the system subsequently),
- technical - usable for washing (i.e. from rain collector, or pure drinkable spilled in the sink),
- hydraulic - usable for toilet flushing (already used up in washing)
- essentially, both water supply- and energy- savingWhat about me :), thinking of foot-mouse (slipper-mouse, pedal-mouse, ...) so disabled people can use it (or people with both hands - we can keep them on keyboard all the time)? It would be a sort of computer mouse (a pointing device), only suitable to be operated (slided) by foot, over the floor, or over a special surface or mat instead of over the desktop.
... etc. ).
Now, I don't think obviousness is measurable. "Foot mouse" IS VERY OBVIOUS, it just never (AFAIK) came to a mind (I admit, I taught of it this instant) and into a product.
Perhaps better patent validity criteria would be: "how useful the invention is (why is it better and what good comes from using it - savings, quality, etc...)" and "what (equivalent) amount of worth (money, time, work) should patent protect (the very point of patents - protecting investments in research)".
Besides, patents should be revocable if patent holder does not use it for the good of the public and his own but instead use it to fend off progress by sitting on it and not producing workable products offered to the public (i.e. a producer patenting better or competing product for the sole purpose of stopping others from developing better class of products that would put end to their product or industry, i.e. : energy efficient light bulb, electric car,
Is there a "proper" way to ensure your idea will stay patent-free without patenting it (provided it hasn't already been patented by somebody else)? I have heard about "prior art" but how do you make it ? Post idea in "classified ads"? Mail it to Patent Office and get a receipt? How come ideas from Sci Fi get patented (by readers) when there is prior art? Does prior art have to be in the form of a patent application? Are algorithms in Free Software code automatically prior art against patenting them subsequently even though they are not formally described as such?