 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (Although presumably it *does* make it significantly more expensive than
> if it could by synthesized by a machine...)
Hard to say. It's cheaper than ink-jet printer ink.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/6/2010 1:36 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 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?
>
Actually, you don't want to leave one in too long, since it will
overheat and puncture, but you can do it. And, most of the problems from
small amounts of metal in microwaves are not an issue any more. Large
amounts, or for a really long time however... In this case, the metal is
inside, so any discharge/heat just goes into the medium itself (you just
don't want to drop it in there for longer than say 30 seconds, or it
could possibly cause a problem. The one we have allowed for it.
--
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 2/6/2010 3:27 AM, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> 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.
>
What that doesn't say is "concentration". Toxicity is all about "how
much". Other than the one ingredient, which contains some metals which
you want to get a lot of internally, most of them are small amounts of
stuff that is, maybe, for some people, irritants. In fact, a number of
them are found in common soap products, and probably in larger doses.
For the most part, its not *that* dangerous, in the levels contained in
a stick. The thin glass used to keep it from mixing, until needed, is
probably a much bigger danger.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The instructions specifically tell you to *not* microwave them.
Some do, some don't. The main problem with metal in the microwave is not
that it's metal, but that it gets currents in it. Having someting the right
shape to not arc with a current is probably safe when properly designed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> It's cheaper than ink-jet printer ink.
What isn't? Apart from antimatter?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
True - although muscle contraction is a cascade of chemical reactions
triggered by electricity. Perhaps a better example would be the human
brain, which kicks out enough power to be measurable from outside the
human body. (Or those electric eels...)
>> 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
Right. So oxidation of a molecule causes it to glow, and an engyme
catalyses this reaction. Presumably if you wanted to perpetuate this
reaction indefinitely you'd need a way to un-oxidise the product...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> The instructions specifically tell you to *not* microwave them.
>
> Some do, some don't. The main problem with metal in the microwave is not
> that it's metal, but that it gets currents in it. Having someting the
> right shape to not arc with a current is probably safe when properly
> designed.
Yep. That's why a metal fork in a microwave has more problems than a metal
spoon...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> True - although muscle contraction is a cascade of chemical reactions
> triggered by electricity.
Not really. Nerve activity is a chemical process that dumps charged
particles out of one end to start the chemical reaction at the other end of
the next nerve cell. But it's primarily chemical as it travels thru the
nerve, unlike electricity in wires.
Novocain, for example, works by suppressing the chemical reaction in the nerve.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
