 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> The point is to log what you're doing *right now*. Doesn't matter how
> irrelevant it is, there's an audience of followers ready to listen/read. Even
> if they are just spammers.
>
> It has a certain appeal with obssessive-compulsive people:
> http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/23/
Eeew!
> but certainly has many other good uses:
> http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-10-04/
Hehe, riiiight.
I'm *so* not bothering. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:25:45 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
> I hear that organisms such as fireflies use a bioluminescense system
> which is approximately 98% effecient. I wonder why nobody is researching
> that...
What makes you think nobody is? Bioluminescence is simply not suitable as
a replacement for light-bulbs because it is based on chemical and
biological reactions. Imagine a light-bulb that must be fed, and that
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I hear that organisms such as fireflies use a bioluminescense system
>> which is approximately 98% effecient. I wonder why nobody is
>> researching that...
>
> What makes you think nobody is?
The lack of any obvious signs of anybody thinking about it. (But then,
this stuff doesn't always make the news until they actually make it
*work*...)
> Bioluminescence is simply not suitable
> as a replacement for light-bulbs because it is based on chemical and
> biological reactions. Imagine a light-bulb that must be fed, and that
Nonesense.
The chemical reaction behind it is apparently understood, since genetic
engineers apparently use biolunimescence all the time as a marker during
chemicals does not. At worst the chemicals just stop working.
A far more serious problem is that the reaction is driven by chemical
rather than electrical energy. If you can find a way around that you've
got a viable product.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:11:17 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> The chemical reaction behind it is apparently understood, since genetic
> engineers apparently use biolunimescence all the time as a marker during
> experiments.
They do that by attaching genes from a bioluminescent organism, thus
making the modified organism glow if the new genetic material was
successfully introduced. Direct use of just the chemicals has only limited
use.
As far as I know, the chemicals involved can not (yet?) be synthesized;
they are produced by biological means.
> not. At worst the chemicals just stop working.
I was being facetious. In theory you could of course produce the chemicals
elsewhere, and then just "fill it up" like you would an oil lamp. I am not
sure about the longevity of the chemicals, though, especially since they
react with oxygen.
> A far more serious problem is that the reaction is driven by chemical
> rather than electrical energy. If you can find a way around that you've
> got a viable product.
I think it might be difficult to make a non-biological distribution system
that gives acceptable efficiency while maintaining a constant brightness.
The worse problem, however, is that the chemicals are not easily produced
in large quantities, and the production processes may not be particularly
efficient.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/5/2010 11:11 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Bioluminescence is simply not suitable as a replacement for
>> light-bulbs because it is based on chemical and biological reactions.
>> Imagine a light-bulb that must be fed, and that literally dies if it
>
> Nonesense.
>
> The chemical reaction behind it is apparently understood, since genetic
> engineers apparently use biolunimescence all the time as a marker during
> chemicals does not. At worst the chemicals just stop working.
>
Never seen light sticks? That is bioluminescence in a nut shell, and
they make tons of them. Someone my dad knows from his military days
invented the damn things and I got the visit their lab one time, when he
visited them briefly, while going to talk to someone else in the place
about something.
> A far more serious problem is that the reaction is driven by chemical
> rather than electrical energy. If you can find a way around that you've
> got a viable product.
>
This is why its not usable. And, yeah, if you could.. Problem is, most
"reversible" processes of the sort require state changes in the
chemicals, and more energy to "recharge" them. A good example are those
pouch things you can buy for reusable warmers. You heat them until the
crystal structure breaks down, then let them cool at room temperature,
then when you introduce enough of a shock, using a metal chip you bend
in it, it starts releasing all the stored heat. Doing so causes it to
crystalize again, and turn hard. When it stops making heat, you
boil/microwave it again, which stores up energy, and you are ready to go
again. Well.. At least until enough moisture evaporates out of the
plastic bag its in to throw the chemical balance off, and it stops
properly decrystalizing when heated. Pretty much... Anything using
electrical energy is pretty much going to have to use a non-biologic
source. The reason being a) biologic ones won't last recharge/reuse for
long, or at high temperatures, and b) there are no known forms that can
react to electrical energy in such a manner, never mind efficiently, by
compared to semi-conductors.
