Perhaps what you meant to say was,
"If 99.8% of scientists think one thing, and 0.2% think another, the burden of proof lies upon the 0.2% to convince the rest of their wrong thinking."
I think that this is the crux of it.
"Now, can someone unfamiliar with a particular field, nay, a sub-discipline of that field, recognize these assumptions for what they are?"
No, but they don't have to. You made some assumptions. Assuming that you made them in good faith, a person distant from your field (read: non-scientist) doesn't need to know exactly what they are, just that someone familiar with such things has thought about this. Their understanding of the conclusions you draw will probably be limited anyway, so they don't need to be as clear on the nitty-gritty of how you got there. Someone in the field may be interested in knowing what you assumed, but not necessarily why those assumptions are justified. A worker in your sub-discipline will probably want to know what and why.
You may well be right, and there may be a valid reason to question these devices. The police probably do correct for this on their own, so that the borderline cases don't cause a problem.
All that aside, this is probably just something that this guy's lawyer concocted so that he can sufficiently confuse the jury that they turn it into a question of, "Do I like this guy more than I like cops?"
Hell, I don't really like poring over someone else's source code even when I know exactly what they're trying to do, AND I know the language. If you start flashing screen after screen of what's probably 20-year-old microcontroller code at me, I'm pretty sure I'd tune out quickly.
A paranoid person would wonder if this was a ploy, lobbied for by the telecommunications industry so that they would have an easy way to sneak around future legislation on restricting ownership and control of "broadband service providers". Or a way to skirt provisions of a net neutrality law that they didn't like.
Filtered drip coffee has fewer of the good oils that are in unfiltered coffee, and much less of the really fine particulate matter. The difference between the two is like the difference between heroin and a poppy seed muffin.
That said, your grinder probably matters more than your beans, up to a certain threshold of freshness. As has been said before, burr grinders do a better job than whirling blades. This isn't just a "bean heating" issue, though, especially if you brew in a Moka. The more even grind from a good burr grinder allows the pressure under the grounds to build up better, without weak spots for the steam to escape through before it's really ready.
The good news: This will not be wrecking ocean micro-climates anytime soon.
The bad news: This idea, while interesting at first glance, is at best unfounded optimism, and at worst a scam. And I'm betting on the latter, at the risk of getting slapped with libel charges.
While it is true that this thermal gradient is large enough in theory to drive a heat engine of the type described, this will not come to fruition. Saying that this thermal gradient is large enough in theory is no praise at all--any thermal gradient can drive a heat engine. Whether it *may* be practical to do so can be estimated via the Carnot efficiency--a measure of the amount of energy that can be extracted in an ideal scenario for a given heat engine. "Ideal" is not used lightly, here. In this context, it means no frictional losses, no unintended heat transfer (perfectly insulated), perfect pumps, etc.
Please note that SSPI's claims that they are using "advanced turbines and heat exchangers optimized for the duty" is not relavant. The Carnot efficiency of this engine is less than 8%. This is enforced purely by the small temperature difference with which they are working. Once real world factors are accounted for, like heat loss through the wall of a mile-long pipe, fluid friction in said mile-long pipe, pump losses, this stands precisely a snowball's chance in hell of being a net energy provider.
Note that I'm not trying to be a Luddite crank about this--it simply is not feasible, no matter what "models" have been concocted.
Slashdot Mirror
Solution: Install netnanny-type software, controlled by the parents. If the kid can break it, she's smart enough to deal with what she finds.
Perhaps what you meant to say was, "If 99.8% of scientists think one thing, and 0.2% think another, the burden of proof lies upon the 0.2% to convince the rest of their wrong thinking."
I think that this is the crux of it. "Now, can someone unfamiliar with a particular field, nay, a sub-discipline of that field, recognize these assumptions for what they are?" No, but they don't have to. You made some assumptions. Assuming that you made them in good faith, a person distant from your field (read: non-scientist) doesn't need to know exactly what they are, just that someone familiar with such things has thought about this. Their understanding of the conclusions you draw will probably be limited anyway, so they don't need to be as clear on the nitty-gritty of how you got there. Someone in the field may be interested in knowing what you assumed, but not necessarily why those assumptions are justified. A worker in your sub-discipline will probably want to know what and why.
You may well be right, and there may be a valid reason to question these devices. The police probably do correct for this on their own, so that the borderline cases don't cause a problem.
All that aside, this is probably just something that this guy's lawyer concocted so that he can sufficiently confuse the jury that they turn it into a question of, "Do I like this guy more than I like cops?"
Hell, I don't really like poring over someone else's source code even when I know exactly what they're trying to do, AND I know the language. If you start flashing screen after screen of what's probably 20-year-old microcontroller code at me, I'm pretty sure I'd tune out quickly.
Some of it is probably political grandstanding.
A paranoid person would wonder if this was a ploy, lobbied for by the telecommunications industry so that they would have an easy way to sneak around future legislation on restricting ownership and control of "broadband service providers". Or a way to skirt provisions of a net neutrality law that they didn't like.
Filtered drip coffee has fewer of the good oils that are in unfiltered coffee, and much less of the really fine particulate matter. The difference between the two is like the difference between heroin and a poppy seed muffin.
That said, your grinder probably matters more than your beans, up to a certain threshold of freshness. As has been said before, burr grinders do a better job than whirling blades. This isn't just a "bean heating" issue, though, especially if you brew in a Moka. The more even grind from a good burr grinder allows the pressure under the grounds to build up better, without weak spots for the steam to escape through before it's really ready.
The good news: This will not be wrecking ocean micro-climates anytime soon. The bad news: This idea, while interesting at first glance, is at best unfounded optimism, and at worst a scam. And I'm betting on the latter, at the risk of getting slapped with libel charges. While it is true that this thermal gradient is large enough in theory to drive a heat engine of the type described, this will not come to fruition. Saying that this thermal gradient is large enough in theory is no praise at all--any thermal gradient can drive a heat engine. Whether it *may* be practical to do so can be estimated via the Carnot efficiency--a measure of the amount of energy that can be extracted in an ideal scenario for a given heat engine. "Ideal" is not used lightly, here. In this context, it means no frictional losses, no unintended heat transfer (perfectly insulated), perfect pumps, etc. Please note that SSPI's claims that they are using "advanced turbines and heat exchangers optimized for the duty" is not relavant. The Carnot efficiency of this engine is less than 8%. This is enforced purely by the small temperature difference with which they are working. Once real world factors are accounted for, like heat loss through the wall of a mile-long pipe, fluid friction in said mile-long pipe, pump losses, this stands precisely a snowball's chance in hell of being a net energy provider. Note that I'm not trying to be a Luddite crank about this--it simply is not feasible, no matter what "models" have been concocted.