Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Ivy League Schools (Score 2, Funny) 31

by ShieldW0lf (#46792269) Attached to: Minerva CEO Details His High-Tech Plan To Disrupt Universities

The Ivy League was basically a formal gentleman's agreement (you know, back from the good old days where they banned women and blacks from campus and had strict quotas on Jews) that they would mutually agree to be terrible at sports in order to maintain high academic standards.

Everyone who attends an Ivy League school to play sports is someone who would have been a serious consideration for admission without their athletic ability.

Of course they're going to be terrible at sports. They don't have any black people on their team!

Comment: Re:I hate personal definitions (Score 1) 166

by ShieldW0lf (#46792191) Attached to: 'Thermoelectrics' Could One Day Power Cars

Dude, you're the worst sort of person to argue with. You've demonstrated poor reading comprehension and a willingness to hand-wave away the distinction between similar words if you don't think they are relevant to you or serve your position. You seriously make me wonder why I even bother trying to express myself precisely

I never used the word explosion. I used the word detonation. I contrasted it with the deflagration that occurs in internal combustion engines like we see in cars.

A detonation occurs when the shock wave expanding out of the reaction zone compresses the unburnt fuel ahead of the wave, and the compressive heating raises the temperature in the unburnt fuel above it's autoignition temperature.

10 m/s is well below the threshold. Try 2000 m/s.

Detonation produces a more efficient combustion than deflagration, gives higher yields, and generates more kinetic force relative to the thermal energy released. It's a whole different kettle of fish.

Comment: Re:I hate personal definitions (Score 1) 166

by ShieldW0lf (#46785869) Attached to: 'Thermoelectrics' Could One Day Power Cars

I was apparently mistaken about there not having ever been a PDE powered flight

From France to London in the mid 1940s - get a grip before trying to lecture others who are not entirely keyboard jockeys.

Do you have any more information? I can't find any references to a successful PDE powered flight outside of the work being done by the Air Force Research Laboratory and Innovative Scientific Solutions, Inc.

Comment: Re:I hate personal definitions (Score 1) 166

by ShieldW0lf (#46780259) Attached to: 'Thermoelectrics' Could One Day Power Cars

As far as the difference between deflagration and detonation, you may find this helpful:

Why do I say it's hoped that they will replace scramjets? Because aerospace and military engineers are spending millions of dollars working on trying to engineer them as a replacement for scramjets and hoping they succeed:

I was apparently mistaken about there not having ever been a PDE powered flight... looks like researchers flew one for 10 seconds at an altitude of 100 feet with engines that create detonations at a frequency of 80 Hz.

I imagine a power station that could harness the power of nitroglycerin. Nitro is cheap as hell to make and releases incredible power... I'd love to try and build a plant that's buried deep in bracing rock and uses a very dense inert metallic alloy as a hydraulic fluid to harness the incredible power of cheap organic explosives.

Comment: Re:power cars? technically no (Score 1) 166

by ShieldW0lf (#46775135) Attached to: 'Thermoelectrics' Could One Day Power Cars

Fuel. You've been bitching about the use of the word "power" when you're the one who's using it wrong. The word you want is fuel.

Thermoelectrics generate power in the presence of heat.
Internal combustion engines deliver power when shit explodes inside them.

Gasoline is a fuel, not a power source.

If you built a car engine that delivered power by causing fuel to explode, you'd change the world. Car engines work through deflagration, not detonation. Detonation releases way, way more power. It's hoped that it will be the replacement for scramjet engines... envision a jet being driven by a series of explosions. No one has admitted to successfully making one, though. I've spent years doodling different ideas about how you might make one if we had the materials necessary, but it's like building a space elevator... fun to think about, but you'd need materials far stronger than anything we have available.

Car engines run on boring old combustion. The difference in scale between combustion and detonation is not dissimilar to the difference between a compost heap and a bonfire.

Comment: Re:power cars? technically no (Score 1) 166

by ShieldW0lf (#46774921) Attached to: 'Thermoelectrics' Could One Day Power Cars

point granted, the "powered by" slope is a slippery one. but saying the car is powered by thermoelectrics is like saying it's powered by suspensions.

If it was pointed out to you that thermoelectrics operate anywhere there is a heat differential, and that you could technically "fuel" your car by pouring liquid nitrogen into the tank and have the thermoelectrics exploit the heat differential between the liquid nitrogen and the ambient temperature to generate work over time, aka power, would that be enough for you to concede that thermoelectrics are indeed what is generating the power?

Comment: Re:Another thing (Score 2) 135

No, I believe it will take another decade to reach the point of collapse.

Sixteen people can carry a coffin with such ease that half of them can sit around and chat while half of them take a shift.

Four people can carry a coffin, but they cannot do it in shifts, or forward motion stops.

Three people can carry a coffin, but they will suffer greatly for the effort. Those things are heavy.

Two people cannot carry a coffin. They do not have the strength necessary.

Like you say, it's only a 1.5 fold decrease from 3 to 2. But it's a 1.5 fold decrease that we cannot afford.

Maybe if we offer the coffin enough fiat currency, it will grow legs!

Comment: Re:Another thing (Score 4, Informative) 135

There is one huge mathematical flaw with this argument, people are still having children at a higher rate then replacement. Not that it is the only flaw, your understanding of history, economics, or even the current world is pretty warped.

Hate to break it to you, but you are stupid and intolerant, which is why people have been saying that to you. Not that you are going to listen.

That's true, but again, you're looking on too short a time scale and missing the pattern. We're having children at a rate that exceeds that necessary to replace members of the "Great" generation, that came before the boomers. They're still around, and the Boomers are beginning to retire.

From the study I posted above by Dr. Jost Lottes:

Worker-to-beneficiary ratio in the US:
  16 workers to 1 beneficiary in 1950
  3.3 workers per beneficiary in 2003
  2.1 workers per beneficiary in 2033 (projected)

You do understand that this is real, right? This is all based on hard data and real world facts; I'm not making this shit up as I go along.

When speculation has done its worst, two plus two still equals four. -- S. Johnson