 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know how in Doom, Quake, Quake II, HalfLife, HalfLife II, and
actually, just about *every* FPS ever made, the rooms all have
flickering lights in them?
Well, that's how my bedroom is now.
Yesterday the stupid high-efficiency light thingy worked perfectly.
Tonight it's started flickering, and as the minutes go by it's rapidly
getting worse and worse. Initially the brightness just waivered
slightly, but now it's flashing on and off, faster and faster (and
making that irritating "pinging" noise).
GOD this is annoying! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-2-2010 22:02, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You know how in Doom, Quake, Quake II, HalfLife, HalfLife II, and
> actually, just about *every* FPS ever made, the rooms all have
> flickering lights in them?
>
> Well, that's how my bedroom is now.
>
> Yesterday the stupid high-efficiency light thingy worked perfectly.
> Tonight it's started flickering, and as the minutes go by it's rapidly
> getting worse and worse. Initially the brightness just waivered
> slightly, but now it's flashing on and off, faster and faster (and
> making that irritating "pinging" noise).
>
> GOD this is annoying! >_<
>
Go down to the basement and fetch another one. Thanks for sharing this.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You know how in Doom, Quake, Quake II, HalfLife, HalfLife II, and
>> actually, just about *every* FPS ever made, the rooms all have
>> flickering lights in them?
>>
>> Well, that's how my bedroom is now.
>>
>> Yesterday the stupid high-efficiency light thingy worked perfectly.
>> Tonight it's started flickering, and as the minutes go by it's rapidly
>> getting worse and worse. Initially the brightness just waivered
>> slightly, but now it's flashing on and off, faster and faster (and
>> making that irritating "pinging" noise).
>>
>> GOD this is annoying! >_<
>>
> Go down to the basement and fetch another one. Thanks for sharing this.
Actually, I replaced the stupid energy-saving light with a normal one,
and now it works fine. (Although I scalded myself on the old bulb.)
The worrying thing, though, is that apparently the EU is trying to make
it illegal to sell normal (i.e. WORKING) lights...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> You know how in Doom, Quake, Quake II, HalfLife, HalfLife II, and
> actually, just about *every* FPS ever made, the rooms all have
> flickering lights in them?
>
> Well, that's how my bedroom is now.
>
> Yesterday the stupid high-efficiency light thingy worked perfectly.
> Tonight it's started flickering, and as the minutes go by it's rapidly
> getting worse and worse. Initially the brightness just waivered
> slightly, but now it's flashing on and off, faster and faster (and
> making that irritating "pinging" noise).
>
> GOD this is annoying! >_<
hey, this would be a perfect entry on twitter. If only you trimmed it a bit. :)
there's still time:
http://twitter.com/MathOrchid
:D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> hey, this would be a perfect entry on twitter. If only you trimmed it a bit. :)
>
> there's still time:
> http://twitter.com/MathOrchid
>
> :D
Question: What the hell *is* Twitter anyway? I can't figure out the
point of it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yesterday the stupid high-efficiency light thingy worked perfectly.
> Tonight it's started flickering, and as the minutes go by it's rapidly
> getting worse and worse.
My boss put them in his garage - except they won't turn on if it's too cold
outside.
Also my mum can't use them because all her rooms have dimmer switches,
apparently some are compatible with dimmers, but they cost 10x.
Really, the EU should have waited until a proper alternative was available
before banning conventional bulbs.
I think LED lighting is the future.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Really, the EU should have waited until a proper alternative was
> available before banning conventional bulbs.
Affirmative.
> I think LED lighting is the future.
LEDs are very efficient, but I haven't yet seen any that can produce
really high lighting levels.
PS. My room seems so much brighter now...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Really, the EU should have waited until a proper alternative was
>> available before banning conventional bulbs.
>
> Affirmative.
By the time they get down to banning 40W bulbs something should exist - I
also assume the extra money poured into the industry by the 100W ban will
result in more R&D work on better designs.
