Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Faulty premise (Score 1) 90

by Jane Q. Public (#47979199) Attached to: Sci-fi Predictions, True and False (Video 1)

Science fiction has never been about predicting future technology.

Science fiction is about considering and exploring the human ramifications when certain aspects of reality are changed.

I don't think so. That description describes fantasy as well as it does science fiction, but they're two different genres.

You're forgetting the "science" in science fiction. While there is occasionally some overlap, science fiction isn't fantasy fiction isn't horror fiction.

Comment: Re:Did you find that hard drive yet? (Score 1) 260

Yes, they most definitely did.

Further, if I were any of the organizations that - we have lots of solid evidence - were harassed by the IRS under Lerner, I would charge her, and her cohorts as individuals under 18 USC 242, which carries some harsh penalties... up to life in prison.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 173

by Jane Q. Public (#47974011) Attached to: 3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

I never said Jane objected to a term for "electrical power". I said Jane repeatedly [slashdot.org] objects [slashdot.org] to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. And Jane continues to do this:

Apparently you did not read what I wrote:

NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. I do NOT object to a term for electrical power. I simply asserted a physical truth: in our isolated system, the electrical power to the heat source, called for by Spencer, has zero dependency on the chamber walls.

What I object to is your insane insistence that the electrical power to the heat source requires a term for the chamber walls. This is sheer nonsense. Standard, textbook physics says the thermodynamic temperature of the heat source, since it is "the hottest thing in the room", as it were, is independent of radiation from the chamber walls. Since it cannot absorb net radiative power from the chamber walls, any electrical power calculation is similarly independent.

You are attempting to add a term to "account for" radiation from the cooler chamber walls, but no such accounting is necessary according to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. No net radiative power from the chamber walls is absorbed by the heat source. The chamber wall do not somehow magically cause it to output either less or more radiative power, therefore the input power is not dependent on the chamber walls. QED. I've explained this (truly) about 10 times now.

Ranting about imaginary violations of the Stefan-Boltzmann law won't help Jane understand physics. It might help Jane to draw a boundary around the heat source and think carefully about exactly why Jane keeps ignoring the heat radiated in from the chamber wells. Accounting for that radiation doesn't "violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law" but ignoring it violates conservation of energy.

There is nothing imaginary about it. I am the one who told YOU to draw your boundary around your heat source. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, no NET RADIATIVE POWER is absorbed by the heat source from the chamber walls, and the chamber walls do not affect its radiative power out. I capitalized different words this time in a (probably vain) attempt to get you to understand what is being said here. YOU are apparently imagining some kind of magical net energy flow from less thermodynamically energetic to more thermodynamically energetic, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The chamber walls neither transfer any of their net radiative power to the heat source, nor do they cause the net radiative power of the heat source to be any less. They have NO EFFECT. Net energy flows only FROM the heat source to the walls, and the temperature of the walls effects heat transfer only, not radiative power of the heat source.

For about 100 times now, I do not claim "no radiation" is absorbed. Just no net radiative power.

Jane/Lonny Eachus can capitalize "NET" all he wants, but it doesn't change the fact that Jane's equation assumes warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Here's an equation which only says there's no NET radiative power input from cooler objects:

electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*(Ta^4 - Tb^4)

The above equation satisfies conservation of energy and says there's no NET radiative power input from cooler objects.

Right. Exactly. That's the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, as I've stated many, many times now. Note that it is an equation for heat transfer.

But Jane's equation is different:

electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*Ta^4

YES!!! This is a different equation! It's not an equation for heat transfer! It's the Stefan-Botlzmann RELATION between radiative power out and temperature for gray bodies. It is used for calculating RADIATIVE POWER OUT versus TEMPERATURE and vice versa. It is not for heat transfer and I'm not using it for heat transfer. YOU are the one who is getting them confused, not me. This other equation shows that radiative power is dependent ONLY on emissivity and temperature. It does not depend on other bodies. For the third time (today): it's a temperature vs. power equation, not a heat transfer equation.

Further, "electrical" is your own addition. The equation is for power. It doesn't specify "electrical".

That happens automatically. Jane's equation violates conservation of energy by completely ignoring the term describing radiative "power in" from the chamber walls. So Jane's equation says warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects.

"Jane's equation" is the textbook equation for calculating temperature from radiative power of a gray body, and vice versa. It is not an equation for heat transfer and therefore doesn't have to account for the chamber walls. At steady-state, it is independent of other bodies. Period. Look it the hell up.

But Jane's equation is nonsense, because absorption is controlled by absorptivity. So we could only ignore the power radiated from the chamber walls if the source's absorptivity = 0. But then its emissivity = 0, so it also couldn't emit any radiation, so it couldn't be a heat source.

RIGHT HERE is where you contradict yourself. You cite the S-B radiation law, above, saying no NET radiative power is absorbed by the warmer body. Apparently you don't understand the concept of NET, even though you have derided me for supposedly "ignoring" it.