Note however, there are the same class of LEDs used in the light sabers
I mentioned in the other thread. Those, with a proper disperser, might
a) put out enough, b) do so without blinding you if you look at them,
hence the dispersion, and c) not need a fan. Maybe...
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/5/2010 12:01 PM, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> not. At worst the chemicals just stop working.
>
> I was being facetious. In theory you could of course produce the
> chemicals elsewhere, and then just "fill it up" like you would an oil
> lamp. I am not sure about the longevity of the chemicals, though,
> especially since they react with oxygen.
>
There is one very crazy one that is based on Luminol. You buy the lamp,
with the Luminol in it, and then.. add a few drops of your own blood to
turn it on. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> b) there are no known forms that can
> react to electrical energy in such a manner, never mind efficiently, by
> compared to semi-conductors.
Well, kinda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_LED
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The chemical reaction behind it is apparently understood, since genetic
>> engineers apparently use biolunimescence all the time as a marker during
>> chemicals does not. At worst the chemicals just stop working.
>>
> Never seen light sticks? That is bioluminescence in a nut shell, and
> they make tons of them.
Really? I thought the chemicals were designed by man...
>> A far more serious problem is that the reaction is driven by chemical
>> rather than electrical energy. If you can find a way around that you've
>> got a viable product.
>>
> This is why its not usable. And, yeah, if you could.. Problem is, most
> "reversible" processes of the sort require state changes in the
> chemicals, and more energy to "recharge" them. A good example are those
> pouch things you can buy for reusable warmers.
I've got several.
Batteries store and release energy without a change of phase. Obviously
recharging any kind of system requires extenal energy, but a phase
change isn't required.
> When it stops making heat, you boil/microwave it again
The instructions specifically tell you to *not* microwave them. There's
a metal strip in there, remember?
> Pretty much... Anything using
> electrical energy is pretty much going to have to use a non-biologic
> source. The reason being a) biologic ones won't last recharge/reuse for
> long, or at high temperatures,
Now *that* could be an actual problem. Presumably biological systems
that bioluminesce have processes in place to continuously replace the
reactants (so they probably haven't evolved to be especially stable).
> and b) there are no known forms that can
> react to electrical energy in such a manner, never mind efficiently, by
> compared to semi-conductors.
I'm not sure this is correct. Many biological organisms use electricity
(nerve impulses and electric eels spring to mind). So there are
effecient processes for turning external energy into electricity, and
turning electricity into energy such as muscle contraction.
It seems clear to me that you could use electricity to *trigger* a
chemical reaction, and plausible that you might be able to use it to
*drive* a reaction. It wouldn't be trivial though; I'm guessing
bioluminescense is usually driven either by the stored energy of the
reactants themselves [which probably requires some huge long enzyme
chain to resynthesize], or by a carrier molecule like AMP [which can't
be directly synthesized from electricity in any obvious way].
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> As far as I know, the chemicals involved can not (yet?) be synthesized;
> they are produced by biological means.
As far as I know, they cannot yet produce insulin by synthesis; it must
be produced biologically. Doesn't stop millions of diabetics shooting up
with the stuff every day. :-)
(Although presumably it *does* make it significantly more expensive than
if it could by synthesized by a machine...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 09:36:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Never seen light sticks? That is bioluminescence in a nut shell, and
>> they make tons of them.
>
> Really? I thought the chemicals were designed by man...
Indeed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_stick
Given the toxicity of the chemicals, I am sure the manufacturers would
love to use bioluminescence instead if it was feasible.
> So there are effecient processes for turning external energy into
> electricity, and turning electricity into energy such as muscle
> contraction.
Muscle contractions are powered by chemical reactions.
> I'm guessing bioluminescense is usually driven either by the stored
> energy of the reactants themselves [which probably requires some huge
> long enzyme chain to resynthesize], or by a carrier molecule like AMP
> [which can't be directly synthesized from electricity in any obvious
> way].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferase#Chemical_reaction
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