> LEDs are very efficient, but I haven't yet seen any that can produce
> really high lighting levels.
The issue with LEDs is that even though they are more efficient, they are
still not very efficient at all at converting electricity to light. Also,
because they are semiconductors, they only work up to about 100 degrees C
before getting fried.
Apparently you can get a 13W LED light bulb that creates the same light as a
normal 100W bulb - but it has a heatsink and a fan!
Anyway, LEDs are always getting more efficient, so we just have to wait.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Anyway, LEDs are always getting more efficient, so we just have to wait.
I hear that organisms such as fireflies use a bioluminescense system
which is approximately 98% effecient. I wonder why nobody is researching
that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>
> > hey, this would be a perfect entry on twitter. If only you trimmed it a bit. :)
> >
> > there's still time:
> > http://twitter.com/MathOrchid
> >
> > :D
>
> Question: What the hell *is* Twitter anyway? I can't figure out the
> point of it...
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/
but certainly has many other good uses:
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-10-04/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] devnull> 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
literally dies if it gets warmer than 40° C.
--
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
> literally dies if it gets warmer than 40° C.
Nonesense.
The chemical reaction behind it is apparently understood, since genetic
engineers apparently use biolunimescence all the time as a marker during
experiments. An entire organism might due at 40 °C, but a bottle of
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.
> An entire organism might due at 40 °C, but a bottle of chemicals does
> 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
>> gets warmer than 40° C.
>
> Nonesense.
>
> The chemical reaction behind it is apparently understood, since genetic
> engineers apparently use biolunimescence all the time as a marker during
> experiments. An entire organism might due at 40 °C, but a bottle of
> 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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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:
>> An entire organism might due at 40 °C, but a bottle of chemicals does
>> 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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
>> experiments. An entire organism might due at 40 °C, but a bottle of
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
The way I read it, nerve conduction works primarily electronically
(i.e., along the length of the nerve cell body) and uses a chemical
stage to traverse adjacent nerve cells (i.e., the synaptic junction).
Electricity is the primary reason why nerves conduct fast - to the point
that mylinated nerves conduct faster due to the extra insulation.
(The part where the nerve connects to the muscle fiber is also chemical,
as is the process by which the muscle contracts.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-2-2010 22:06, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
No. It travels within a cell as an electrical signal. Although ions are
involved it is not a chemical process, except at the nerve endings.
Muscle is activated by cells originating in the backbone or even the
brain. Nerve cells axons can be a meter in length in human, in blue
whale slightly larger.
> Novocain, for example, works by suppressing the chemical reaction in the
> nerve.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-2-2010 23:15, 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.
>
> The way I read it, nerve conduction works primarily electronically
> (i.e., along the length of the nerve cell body) and uses a chemical
> stage to traverse adjacent nerve cells (i.e., the synaptic junction).
> Electricity is the primary reason why nerves conduct fast - to the point
> that mylinated nerves conduct faster due to the extra insulation.
>
> (The part where the nerve connects to the muscle fiber is also chemical,
> as is the process by which the muscle contracts.)
Actually also that is partly true. If the cell did not maintain an
electric field over the membranes (both cell and SR) it would not function.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Actually also that is partly true. If the cell did not maintain an
> electric field over the membranes (both cell and SR) it would not function.
Yes, but I was under the impression that the depolarization happened across
the cell membrane, rather than having ions or free electrons moving *along*
the nerve like a wire.
In other words, unlike a few messages up, it's not "electrical power" that's
causing muscles to move and such. There's no electricity coming into or out
of the nerve, but rather a change of potential across the membrane.
I don't really know much about it, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> No. It travels within a cell as an electrical signal.
OK. I had thought it was ions moving, rather than free electrons.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (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.
That ink isn't expensive to make though. ;-) It's just expensive for
marketing reasons...
