Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:

(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

How can a water turbine generator pollute more than a coal fired turbine of the same output?

Trouble is that only a tiny percentage of electricity is generated that way.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

If you accept that brain functions and neural activities are
the same thing then there was no distortion of your position.

Irrelevant to how NEW IDEAS are produced.

So your saying that how ideas are produced in the brain
has nothing to do with how ideas are produced in the brain?

Pathetic.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs

Actually there was plenty of relevance to establishing the plausibility of the theory.

Nope, not a shred.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

There is evidence that a group of cells creating a
pattern clone that pattern in nearby groups of cells.

Irrelevant to whether there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.

If this is how some parts of the process of idea formation works

You aint established that it is.

then it is relevant.

Fraid not.

Actually if this is how ideas are formed in the brain

You aint established that it is, or that that crap you waved around even claims that it is either.

then is is relevant to how ideas are formed.

Pathetic.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Google has trouble posting large arguments sometimes.

Nope.

Google occasionally does maintenance and many people have a hard
either getting their posts to show up or to get the form to submit at all.

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

If you watch this link over the next week and check just after you
post to see how long it takes to show up you will see the variance.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?enc_author=LY2KChcAAABog5Zd0XXHTxbTzvaB2TTrHqZiDvCVswhrZ6TQxKj0ww&scoring=d

http://tinyurl.com/5tpghq

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

Here is what the message looks like

The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to
this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.

An error was encountered while trying to post, please try again later.

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

Sometime if you wait to long to submit the text you get that message

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

 

[B Richardson]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.energy.]
On 2008-08-15, rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 14, 7:10 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:e902cc90-227f-4246-82e7-507b922b450d@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 13, 11:38 am, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
......

Dear The Trucker: The 'up-side' of paper is that it comes from trees
that also "eat" CO2. My bio-mass of choice is hemp. Such removes
several times more CO2 per acre than does a forest.

Hemp, algae, any biomass, bring it on !

The problem is that none of the biomass->liquid fuel processes seems to be currently cost-effective.

That puts free enterprise into a wait-and-see mode, obviously....

......

The best immediate correction of our auto emissions problems is to use
optimized engine RPMs and loads to generate electricity for driving
the vehicle. Having engines run at varying speeds is hugely
inefficient.

I agree.
Problem with all liquid fuels is that you need an ICE before you get to to power the wheels.
And that goes with an efficiency of about 25-30% (for current diesels in actual vehicles).
Higher efficiency (up to 50%) is possible with a diesel series hybrid (similar to diesel-electric locomotives) because the diesel
engine can be rather.

Diesels for large ships already achieve 50%, just by being big enough
to optimise the burn. They are not even turbocharged.

Volumetrics is at play here. Large cylinders have less surface area
in relation to displacement. Proportionately less energy is rejected
as waste heat via the cylinder walls at a given temp.

[snip]

 

[B Richardson]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.energy.]
On 2008-08-15, Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

"The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message newsan.2008.08.13.15.38.29.259486@verizon.net...

And biofuels are a big part of that which fills the gap.


I hope so. But there is a lot of work to do.

The promising biofuel segment of fuel production from biomass is very, very small right now.
Here is an example plant (in Germany) :
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3938#more
Unfortunately, this process in still not cost effective (even though the biomass is free, the plant still looses money).
With that free enterprise will not jump on it....

My opinion is that the best near term use for cellulosic biomass is
for applications that need low grade heat. Displacing high quality
fuels like heating oil and nat gas for residential heating. You can
displace a quad of heating oil and nat gas with a quad of switchgrass
pellets, that same quad of switchgrass nets at most .7 quads of liquid
fuel (probably more like .55 in practice). Pellet presses are much
cheaper than FT reactors.

My $0.02.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

If you accept that brain functions and neural activities are
the same thing then there was no distortion of your position.

Irrelevant to how NEW IDEAS are produced.

So your saying that how ideas are produced in the brain
has nothing to do with how ideas are produced in the brain?

Pathetic.

Just contradiction.

Pathetic.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs

Actually there was plenty of relevance to establishing the plausibility of the theory.

Nope, not a shred.

I didn't see you offer anything to make the theory weaker.

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to provide evidence that supports the claim.

THATS how it works.

<reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

There is evidence that a group of cells creating a
pattern clone that pattern in nearby groups of cells.

Irrelevant to whether there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.

If this is how some parts of the process of idea formation works

You aint established that it is.

then it is relevant.

