Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Mechanical stresses ... (Score 1) 190

by MickLinux (#47933133) Attached to: Wave Power Fails To Live Up To Promise

windmill power goes something like the 4th power of the blade speed. As a result, your maximumepower is harvested at the windmill blade tips. To increase the efficiency, you want maximum possible tip speed, but wear is a function of shaft speed. so you want high tip speed, low shaft speed. Therefore you need a large area.

Or lets put it in terms of the disk plane. Harvestable wind is a function of the area of the intersected disk. If you double the radius, you quadruple the harvestable wind. Actually, you do better than that because you reach higher (with a higher wind speed), and farther from the tower (which slows the wind). So again, you want a large radius blade.And yes, long blades under extreme torsional and bending moments, at high speed IS a recipe for blade failure.

Comment: Re: sorry (Score 1) 190

by MickLinux (#47933047) Attached to: Wave Power Fails To Live Up To Promise

I wonder: alternating neodynium magnets and ferrous enhanced coils, with air gaps between. As the wave comes through, and changes the interveningcore material (Air/salt-water), I'd expect a current in the coils.

probably not practical.

Option 2: porcelain and plastic rockers, with magnetics inside.

Option 3: a float, a unidirectional clutch (like a bike), a drive belt, and a shaft to an unexposed generator.

I think there have been some good wave generators out there (IIRC, Scotland comes to mind). I'm inclined to believe it is the power transmission / distribution / production companies.

For that, I think the answer is to target specific industries, and set up near them. Provide your own power lines. For example, use your power to produce fresh water and brine; dry the brine to produce sea salt, and sell the water to water-rights states.

Comment: Re: Wave power can work (Score 1) 190

by MickLinux (#47932895) Attached to: Wave Power Fails To Live Up To Promise

Which regresses to the point that very few markets are actually free; most are very specific about who the priveleged are that can benefit. Fishing fleets, taxicab owners, rocket sales, X-prize contest (anyone could compete, the unfavored had to compete without fuel) also grocery store workers, teachers, medicine, and so on.

Don't forget that you don't have the right to trade your labor across 'free trade' borders; that right belongs to companies that you must pay for the privelege of having your products and services be traded.

And no, even with non-free markets, it feels lousy to be the slave who is sold.

oh, did I mention that as billionaires are unloading stocks, AND volume is at a low, company buybacks are at an all-time high?

And no, even with non-free markets, it feels terrible to be the slave who is sold.

Comment: Re: illogical captain (Score 1) 901

by MickLinux (#47903061) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

First, there are two kinds of atheism: active and passive atheism. Active atheism is a religion. It is an active belief, even a need, that there MUST BE NO GOD.

Passive atheism again is of two kinds. The first is actually a form of self-worship, and is the most common; in the end, such a passive atheist ends up enslaved to many things. The second, I think to be extremely rare, but is more of an unawareness of God.

That last kind of atheism, yes, is not a religion.

As far as it goes, it takes actual believing effort to ignore or deny the gaps. Moreover, when I talk of gaps, they are different for you and for me, because I have no gap for (for example) the Bible, Noah's flood, and asteroids. You may have no gap for asteroids, but have a gap for Noah's flood. BOTH of us have gaps for the severity of the asteroid problem: is the Holocene Working Group more right, or is the traditional interpretation of asteroid frequency more right? We discuss and read and argue, but currently we don't know.

The gaps don't terrify either the Christian or the atheist, surely. To say otherwise is to be hot-winded. But the gaps are evidence that one's current working theory might be wrong. And my point was that to be SURE in your atheistic faith (for an ironic association of terms), you have to deny the gaps.

I acknowledge the gaps. Maybe that is why I can be a Christian, and yet sometimes be on the edge of despair. But that isn't all of it. Some of it has to do with the future I see. Some of it has to do with the people around me. A lot of it may have to do with my own biochemical and genetic makeup. As I wrote before, I'm not quite 100% sure what the source is. It may not matter.

Comment: Re: illogical captain (Score 1) 901

by MickLinux (#47902959) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Reeves showing how he 'flew' as superman using special effects, did not debunk the annual migration of geese.

Or again, the proof that 99.99999% of people do NOT have eidetic memory does not prove that Tesla was a fraud, and all his inventions nonsense. I happen to claim that I know one of few in our country who has been documented as having such memory, and it has caused her great trouble.

To put it shortly, yes thereeare frauds and chareletans.

There also exist the works of God, and there also exists healing. The first does not compare with the second.

The woman who was healed, a family friend of ours, seems to be okay with it.

Comment: Re:NSA probably already has this technology (Score 1) 119

by Smauler (#47901263) Attached to: The Challenges and Threats of Automated Lip Reading

I can lip read a little (my hearing was awful as a child). I still always look at people's mouths when I'm talking with people to get extra information - my hearing's currently worse than average, but not too bad - I have trouble with background noise.

There have been some times watching quiz shows when I've read the contestant's lips (when they're conferring) to get the answer they're going to say before they've said it, and repeated it to the room. That being said, I agree it's far from an exact science.

I _hate_ (hate hate and hate again) audio and video being out of sync, because it completely throws me. I can't watch video with bad audio syncronisation, I just have to listen to it.

With regards to the Twilight bad lip reading example, I could tell that some words were off, but not too many. Like I said, it's not an exact science, and I agree that 1% false positive would be very optimistic.

Comment: Re:illogical captain (Score 0, Flamebait) 901

by MickLinux (#47899933) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

First of all, religion is not irrational. You have to ignore a ton of evidence about what you cannot explain, to actively deny that there is a God.

Second, though, I think the article and the title are very intuitive, and point out the irony of the department: 'need a way to cheat death'. Because one of the real complete failures, as you have noted, is the need-to-cheat-complete-meaninglessness.

And most religions, whether utter nonsense, or really evil, or extremely dangerous, do offer some kind of meaning, even if it is false. And that is probably why many atheists, while officially of that religion, in fact end up believing in government as god. They need something to fill the void, and government really reeeally wants to.

Not that there isn't a level of dispair there: there will be. If I. as a Christian who has seen healings, and experienced the voice of good, and seen his power, can bounce along on the edge of despair, surely someone with less evidence might as well.

And I'm not 100% sure why.

Comment: Re:Easy solution (Score 1) 348

by MickLinux (#47875425) Attached to: When Scientists Give Up

Actually, science works DESPITE many scientists not having integrity.

That's one of the reasons that I actually FAVOR creation science despite the fact that I think it is not a correct theory.

Because there are a ton of scientists out there who do fudge their data, or take their data and deliberately misinterpet it, beyond those who take their data and accidentally misinterpret it.

Then others go around and BELIEVE the studies, far in excess of the claims of the study. So then you have general academia all saying "well, science proves that lack of funding will destroy education." Or whatnot. Because they heard it, and want to believe it.

And there, to break through all the dogma, is the creation scientist who says, "uhhh.... a lot of your data looks okay, but you draw absolutely nonsense conclusions from it. Here, look at the limits of accuracy of your pb-pb dating, and consider...."

Now: Don't take my word for it... I'm making up numbers to give the gist of what I'm about to say, but 90 percent of the scientists will refuse to listen to what he said. 9% will attack him virulently. And 1% will say, "That's very interesting. I still think the theory is basically valid, but what would that imply, then?" And sometimes he discovers a fraud. Sometimes he discovers a new law.

So it is the creation scientists who battle the dogma, and help ensure that science moves forward.

So don't worry that science wouldn't move forward if scientists didn't have integrity. For it is very possible (and indeed, from what I have seen it is moderately often true) that don't, and it does.

You just have to figure out what to ignore.

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.