I do not claim no radiation is absorbed. I claimed no NET RADIATIVE POWER is absorbed. Those are not the same things. The effect is as if all incident radiation from cooler bodies is reflected, scattered, or transmitted. But since these are diffuse gray bodies of significant mass, they don't transmit. So draw your precious boundary around the heat source. All incoming radiation from the chamber walls is reflected or scattered and goes right back out, so you have no net power IN through your boundary. This is at least the second time I have explained this in detail.

There is no magical flow of NET power into your heat source from the chamber walls. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore I do not need to account for radiation from the chamber walls in calculating the temperature of the heat source. That is nothing but imaginary nonsense on your part. The Stefan-Boltzmann RELATION (not radiation law) for gray bodies has only 2 variables: emissivity and temperature.

And that is why, when calculating power needs, I use the appropriate equation for temperature versus power, not the one for heat transfer.

This is textbook stuff, and you just aren't getting it straight. Are you sure you're a physicist?

But Jane's equation is nonsense, because absorption is controlled by absorptivity. So we could only ignore the power radiated from the chamber walls if the source's absorptivity = 0. But then its emissivity = 0, so it also couldn't emit any radiation, so it couldn't be a heat source.

Look at your S-B equation above. What does it say? No net radiative power is absorbed by warmer bodies from cooler bodies. You said so yourself. But NOW, you're claiming that it is. You contradict yourself.

I will repeat: I did not and do not claim that no radiation is absorbed. Just no net radiative power. Any that does get absorbed is just re-transmitted, with a total power (and therefore heat transfer) effect of ZERO. That's why it is not necessary to account for cooler bodies in the temperature versus power out equation.

Jane/Lonny Eachus can capitalize "NET" all he wants, but it doesn't change this fact. Unless Jane/Lonny Eachus would like to correct his equation for required electrical heating power and derive an answer other than 82 W/m^2?

The second equation you cited above is the STANDARD equation for calculating radiative power out of a gray body. I showed you where it was in Wikipedia. It also just happens to be in my heat transfer textbooks. The answer is 82.12 W/m^2. It is the textbook answer. It isn't going to change. Why don't you look it up in a textbook and discover that for yourself?

The first equation you cite, and claim to be using, is an equation for heat transfer between two bodies. It is not the equation for radiant power output of a single body. It is the wrong equation for this calculation.

I repeat: if you truly don't understand this, due to your "greenhouse gas religion" or something, that's just too bad. I'm using textbook physics for situations like this. You are not. You are espousing magical net power transfer from cold to hot, rather than actual physics.

Radiative power out of the warmer body is dependent ONLY on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. Anything else violates the second law of thermodynamics. It isn't controlled or mitigated by nearby cooler bodies. All else being equal, energy doesn't spontaneously travel from cooler to warmer. That's complete bullshit. Doesn't happen.

Knock off the fantasy physics and pick up a textbook.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 173

by Jane Q. Public (#47970839) Attached to: 3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

Ironically, Jane's still insisting that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Otherwise Jane wouldn't repeatedly [slashdot.org] object [slashdot.org] to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power.

NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. I do NOT object to a term for electrical power. I simply asserted a physical truth: in our isolated system, the electrical power to the heat source, called for by Spencer, has zero dependency on the chamber walls.

It is this nonsense dependency on the chamber walls that I have disputed, nothing else. That is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

So just to be clear: I don't object to a term for "electrical power" and never have. My only objection is your insistence that the power input to the heat source is somehow related to radiation from the chamber walls. If these are treated as gray bodies: just no. That's a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

You are VERY good at trying to make it appear I have been saying things I actually haven't. But it isn't going to fly. It's just bullshit.

Ironically, Jane's still insisting that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Otherwise Jane wouldn't repeatedly object to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. Since Jane doesn't even include that term, Jane's assuming that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects.

NO!!! Repeat, for about the 100th time now: no NET radiative power input from cooler objects. That is ALL I have claimed, and it's a direct result of the Stefan-Botlzmann radiation law. Why do you keep disputing textbook physics laws?

Stop lying. Because that's all you're doing now.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 173

by Jane Q. Public (#47960759) Attached to: 3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls

NONSENSE. The power output is not dependent on the chamber walls, therefore the power input is not dependent on the chamber walls. You're contradicting yourself, trying to have it both ways.

Radiation from the cooler walls has no effect on the heat source whatsoever. This is a basic requirement of thermodynamics!

That's ridiculous, Jane. I'm just noting that the chamber walls are hotter than 0K, so they emit radiation into a boundary around the heat source. Therefore Jane's wrong to ignore that radiation when applying the principle of conservation of energy:

What's ridiculous is your constant repetition of this bullshit idea. Yes, the cooler walls radiate inward but they have no effect whatsoever on the heat source. ALL of that radiation is reflected or scattered by the heat source. (It is not transmitted because we're dealing with diffuse gray bodies of significant mass.)