Fraid not.

Actually if this is how ideas are formed in the brain

You aint established that it is, or that that crap you waved around even claims that it is either.

then is is relevant to how ideas are formed.

Pathetic.

If you look at the information I provided throughout hese
posts you would see that I provided much evidence of the
way brain processes and neural functions take place.

Irrelevant to whats involved with worthwhile NEW IDEAS.

Unless your claiming that ideas, thinking, feeling etc...
are not identical to brain states and neural activities

If you make that claim, YOU get to substantiate that claim. THATS how it works.

I don't think you are entitled to make such a claim.

I made no such claim.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Google has trouble posting large arguments sometimes.

Nope.

Google occasionally does maintenance and many people have a hard
either getting their posts to show up or to get the form to submit at all.

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

If you watch this link over the next week and check just after you
post to see how long it takes to show up you will see the variance.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?enc_author=LY2KChcAAABog5Zd0XX...
http://tinyurl.com/5tpghq

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

Here is what the message looks like
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to
this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the
Internet. An error was encountered while trying to post, please try
again later.

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

Sometime if you wait to long to submit the text you get that message

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

Actually there is an upper limit to how much you can
post into one of these usenet groups through google,

None of the shit you have dumped into this thread qualifys.

above a certain amount of text and it won't post at all, period.

None of the shit you have dumped into this thread qualifys.

When the posts get close to that size I have noticed errors in posting for many years.

None of the shit you have dumped into this thread qualifys.

<reams of your pathetic excuse for bullshit flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48A5F095.A82E88D0@hotmail.com...

"Daniel T." wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Sure, but where does the electricity come from?

Power plants that run at much higher efficiency

Not that great actually.

Not that bad either.
On the low end there are the older single-cycle (coal fired) steam plants
which get some 35% efficiency.
But modern combined cycle gas rankine turbine plants get close to 60%
efficiency.
Many such plants have been built and are in operation today.

(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile
engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

The general idea is that it is easier to control emissions from a few large
power plants running at optimal efficiency than it is to control it from
thousands of vehicle ICEs.

These plants have amazing filter systems. Better than what would be
affordable for automobiles.
Besides that, they run at optimal RPMs, reducing pollutions to a minimum.
That cannot said about automobile ICEs in city traffic.

Rob

 

[Rod Speed]

Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

How can a water turbine generator pollute more than a coal fired turbine of the same output?

Trouble is that only a tiny percentage of electricity is generated that way.

World-wide, it's 16% hydro

Like hell it is.

and 15% nuclear.

That neither.

Together, they constitute almost a third of the world's electricity generation.

Nope.

Coal is 40%,
gas 20%,
oil 7%,
and "other" is 2%.

You've plucked those numbers out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

 

[christofire]

"tiger" <cedric.ubiq@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7b60958-7d94-4351-9deb-463500fdd5e2@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
I've thought about it for a long time, but i still don't know about
this.
So please help me,

Wire is used to transmit electric signal.
And Light and RF is transmitted through Vacuum or air.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)ULF ~3Hz
(2)ELF 3Hz~3kHz
(3)VLF 3kHzĄ­30kHz
(4)LF 30kHzĄ­300kHz
(5)MF 300kHzĄ­3MHz
(6)HF 3MHzĄ­30MHz
(7)VHF 30MHzĄ­300MHz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micro Wave
(8)UHF 300MHzĄ­3GHz
(9)SHF 3GHzĄ­30GHz
(10)EHF 30GHzĄ­300GHz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrared
(11)submillimeter 300GHzĄ­1THz
(12)Infrared 100THz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as i know, we can generate GHz pulse into wire, but can't
generate infrared light into wire. But there is really Ghz wireless
wave which we are using it with cellphone.

My question is that what is minimum and maximum frequency that we can
generate into wire???


Passing currents through wires, or any other types of discrete conductor,
becomes more and more inefficient as the frequency rises because of factors
such as the skin effect - but that's not to say it can't be done. At one
ICAP I recall a paper about miniscule etched Yagi-Uda antennas for about 380
GHz which is verging on far-infra-red. Techniques recognisable as 'optical'
take over at these higher frequencies because they offer useful efficiency,
but reflection of light or microwaves can still be analysed in terms of the
'physical optics' current that flows in the surface of reflecting material.

Chris

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Immortalist wrote:

On Aug 15, 6:52 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs
Actually there was plenty of relevance to establishing the
plausibility of the theory.

