Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


It's an affair of state

It's an affair of state - Physics Forum

It's an affair of state - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 01-22-2004, 01:00 AM
The Ghost In The Machine
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skinny people are dimwits ?

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff Relf
<[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote
on Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:45:29 -0800
<i66kolv7ola6$.[Only registered users see links. ].Relf>:

Not *quite* that simple, although you're on the right track,
at least as far as heat energy is concerned (intellect
is another issue).

1 calorie = the amount of energy that heats 1 gram (1 cc) of
water 1 degree Celsius.

It turns out 1 calorie = 4.180 J, the mechanical equivalent
of heat. (One can measure this for exmaple, by imparting
mechanical work [e.g., a stirrer] into a highly insulated
water tank (a calorimeter), and measuring the temperature
change.)

1 kcal (the "Calorie" of ordinary parlance, just to confuse
things further -- note the capital C) = 1,000 calories,
or the amount of energy needed to heat 1 kg of water 1
degree Celsius.

1 watt = 1 Joule/second, the standard measurement of electrical power.
1 kiloWatt-hour = 1000 W * 1 hour = 3.6 megaJoules. That's
about 40.5 D-size batteries.

Now, like I said, the requirements did change, but one can work
it out, either by using Google's calculator thingy, or by
doing it the old-fashioned way:

2500 kcal/day * 1/86400 days/second * 4180 J/kcal = 121 W
2000 kcal/day * 1/86400 days/second * 4180 J/kcal = 97 W
1500 kcal/day * 1/86400 days/second * 4180 J/kcal = 73 W


I am not sure how general weight and caloric consumption relate.
There are other issues, such as how well one can absorb the
food. Elephants leave about 40% of their fuel behind, for
example, making manure an excellent fertilizer (although quite
inedible by human standards). However, they are herbivores;
we are omnivorous, and it may very well depend on whether
one is consuming grass (which we can't handle at all; the gut
is too short for extraction of the cellulose into a usable
form), vegetables, meat, or pure sugar syrup.


There was a report about a device that can replace a graduate
student, as it can make observations, formulate theories,
and test alternative hypotheses. My brain hurts already
just thinking about it... :-)


Not yet.


I can stop breathing for a short time -- maybe about a minute
or so while swimming, for example. Of course I'll make up for
it later... :-)

--
#191, [Only registered users see links. ]
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-22-2004, 02:00 AM
Jeff Relf
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skinny people are dimwits ?

Hi Spooky Ghost In The Machine ,
You comment ,
" I am not sure how
general weight and caloric consumption relate "

When it comes to worms , rats and moneys ,
or anything else for that matter ,
the higher the consumption rate the greater the entropy ,
and the shorter the lifespan .
( This is called the Rate of Living Theory )

Mid 1995 I weighed 195 pounds . ( I'm a hair over 6 foot )
Then I read an article about how , with caged monkeys ,
a 10 percent increase in their daily caloric intake ,
over a period of months ,
would result in a 10 percent weight gain .

Through my studies , I determined that ,
given a period of several months ,
consuming 13 kcal per day
for every pound I wanted to weigh
should allow me to achieve any weight I wanted .
( I go on daily walks )

Using the 2,000 kcal number from the U.S. food labels ,
I decided that this should make me weigh 154 pounds .
( That's 2,000 / 13 = 154 )

I counted my caloric intake for several months and ,
to my amazement , I hit almost exactly 154 pounds .
What's more , my weight then stayed the same after that .
( I don't count calories anymore , I weigh 160 )

But people are not caged monkeys ,
So few control their caloric intake like I did .

I think the Atkins diet does help to the extent
that people who eat a lot of fat ,
( over 50 percent of their calories )
tend to naturally eat fewer calories .

This is probably related to satiation issues :
news:[Only registered users see links. ]
( Or maybe it's just harder to say no
to starches and sugars )

Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-26-2004, 07:59 PM
Sandi Jones
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 10 percent for the machines

That high a figure seems highly unlikely. Cooling applications are
energy hogs, as are heating applications. Add in lighting, and I think
that you could probably come in over the 90% mark. I'll have to do some
research on that. If you have an electric dryer, electric water heater
and electric heat, you'd have to have quite a few computers to hit 10%
to balance that out.

