 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Mine has a nifty engine that breaks down all sorts of bio matter into
> simple carbohydrates and then burns them. It's flexible enough to work on
> matter as diverse as fruits, grains, and meats, although certain spices
> have been known to give it trouble. Also, you need a fair amount of fiber
> mixed in, otherwise the whole thing can get clogged.
Rent-A-Ruminant?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why do you think that those frequencies are far above 50 Hz?
50 Hz = 3000 rpm, but some of the parts like the valves only
move during a portion of a revolution, and have higher frequencies.
Camshafts are 2:1, I think, so if a lobe is about 30 degrees then
the upper frequency might be around (50*2*24)=2400 Hz sound
at 3000 rpm, or 160 Hz at a 200 rpm idle.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>> Mine has a nifty engine that breaks down all sorts of bio matter into
>> simple carbohydrates and then burns them. It's flexible enough to work on
>> matter as diverse as fruits, grains, and meats, although certain spices
>> have been known to give it trouble. Also, you need a fair amount of fiber
>> mixed in, otherwise the whole thing can get clogged.
>
> Rent-A-Ruminant?
Nah, one of these :)
http://www.peoplepoweredmachines.com/reel_mower_landing.htm?gclid=CJjJm8adqY4CFQsEIwod4SvTSw
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
> news:46dc4c7a$1@news.povray.org...
>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>
>>>> Damn... pitty we can't use heat to do *useful* stuff!
>>> Heat already does useful things. For instance, it causes cute girls to
>>> wear skimpy clothing.
>> Hey, neat!
>>
>> (Pitty it's too damn hot to do anything about it...)
>>
>
> Two words...
>
> Swimming pool
One word: beach :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I was just illustrating that a normal mobile phone can do all that stuff
>> (both transmitting and receiving to the base station) for around 10 mW.
>
> I *think* the xmit power of a cell phone is a bit more than that...But
> I'd have to check.
Sorry yes, that was average power for the whole phone, a phone can transmit
at higher powers (if you are in a very weak signal area) but only for a very
short time period (I guess just 1 packet every minute or so to let the base
stations in range know you are still there incase of an incoming call). Of
course if you are in a call average power use will be much higher, which is
why "talk-time" is something like 8 hours and "standby time" is usually a
week or so.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Without *anything* happening, it uses 110 W.
Ah good to know, it's roughly what I suspected...
> With my stonking-great video card with a fan the size of a plannet, it
> uses 190 W. (Roughly. It waivers a lot.) During the boot sequence it tops
> 280 W. (Presumably when all those electric motors all start up at once...)
It seems to me that before Windows gets going (or more specifically all the
device drivers) everything just runs in max power mode. Once Windows is in
charge of the PC it can then back things off like the GFX card and putting
the CPU in sleep mode when it's not needed.
OOC what power does it use when you're doing nothing in the BIOS settings
screen?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Huh? You are saying that they deliberately make speakers less efficient
>> so that a higher voltage can be used to drive them? I've never heard
>> that before.
>
> Yes.
Interesting, how do they do that? Most speakers (electrically speaking)
seem very simple to me, just a cross-over network and then a coil of wire.
Hard to see how you could deliberately make the system less efficient
without just plonking a huge 50W resistor in series (which would totally
screw up the quality of the sound).
> Hmm, I think my amplifier (nothing special) is rated at 60 W per channel.
> (IIRC, into 8 ohms at 1 kHz.)
And what happens when you actually output 60 W in your room? BTW on most
amplifiers you need to get the input signal at the right level (not too high
or too low) to get the quoted maximum output power. I guess also your ears
work on a logarithmic scale, so 60 W is probably not as much "louder" than
20 W as you would think just by looking at the numbers.
> Wait... the *voltage* changes depending on how much you use it? That's
> odd. I thought that potential difference was always constant, and it's
> only *current* that changes...
That's only true if all the cables in the whole system have precisely zero
resistance, which they don't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
>>> Heat already does useful things. For instance, it causes cute girls to
>>> wear skimpy clothing.
>> Hey, neat!
>>
>> (Pitty it's too damn hot to do anything about it...)
>>
>
> Two words...
>
> Swimming pool
Heh... I didn't know she was like that... ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Huh? You are saying that they deliberately make speakers less
>>> efficient so that a higher voltage can be used to drive them? I've
>>> never heard that before.
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Interesting, how do they do that?
You think *I* know?
> Hard to see how you could deliberately make the system less
> efficient without just plonking a huge 50W resistor in series (which
> would totally screw up the quality of the sound).
And why would that be?
>> Hmm, I think my amplifier (nothing special) is rated at 60 W per
>> channel. (IIRC, into 8 ohms at 1 kHz.)
>
> And what happens when you actually output 60 W in your room?
Well obviously I'm unlikely ever to try this. (It's like all toasters
have a special setting that transforms bread into charcole. We don't
know why, but they all have it.)
By the way... I notice with interest that the sound level drops
*dramatically* as you walk through the doorway. I mean, it's really
drastically quieter just slightly outside the door. I am be half-deaf
inside my room, and yet from outside it doesn't seem all that loud.
Really. You'd think the sound would travel more.
(Perhaps this is related to the mysterious "waves can't pass through
holes smaller than a certain size" phenominon?)
> BTW on
> most amplifiers you need to get the input signal at the right level (not
> too high or too low) to get the quoted maximum output power.
Yeah, probably.
(I once tried connecting a line-level output to the phono input. Big
mistake...)
> I guess
> also your ears work on a logarithmic scale, so 60 W is probably not as
> much "louder" than 20 W as you would think just by looking at the numbers.
Yeah, most human senses actually seem to work in a logarithmic way... I
suppose that means they work well under "all conditions" or something.
>> Wait... the *voltage* changes depending on how much you use it? That's
>> odd. I thought that potential difference was always constant, and it's
>> only *current* that changes...
>
> That's only true if all the cables in the whole system have precisely
> zero resistance, which they don't.
Really? How interesting...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And when I start up the engine of my car, the various parts move far
>> too fast for the eye to follow. But you *can* see the blur of moving
>> objects, and there is little doubt that they're moving. ;-)
> Why do you think that those frequencies are far above 50 Hz?
My engine *idles* at several thousand RPM...
> What sound does your motor make? Can you find the base frequency on your
> keyboard?
Surely that's just the resonant modes of the exhaust system and the chasis?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