Nope, not a shred.

I didn't see you offer anything to make the theory weaker.

The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the
mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

Interesting paper...However...I see no conflict with the two ideas noted in
it:

" The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the mind
are identical to states and processes of the brain."

and

"Some philosophers hold that though experiences are brain processes they
nevertheless have fundamentally non-physical, psychical, properties,
sometimes called 'qualia'. Here I shall take the identity theory as denying
the existence of such irreducible non-physical properties."

I am in complete agreement, that the mind and brain are identical in the
objective sense, that is, all of consciousness is completely determined,
one-to one by physical brain processes (there is no soul), but this does not
imply that "qualia" do not exist, as a property of such physical systems. It
is simple irrefutable that a good kick in the balls gives an internal
experience not shared by individule particles. However, this property is not
described by the existing axioms (ideas) of physics. "Qualia" are a simply a
"new" property of real, physical systems, not included in the traditional
properties of physical systems, e.g, conservation of energy, momentum
etc.e.g. http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html. We
simply have to add "experiance" as a new axiom of physics, and explain
things from that axiom, along with the others.

So, I would have to take "identity theory" as the mind=brain, but that it
does not have to deny the existence of properties, previously not described
by the laws of physics. i.e. qualia is != soul.

Going back to Mr. Speeds "prove that truly new ideas must be inherently
random", this of course, can not be done, as this idea itself, is taken to
be an axiom, which, by supposition, is taken to stand as a basis for further
explanations. All we can do is show that results derived from that axiom are
consistent with observation.

We can argue that given a black box, that if it undergoes a standard
Darwinian process, that is it has inputs, and outputs, and processing that
consists of selection, mixing and modifying both randomly and based on prior
(replication) information, it can output everything we define as due to
having free will. That is, the ability to generate truly new ideas, not
based on prior inputs.


Kevin Aylward

www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Daniel T.]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Daniel T." wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Sure, but where does the electricity come from?

Power plants that run at much higher efficiency

Not that great actually.


(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile
engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

"""
....Although half the [USA] uses coal-fired plants, EVs recharging from
these facilities are predicted to produce less CO2 than ICE vehicles.
According to the World Resources Institute, EVs recharging from
coal-fired plants will reduce CO2 emissions in the country from 17 to 22
percent.

Reductions in pollutants such as HCs, CO, NOx, SO2, and particulates
vary according to a region's power plant mix. If EVs were introduced on
a global scale, urban pollution would improve significantly...

....

In a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,
EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE
cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds
of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles. (See
Table 3)

Engine Type CO ROG NOx Total
Gasoline 2574 262 172 3008 lb.
Diesel 216 73 246 835 lb.
Electric 9 5 61 75 lb.
Table 3. Pounds of Emissions Produced per 100,000 miles

....

.... in Arizona where 67 percent of power plants are coal-fired, a study
concluded that EVs would reduce greenhouse gases such as CO2 by 71
percent (6).

....

A study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs in
the Northeast would reduce CO emissions by 99.8 percent, volatile
organic compounds (VOC) by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent, and CO2 by as
much as 60 percent (7).

....

According to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM) study, use of EVs results in significant reductions of carbon
monoxide, greenhouse gases, and ground level ozone in the region, with
magnitudes cleaner than even the cleanest ULEV.

"""
<http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml>

Overall thermal efficiency from typical power plant to power socket is in
the 30-40% region.

"""
.... EVs are significantly more efficient in converting their energy into
mechanical power.

EVs & Power Plants ICE & Fuel Refining
Processing 39% (Electricity 92% (Fuel Refining)
Generation)
Transmission Lines 95% -
Charging 88% -
Vehicle Efficiency 88% 15%
Overall Efficiency 28% 14%
Table 4. Operating Efficiency Comparison Between EVs and ICE Vehicles
"""

The facts go on and on...

 

[Bob Masta]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:10:50 -0700 (PDT), oeguet@gmx.de wrote:

Hi Bob,

my experimental measurement system has already a scope, spectrum
analyzer, digital lock-in amplifier, signal generator and much more.

So this experiment is a typical proof of concept which is saying: it
is working!