Sandi

John Bailo wrote:

Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-27-2004, 01:12 AM
tadchem
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 10 percent for the machines


"Sandi Jones" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:40157197$0$12812$[Only registered users see links. ].net...

<snip>


<snip>


One report (Los Alamos Labs) estimates 2%, another (Greening Earth Society)
8%
[Only registered users see links. ]


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA


Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-27-2004, 05:26 AM
Mark Fergerson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skinny people are dimwits ?

Jeff Relf wrote:

Fat people store more of the calories they eat than
skinny people. I (150lbs) eat more than my stepbrother (300lbs).

Mark L. Fergerson

Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-28-2004, 12:33 AM
Jeff Relf
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Constantly locked-up ?

Hi Mark Fergerson , You erroneously think ,
" I ( 150 lbs ) eat more than
my stepbrother ( 300 lbs ) " .

That's not true .

Over the months ,
Your stepbrother is eating an average of 4,000 kcal .
( 300 * 13 )
While you're averaging half that , 2,000 kcal .

Few can count their own caloric intake ,
and unless you keep your stepbrother
constantly locked-up in a cage ,
you surely can't count his caloric intake .
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-30-2004, 08:47 AM
Jason
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's an affair of state

>> The U.S. dollar is the stock of the U.S. government .


That all depends on whether or not the US Government is in control.

You recall over a year ago Bush was personally pushing for the new Hydrogen
car. Turns out he not only had a vested interest in the car itself, but
according to some he also had a vested interest in the method of selling
Hydrogen - oil to Hydrogen, typical Texan. Anyway, you'll notice that the car
never really made it on the market. From what I understand, their method
Hydrogen dispersion wasn't working out. They were using extremely dangerous
methods of pressurization. Now, if we could find a way to distribute it
safely, and I'm sure we could, it wouldn't cost nearly as much - so much for
Bush's vested interest. So, it's not much wonder why it never made it onto the
market on schedule.

As long as we base our economy on fuel and other utilities any energy-efficient
solution will never make it off the ground. Meanwhile, I'm only 15 miles away
from Three-Mile Island Nuclear Facilities instead of the site of the first
safe, energy-efficient, Hydrogen based power plant.

Honestly, I have no doubt that with a little R&D we could be running cars off
of water using the Hydrogen cells - but they won't ever let it happen. Not in
the US anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-31-2004, 03:45 AM
tadchem
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's an affair of state


"Jason" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ].com...

<snip>

off
Not in

That R&D effort would have to include development of a new method of
producing the hydrogen in the first place. Right now, the only way to get
hydrogen is to use electricity, which requires at least as much energy input
per unit than the hydrogen can deliver (first law of thermodynamics).

To produce the required amounts of hydrogen to replace fossil fuel
consumption in vehicles, that electricity must currently come from:
(A) Fossil Fuels (using more fossil fuels than we would use if we just
poured them into the gas tanks)
(B) Nuclear power plants (Ooh! That *nasty* 'new-kew-lar' stuff! With
radiation and radioactive waste and Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl and
A-bombs - better just to leave the uranium lying around loose in the desert
where we will soon be building housing developments and schools and golf
courses)
(C) Hydroelectric power plants (that dam up the rivers and flood the valleys
and endanger the microscopic think-of-a-name fishies)
(D) All of the above


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA




Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
affair , state


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Harmonic Oscillator Ron Poteet Physics Forum 0 07-15-2005 08:43 PM
Wave Function Manipulation Experiments Consc Physics Forum 0 12-27-2004 11:07 PM
EXPLAINING TIME DILATION TomGee Physics Forum 24 11-18-2004 01:52 AM
Qi: Standard Model Extension or Fifth Force? cinquirer Physics Forum 88 11-21-2003 10:45 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.17173 seconds with 16 queries