[And typically you don't buy ink, you buy ink cartridges.]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Some of you may recall the strange affair of the Phantom of the Opera -
a mystery never fully explained. This, we are told, ladies and
gentleman, is the very chandeliar which features in the famous...
disaster. Our workshops have restored it, and fitted up parts of it with
wiring for the new electric light, so that we may get a hint of what it
may look like when fully reassembled.
Perhaps we may frighten away the ghost of so many years ago with a
little illumination, gentlemen."
*** A MINOR!! ***
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Perhaps we may frighten away the ghost of so many years ago with a
> little illumination, gentlemen."
> *** A MINOR!! ***
The ghost is a minor? How do you know?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The ghost is a minor? How do you know?
*facepalm*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Perhaps we may frighten away the ghost of so many years ago with a
>> little illumination, gentlemen."
>
>> *** A MINOR!! ***
>
> The ghost is a minor? How do you know?
It appears I was wrong anyway...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'phantom1.png' (23 KB)
Preview of image 'phantom1.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You can put isotopes in plastic to make self
powered lighting, governments just don't like the idea
of anything nuclear being used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> You can put isotopes in plastic to make self
> powered lighting, governments just don't like the idea
> of anything nuclear being used.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination
Interesting. I wonder what the half-life of tritium is? (You realise
that once all of it decays, it stops glowing, right?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Tim Attwood wrote:
> > You can put isotopes in plastic to make self
> > powered lighting, governments just don't like the idea
> > of anything nuclear being used.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination
> Interesting. I wonder what the half-life of tritium is? (You realise
> that once all of it decays, it stops glowing, right?)
Your google-fu fails you, once again.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Interesting. I wonder what the half-life of tritium is? (You realise
>> that once all of it decays, it stops glowing, right?)
>
> Your google-fu fails you, once again.
Meh. Just over 12 years.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Your google-fu fails you, once again.
That *is* why it's fu, after all.
I like how you don't even have to hit "I'm feeling lucky" on that one. :-)
--
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 8-2-2010 5:54, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Actually also that is partly true. If the cell did not maintain an
>> electric field over the membranes (both cell and SR) it would not
>> function.
>
> Yes, but I was under the impression that the depolarization happened
> across the cell membrane, rather than having ions or free electrons
> moving *along* the nerve like a wire.
They don't. Along the length of the axon ion channels are opening
causing ions to flow across the membrane. That in itself will trigger
the opening of channels close by and that will run as a bushfire over
the membrane.
> In other words, unlike a few messages up, it's not "electrical power"
> that's causing muscles to move and such. There's no electricity coming
> into or out of the nerve, but rather a change of potential across the
> membrane.
It is not electrical power, but more electronic signals. More ethernet
than power lines.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-2-2010 5:54, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> No. It travels within a cell as an electrical signal.
>
> OK. I had thought it was ions moving, rather than free electrons.
>
It is ions. But there are no chemical reactions involved. Just charged
particles that move in space.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> They don't. Along the length of the axon ion channels are opening
> causing ions to flow across the membrane. That in itself will trigger
> the opening of channels close by and that will run as a bushfire over
> the membrane.
Right. We're just arguing over what constitutes "electricity" now. Since it
was originally about supplying power to make illumination, I was assuming
the "electrons flowing thru a conductor" definition.
> It is not electrical power, but more electronic signals. More ethernet
> than power lines.
Sure.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> It is ions. But there are no chemical reactions involved. Just charged
> particles that move in space.
Interesting. Thank you.
--
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 8-2-2010 20:02, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> They don't. Along the length of the axon ion channels are opening
>> causing ions to flow across the membrane. That in itself will trigger
>> the opening of channels close by and that will run as a bushfire over
>> the membrane.
>
> Right. We're just arguing over what constitutes "electricity" now. Since
> it was originally about supplying power to make illumination, I was
> assuming the "electrons flowing thru a conductor" definition.
For me electricity is a flow of charge. That includes holes in a
semiconductor. It may be that electrons are a required part of some
definition but not in physics or engineering.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
