Right, then.
Sep. 5th, 2006 01:43 amToday was interesting - Thin Blue Line, baseball, and barbecue with
greyweirdo and crew. We watched LadyHawke and gave it a thorough MST3K treatment - something about 80's synthpop set to a medieval-style fantasy just begs "Snark me!" Also, class begins tomorrow, and I need to hop into town and see if my books are at the other bookstore. If not, oh, well, we'll figure it out soon enough. Last year of coursework begins tomorrow. This should be interesting, and likely in the proverbial sense.
The bit that's been all over the news and such - Steve Irwin, AKA "Crocodile Hunter", is dead from a stingray barb. Whether you say that's sad or make a South Park reference, it happened. Nature wins out in the end. Unfortunately for Mr. Irwin, he got stung one too many times.
Anti-Capitalist Sentiment. Either that, or a stick-figure diagram of how capitalism works.
Oh, scientist-types? I'm getting a very strong bullshit reading from this enterprise that has claimed to create a way of making free energy. Care to evaluate and see if your readings match mine?
In the, "well, duh" department, an Australian group concludes that obese kids may have poorer self-image, and this bad image may lead to their premature deaths. Either from the obesity, or from some sort of depression/mental health problems brought on by said obesity. So, they conclude that playground children are cruel to the overweight kid. We knew this. We also know that if a kid's getting made fun of with regularity, their self-esteem suffers. The kid with low self-esteem is likely to be more prone to depression and all the potential hazards that derive form there. At least the Australians are going at it that the obesity is the thing to be helped, and not the mental state, which would have been a tacit endorsement of obesity.
I'm wondering how the peace will be kept in the house at the moment, having seen the signs of a first potentially interesting conflict, but I'm not worried that things are going to get out of hand. People seem reasonable enough around here, and if we can impress upon each other the importance of our various needs, I think we'll get along swimmingly. If things do get out of hand, I don't expect the house to be at war with itself, anyway. For all I know, I'll be on the attacking side and not the defending. But anyway, I think I'll turn in and go to bed. Maybe in the morning, everything will be sorted out. Anyway, for now, bed.
The bit that's been all over the news and such - Steve Irwin, AKA "Crocodile Hunter", is dead from a stingray barb. Whether you say that's sad or make a South Park reference, it happened. Nature wins out in the end. Unfortunately for Mr. Irwin, he got stung one too many times.
Anti-Capitalist Sentiment. Either that, or a stick-figure diagram of how capitalism works.
Oh, scientist-types? I'm getting a very strong bullshit reading from this enterprise that has claimed to create a way of making free energy. Care to evaluate and see if your readings match mine?
In the, "well, duh" department, an Australian group concludes that obese kids may have poorer self-image, and this bad image may lead to their premature deaths. Either from the obesity, or from some sort of depression/mental health problems brought on by said obesity. So, they conclude that playground children are cruel to the overweight kid. We knew this. We also know that if a kid's getting made fun of with regularity, their self-esteem suffers. The kid with low self-esteem is likely to be more prone to depression and all the potential hazards that derive form there. At least the Australians are going at it that the obesity is the thing to be helped, and not the mental state, which would have been a tacit endorsement of obesity.
I'm wondering how the peace will be kept in the house at the moment, having seen the signs of a first potentially interesting conflict, but I'm not worried that things are going to get out of hand. People seem reasonable enough around here, and if we can impress upon each other the importance of our various needs, I think we'll get along swimmingly. If things do get out of hand, I don't expect the house to be at war with itself, anyway. For all I know, I'll be on the attacking side and not the defending. But anyway, I think I'll turn in and go to bed. Maybe in the morning, everything will be sorted out. Anyway, for now, bed.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 08:26 am (UTC)On the other hand, isn't there some easier way of getting your Awesome Holy Shit Insane Device to public attention, even positing a Free Energy Conspiracy, besides LOOK INTERNET? Hell. There are better ways to go LOOK INTERNET, even.
So I do not know!
no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 12:52 pm (UTC)1. The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
2. The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
3. There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).
Each claim can be independently true depending on how you define terms.
1. Usually one doesn't at first pass consider entropy to be energy. However, that's how biological systems derive their chemical energy. Sure, they're just shuffling protons around but the chemical gradient is an energy store. Leaving out entropy and chemical gradients, you can make a system that on paper looks >100% efficient.
2. What about degredation of something else? Is it possible that there is a previously unconsidered resource that is being degraded? Light in an unmeasurable part of the spectrum is pretty hard to track, can they be sapping a tiny amount of power from their measurment equipment? What if they put a cold probe onto a warm device... that might cause it to convert to useful energy.
3. Actually cooling of ambient would be a sign that they'd done the impossible. Warming the atmosphere is a much easier task as ambient heat is a waste form of energy that is untappable. (Yes, engines use heat, but actually, they use the heat gradient between the heat source and the atmosphere. At equilibrium temperatures, any heat engine will fail. This is the sign that these people have no idea what they're talking about.
As far as devising tests: I would like to see the system at full equilibrium (even if it takes a few days to get there), then started up, produces its magic energy and run indefinitely (producing more energy than can possibly be obtained by an object of similar mass-loss through nuclear means.) If they can do this and produce useful energy (that is drive a motor of known efficiency to lift a given weight continuously or if they're creating mechanical energy, the same but doing it directly). And if they can do this, I shall be duly impressed.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 02:56 pm (UTC)Also, still dealing with on/off internet. I'll check the links from the post I haven't read yet when it stablizes...or just commandeer your machine for a bit this afternoon.
i had fun yesterday. thanks for letting me tag along :D
no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 03:00 pm (UTC)mst3k is the best show, ever!
no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 03:05 pm (UTC)Yarha, Next Stop: 'Free' Time!
no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 04:49 pm (UTC)The anti-capitalist spraypainting is far too vague for my dull American mind* to pick up exactly why it represents capitalism. The guy with a gun to his head isn't even handing over his wallet.