If you're being honest, then it's really too bad that you still don't understand the clear implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. But at the same time, it makes me wonder how you got your degree.

I'm done. If all you're going to do is keep repeating these incorrect assertions, after why they are incorrect has been clearly explained to you many times, this is indeed just a waste of my time. I set out to have a scientific discussion, not to argue about your religion.

Comment: Re:Methodologies are like religion (Score 5, Insightful) 101

by Jane Q. Public (#47957925) Attached to: 'Reactive' Development Turns 2.0

Methodologies are like religion

But this isn't a "methodology" at all. It's a statement of goals.

This isn't an "alternative to Agile", because it isn't a methodology. You can use Agile to achieve this "reactive system".

Frankly, it looks like a bunch of BS buzzwords to me. I write software to meet my customer's needs. "Reactive" attempts to define those needs... but NO, that's what the customer does.

This might be something good to show a client who wants a web site built, which you then proceed to build using Agile or some other methodology. But it isn't a methodology itself, and calling that thing a "Manifesto" is a joke.

"We want a machine that makes things cold. We don't care how it's built. We'll call this... The Refrigerator Manifesto".

Give me a frigging break. In fact I have to think this is actually somebody's idea of a joke.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 173

by Jane Q. Public (#47957775) Attached to: 3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting
If you are sincere (you certainly haven't been acting like you are), then you must be postulating some kind of "tractor beam" effect that allows the chamber wall to "suck" power out of the heat source from a distance.

I assure you that at least at out current level of technology, we have not managed to build such a sucking device. The heat source radiates out what it radiates out, and nothing around it is "sucking" any power from it.

Although you seem to be doing your very best at "sucking" my time away over stupid bullshit.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 173

by Jane Q. Public (#47957743) Attached to: 3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

Jane's equation claims "none at all":

electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*Ta^4

NOW what kind of bullshit are you trying to pull?

Do you understand what NET means, or do you not? I assure you that a lot of people do. You claimed before that you did.

Why are you doing this? Are you really trying to make yourself look more ridiculous than before?

Since Jane's equation for required electrical power doesn't even include a term for radiation from the chamber walls, Jane's equation wrongly says that no radiation at all is absorbed by the source. None. Zero.

Repeat: this ASSUMPTION of yours that the chamber walls must be accounted for in the power requirement of the heat source is a direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There are no 2 ways around it. Established physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann law) says that the radiative power out (and therefore power in) of a gray body is dependent ONLY on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. It is completely unrelated to any nearby cooler bodies.

I'm going to ask you again: WHY do you continue to spout this violation-of-physics bullshit? What do you think you're accomplishing other than wasting my time?

I have concluded that is all you are trying to do.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 126

by Jane Q. Public (#47957649) Attached to: Next Android To Enable Local Encryption By Default Too, Says Google
It's only part of the problem. The REAL big part of the problem, is that Android (so far) has insisted that your encryption password and unlock code be the same.

So if you encrypt your phone with a secure password, like upper-and-lower-case, numbers, non-alphanumeric, and 10 characters long, then every time your phone is locked and it rings, you have to enter the entire damned thing before you can answer.

Understandably, not many people want to do that. It's a huge pain in the ass.

I don't have a problem so much with encryption being irreversible, but it should be separate from your unlock code.

Comment: Re:What a question? (Score 2) 118

by Jane Q. Public (#47957635) Attached to: Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company?

Referring to state crony capitalism as "socialism" does not make it that.

I wasn't referring to crony capitalism, although I admit I could have worded it better. Mea culpa; it is reasonable to think that's what I meant from what I wrote. But it isn't actually what I meant.

To be clearer: EPA for example is "crony capitalism" by way of "market capture". Obamacare is a rather huge attempt at socialism.

The current setup in China is more accurately described as "Fascism-Lite".

I wouldn't quite say that either. It is totalitarianism wearing padded gloves. When China's leaders really got it through their heads that their economy was genuinely starting to fail, big time, they introduced "incentives": allowing businesses to be just a little bit capitalist. When that worked, they allowed a little more.

But make no mistake: the central leadership still rules things with an iron fist, and controls the economy. That's socialism (which, truth be told, isn't that different from fascism, after all). They just know which side of their bread the butter is on, and allow "capitalist" activity where it suits them.

Comment: Re:Oregon... (Score 1) 195

by Jane Q. Public (#47957609) Attached to: Wave Power Fails To Live Up To Promise
Such systems are being built today and I helped build one myself in a small way, when I was working for an engineering firm.

Pumped storage is an excellent way to store that energy, because infrastructure is relatively cheap, and losses are minimized. (Compare to trying to store the same energy with chemical batteries.) But you are mistaken about one thing. You don't build just one super-huge tank; you soon run into diminishing returns. Instead you build a lot of smaller tanks. That's more reliable anyway.

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Working...