Basic operation of the laptop metal detector:
Harmonic sine wave is sent through the earphone output. The impedance
of the earphone output is round about 20 Ohms which delivers enough
current for the transmitter coil. The transmitter coil has a capacitor
connected defining a LC resonant tank. The transmitted frequency is
the resonant frequency of the LC tank.
The receive coil is in inductively balanced position (less coupled to
transmitter coil) and has also a capacitor which also defines a LC
resonant tank (same of transmitt frequency). The receive coil is
inducing a small signal. The signal amplitude and phase will change
upon a metal target nearby the search coil appears. The sound-card is
used in full-duplex mode (while transmitting a signal, the receive
signal is acquired).
The digital lock-in amplifier (a two channel I & Q lock-in amplifier)
detects the signal magnitude and phase of the receive coil. While the
laptop knows the reference frequency (internally generated), it
detects the changes by the receive coil.

This is the most simple and sentive metal detector ever designed. You
don't need any active electronics between the laptop and search coil.
Search coil has only some capacitors and the inductors (transmit &
receive coil). All the rest is done by the software using a high
definition sound-card operated at 96 kHz sampling rate and 24 bit
resolution.

The experiment is showing amazing sensitivity results. It can compete
with professional VLF detectors.
Aziz

Aziz:

Thanks for the explanation. This sounds like a very intriguing
project!

There are a couple of details I am still not sure about. You mention
using a digital lock-in amp, and it sounds like you mean an external
hardware device when you say "two channel I and Q lock-in amplifier".
But then you mention running the sound card in full-duplex mode, which
sounds like you are doing the operations in software... which would
certainly be the way to do it. Is that the case?

Does the sound card really need 24 bit, 96 kHz? What frequency do you
send out to the transmitter coil?

Finally, how difficult is it to tune the two coils? As I see it, it
would be simple enough to automatically tune the sound card frequency
to match the transmit coil, using any capacitor that was "close
enough", by watching the amplitude of the received signal. But then
you'd have to manually tune the receive capacitor. True?

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v4.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Rod Speed]

Daniel T. <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Sure, but where does the electricity come from?

Power plants that run at much higher efficiency (and much cleaner per
kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile engine could ever
hope to do.

And electricity is hard to transport and store.

Really? Do you know of any city in the industrialized world that
*doesn't* have an electricity transportation system already in place?

Storage is somewhat problematic but it seems a safe bet that this is because
efforts at storing it more efficiently have been systematically shut down.

Mindless conspiracy theory. The main storage is pumped water
and that hasnt been anything like 'systematically shut down'

 

[Rod Speed]

ZerkonX <Z@X.net> wrote

Daniel T. wrote

Storage is somewhat problematic but it seems a safe bet that this is because
efforts at storing it more efficiently have been systematically shut down.

There is nothing more important about this issue.

Locking in anything, particularly power generation, to what is
known at any one time, like the present, is a mistake, at best.

That isnt being done.

Electricity specifically being something wide open to new
discovery as it itself is new in terms of human ability to
know enough to manipulate it. Solar is in the wings.

But isnt economic where the grid is available without stupid subsidys.

They both should have been coming center stage 30 years ago.

Nope. Solar did where the grid isnt available. Pumped
water for storage has been around for a lot longer than that.

From what you have described correctly, "systematically shut down",

Nope, its a mindless conspiracy theory.

I fear the country I live in, the US, is going to be watching the rest
of the world pass bye-bye on this front which relates to many others.

Wrong again. The biggest solar projects are actually there. Quite a bit of pumped water storage too.

 

[Rod Speed]

Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1906@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 16, 9:53 am, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:





A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain

Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
by living brain tissue.

Stitched together from cultured rat neurons, Gordon's primitive grey
matter was designed at the University of Reading by scientists who
unveiled the neuron-powered machine on Wednesday.
Rats brains are composed of about one million neurons, the
specialised cells that relay information across the brain via
chemicals called neurotransmitters.

Humans have 100 billion.

"This is a simplified version of what goes on in the human brain
where we can look -- and control -- the basic features in the way
that we want. In a human brain, you can't really do that," he said.

For colleague Ben Whalley, one of the fundamental questions facing
scientists today is how to link the activity of individual neurons
with the overwhelmingly complex behaviour of whole organisms.

"The project gives us a unique opportunity to look at something
which may exhibit complex behaviours, but still remain closely tied
to the activity of individual neurons," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar...

Mystics again have to fold their tents and retreat furthur and
furthur into the boundless desert of their 'unpromising' land.

What's a "mystic"?

http://onelook.com/?w=mystic

Someone who doesn't think we know everything?

No sane scientist does.